• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrested & convicted of carry in National Park

skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Arrested prior to the change of regulations, but tried & convicted after the change went into effect. 4th Circuit says 1) "rules is rules" and upholds conviction; 2) "We don't want to be the ones that get blamed for what happens with guns outside the home".

I have to agree weith #1, but #2 is just too much!

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/094839.P.pdf

Read David Hardy's commentary here http://armsandthelaw.com/

The court first decides that the prosecution survives the change to park regulations, and then considers the Second Amendment, with the judges splitting. The majority opinion, you could call it, just concludes that application of Heller outside the home is unsettled: a "considerable degree of uncertainty remains as to the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining whether and how the right can be burdened by governmental regulation." It applies intermediate scrutiny, and upholds the statute.
Judge Niemeyer separately concludes that the right extends outside the home -- otherwise the Heller opinion wouldn't have had to talk about "sensitive places."

Judges Wilkinson and Duffy write separately, arguing that extending Heller outside the home should be left to the Supreme Court: "This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights. It is not far-fetched to think the Heller Court wished to leave open the possibility that such a danger would rise exponentially as one moved the right from the home to the public square. If ever there was an occasion for restraint, this would seem to be it. emphasis added "
Click to expand...

In other words, gun owners cannot be trusted not to have shootouts in the streets and parking lots and checkout aisles and National Parks.

The rules of this forum and common decency prevent me from properly expressing my thoughts.

stay safe.
 
ed

ed

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
4,841
Location
Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
I too agree that he should not have been charged for carry in a National Park..
BUT,
He was parked illegally.
He was sleeping in the park after dark (also illegal? I don't know)
He had a large machete-type knife under his seat
He was carrying a concealed handgun without a valid permit

Does not sound like a "model" law abiding citizen.
 
peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
ed said:
I too agree that he should not have been charged for carry in a National Park..
BUT,
He was parked illegally.
Gee Ed...Illegal parking:uhoh: Only a hardened criminal would do that.

He was sleeping in the park after dark (also illegal? I don't know)
Depends on the Park. Again, is that a serious crime?

He had a large machete-type knife under his seat
Some of use machetes, hatchets, axes, etc daily. As much as it may horrify people, I often carry a Chainsaw.

He was carrying a concealed handgun without a valid permit
As a Rule I have between two and 5 guns in my car/truck at any time. One or all may be technically concealed if nothing else covered by other tools.
Does not sound like a "model" law abiding citizen.
Where's the beef Ed. What makes him any different than any of the rest of us?
Illegal parking?
Sleeping without permission (My high School Political Science Teacher would love that)
Having tools in the car?
Carrying a concealed handgun without a permission slip?
Having a firearm in the park before the law went into effect allowing it???
Click to expand...

Going along those lines. A man that says:

Just in case skid and pro missed it..

I DON'T CARE!!!

It's not for "commercial use". It is for personal use. There is NO such organization as Virginia Open Carry. If Westboro Baptist Chuch can protest funerals of friends of mine I will DAMN WELL put whatever the F I want on a T-shirt. If you don't want one, or don't like the concept, or logo or flag positions or you have enough shirts.. then by ALL MEANS.. DON'T GET ONE!!!
:dude:

Must be the reincarnation of Al Capone.:lol::lol:

....
 
Last edited:
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
It's really about J. Harvie Wilkinson

MSC 45ACP said:
+10,000

I could write for DAYS about how much this case pisses me off...
Click to expand...

I already posted about this, focusing on J. Harvie Wilkinson's mentality. For some bizarre reason, it got moved.

Since we all live within the Fourth Circuit, it behooves Virginia gun owners to pay attention to what this circuit is doing to us.

Wilkinson's "reasoning" -- and I am being charitable when I write that, is dangerous. That reasoning will most likely be used again, especially if Wilkinson is on the panel.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
...We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights. It is not far-fetched to think the Heller Court wished to leave open the possibility that such a danger would rise exponentially as one moved the right from the home to the public square. If ever there was an occasion for restraint, this would seem to be it.
Click to expand...

The government is not responsible for protecting individuals. Court cases have already settled that. They have nothing to worry about.

Plus, courts have no problem making tragic decisions in other areas and subjects. So, I ain't buying a sense of personal responsibility on the part of the judges.

My guess is this was a politically motivated ruling, or a ruling to maintain the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top