Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Campus Police Shoot Gunman at North Carolina University

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135

    Campus Police Shoot Gunman at North Carolina University

    What is going on? If this guy wanted to hurt somebody, they would have been dead long before campus police showed up. Sounds like an OCer, who got a taste of mass paranoia/mind control, to me...

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/06...est=latestnews

    "Published November 06, 2011| NewsCore

    ELIZABETH CITY, N.C – A former student at a North Carolina university who was seen carrying an AK-47 style rifle on campus was shot by police Saturday before being taken into custody and charged.

    Rashaad Gardner was charged with assault by pointing a gun, possession of a weapon on state educational property and going armed to the terror of the people, WAVY reported.

    Campus police on patrol at Elizabeth City State University in Elizabeth City, N.C., about 50 miles south of Norfolk, Va., saw students running from part of the campus and saying they had seen a man with a rifle, Police Chief Samuel Beamon said.

    An alert posted on the college's website said gunshots were fired on campus shortly after 2:30 a.m. local time Saturday.

    The campus was put on lockdown during the incident. Officers saw Gardner wielding an AK-47 style rifle, and he was shot in the leg by an officer during a confrontation.

    Gardner fled into a wooded area near the campus while still armed, Beamon said. University police contacted the Elizabeth City Police Department, which dispatched officers and a K-9 unit to locate him.

    Gardner was apprehended at 3:28 a.m. local time and taken by ambulance to a local hospital for treatment.

    He was being held Sunday in the Albermarle District Jail on $50,000 bond.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/06...#ixzz1cwZEB7y5

  2. #2
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "...carrying an AK-47 on a college campus..."

    Not a wise choice.

    Every choice we make in life has a consequence.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 11-08-2011 at 12:00 AM. Reason: edited to change font color to conform to forum standards
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    "...carrying a Glock 22 on a college campus..."

    Amirite?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    There is more to this story that hasn't been given. Would like to know more. Unfortunately, we prolly won't know the rest of the story.

    AK47 style rifle! Liberal media!

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hey, at least it was written up as an AK-47 style rifle, instead of assault rifle, high-powered rifle, or terrorist rifle, or just plain AK-47. They're getting more accurate in their reporting. Still room for improvement, but its a step in the right direction.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "...carrying an AK-47 on a college campus..."

    Not a wise choice.

    Every choice we make in life has a consequence.
    Why not who was harmed by its simple presence? I think the lack of wisdom and civility was the persons choice to discharge the firearm, likely in an illegal and possibly harmful manner.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    It seems the guy who got shot violated several NC laws:

    assault by pointing a gun, possession of a weapon on state educational property and going armed to the terror of the people
    Now, we know that last one is BS and just there so they can enhance whatever sentence is handed down. We probably will never know if the first charge is accurate or not, so we are left with the one in the middle.

    Presuming that does violate NC law on a college campus (I'm too lazy to look it up) then the guy committed a major error in critical thinking.

    I want to know if the cop who "[...] shot [him] in the leg ... during a confrontation" is going to claim he did that on purpose. 'Cause if he does, he's probably going to get in trouble over violating department policy and SOPs. And if he admits he's a lousy shot he will need years to even begin to live it down.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    I think everyone failed to notice that this story is likely just a media fabrication. After all, the "Gun Free Zone" signage on campus would have stopped an actual gunman in his tracks. There's no way a bad guy could actually bring a gun past that point.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  9. #9
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    I'm also curious if he was shot in the back or front of the leg?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    He broke the law, but was it inadvertently? Not that it is an excuse, but I don't see how they justify shooting him. If he was there to cause harm, he would have done so.

    Posted using my HTC Evo

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    He broke the law, but was it inadvertently? Not that it is an excuse, but I don't see how they justify shooting him. If he was there to cause harm, he would have done so.

    Posted using my HTC Evo
    My thoughts exactly.

    There is undoubtedly more to this that hasn't been released. Did he resist arrest? Did he use the gun in a threating manner? Did he violate the GFSZ? I know some of the tin foil hats folks will crucify me, but I have a hard time believing the Campus Police would shoot just because the guy was caring a 'AK47 style rifle'.

    Now the question begs, where the Campus Police trained correctly? Did they just see the rifle and fire? If, and I mean a big IF, he was legitimately carrying the rifle and they shot him (mainly to a lack of training)......Now the University is going to have some splaining to do. This guy will see a little $$$, if this is the case.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    My thoughts exactly.

    There is undoubtedly more to this that hasn't been released. Did he resist arrest? Did he use the gun in a threating manner? Did he violate the GFSZ? I know some of the tin foil hats folks will crucify me, but I have a hard time believing the Campus Police would shoot just because the guy was caring a 'AK47 style rifle'.

    Now the question begs, where the Campus Police trained correctly? Did they just see the rifle and fire? If, and I mean a big IF, he was legitimately carrying the rifle and they shot him (mainly to a lack of training)......Now the University is going to have some splaining to do. This guy will see a little $$$, if this is the case.
    AK-47 sytle rifle was probably a air-soft version. using the key word STYLE or TYPE weapon.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    All the speculation about whether it was a real gun or an airsoft, or if he violated a GFZ law or some other law seems to be forgetting the basic point - that a cop used lethal force in a situation where it was not clear that he was authorized/justified/excused to do so in the defense of his life or the life of an innocent third party.

    All we have been told is that the gun-carrier is accused of "assault by pointing a gun". We do not know who he pointed it at and when that happened in relation to when he was shot at by the cop.

    There is reason to speculate that he did not point the gun at the cop, because that is usually charged as attempted murder/attempted capital murder of a police officer. But it's just speculation.

    For all we know the gun-carrying guy could have been on his way to slaughter either an entire kindergarten class or the colle varsity cheerleading squad or some teacher that gave him a failing grade on his last quiz. OR he could have had no evil intent and just did a very stupid thing. Until we hear more about the charge or read about the trial we may never know.

    Which brings up a question - is someone going to get copies of the police records and post them?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    All the speculation about whether it was a real gun or an airsoft, or if he violated a GFZ law or some other law seems to be forgetting the basic point - that a cop used lethal force in a situation where it was not clear that he was authorized/justified/excused to do so in the defense of his life or the life of an innocent third party.

    All we have been told is that the gun-carrier is accused of "assault by pointing a gun". We do not know who he pointed it at and when that happened in relation to when he was shot at by the cop.

    There is reason to speculate that he did not point the gun at the cop, because that is usually charged as attempted murder/attempted capital murder of a police officer. But it's just speculation.

    For all we know the gun-carrying guy could have been on his way to slaughter either an entire kindergarten class or the colle varsity cheerleading squad or some teacher that gave him a failing grade on his last quiz. OR he could have had no evil intent and just did a very stupid thing. Until we hear more about the charge or read about the trial we may never know.

    Which brings up a question - is someone going to get copies of the police records and post them?

    stay safe.
    aggre not enough information, maybe the college newspaper can teach the local news a thing or two about adding details. If he was there pointing even a realistic toy gun at people he should have been taken down. If he was just stupid and walking through with an airsoft in no threatening manner and shot the college cop should be held accountable.

    My gut feeling is he was trying to commit suicide by cop. A quick way to do it as long as you find a cop that can hit you in more than a leg. No evidence to back it up just another scenario to consider.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    It seems the guy who got shot violated several NC laws:



    Now, we know that last one is BS and just there so they can enhance whatever sentence is handed down. We probably will never know if the first charge is accurate or not, so we are left with the one in the middle.
    You are 100% correct on the GAttTotP charge. It is a "pile on charge" that they almost ALWAYS throw at people who do stupid things with firearms in NC. By the letter of the law (actually, there is NO statute that defines GAttTotP--it is a court-precedent based common law violation), a person must meet 4 conditions to be guilty of GAttTotP according to the NC AG's "Firearms Laws" brochure:
    By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to:
    1) arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
    2) for the purpose of terrifying others,
    3) and go about on public highways
    4) in a manner to cause terror to others.

    The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are
    cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
    If he was carrying an AK-47-style rifle, he undeniably meets condition #1.

    But to meet condition 2 (which defined this violation as a "crime of intent") he would have had the explicit intent to cause terror or fear in others. Nothing was said about his intentions.

    If he was on the grounds of a State University or College, then he most likely was NOT meeting condition #3, unless he was walking in the street of said campus, and that street was a roadway exclusively maintained by the State.

    Condition 4 is VERY arbitrary. Any fool can be terrified by the mere presence of a firearm--even one being legally and lawfully carried for appropriate and rational reasons.

    So at the very least, he DID meet 1 of the 4 conditions, which means he is NOT guilty of GAttTotP, based on the definition of the requirements of this violation according to the NC AG.

    And even if he met 1, 2, and 4, but was not on a public highway, he is not guilty.

    Even if he met 1, 3, and 4, but did not have the express intent of terrifying others, he is not guilty.

    But if he DID point it at someone, he's pretty much toast on the GAttTotP, as well as the other charges.

    I'm reserving judgement on this one until more info comes out...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  16. #16
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    And now the REST of the story...

    Turns out this kid was essentially a wannabee thug:

    Witnesses told police the gunman was involved in a fight, left campus, and returned with the gun to retaliate.


    Rashaad Gardner, 24-years-old, is charged with assault by pointing a gun after campus police say he brought an AK-47 to campus.


    The school says about 1:15 am Saturday officers arrived after a fight at Complex D dorm. Officers say Gardner arrived with the AK-47 and they asked him to drop it, but he refused, pointed the gun at police, and at least one officer shot Gardner in the leg.

    http://www.witn.com/crime/headlines/...133298693.html

    He SHOULD be charged as previously mentioned, and and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    However, I'm sure the charges will eventually ALL be dropped, because as everyone knows, there is simply NO WAY that anyone can bring a gun onto a NC college campus, because it is a violation of NC Statute, and there are a whole slew of "gun control" laws that prohibit it. Since "gun control" laws work, this news story is obviously entirely fictional and made-up...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  17. #17
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    I would love to see someone use that as a defense, then take it as high as they can. Imagine legal precedent declaring anti gun laws ineffective.

    Posted using my HTC Evo

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    There is undoubtedly more to this that hasn't been released. Did he resist arrest? Did he use the gun in a threating manner? Did he violate the GFSZ? I know some of the tin foil hats folks will crucify me, but I have a hard time believing the Campus Police would shoot just because the guy was caring a 'AK47 style rifle'.
    The article said he was charged with assault by pointing a gun. The question is, how was he pointing it? Up? Down? Or at someone?

    Now the question begs, where the Campus Police trained correctly? Did they just see the rifle and fire? If, and I mean a big IF, he was legitimately carrying the rifle and they shot him (mainly to a lack of training)......Now the University is going to have some splaining to do. This guy will see a little $$$, if this is the case.
    The article also says he was shot in the leg before fleeing. In the leg? Really? Either a very poor shot, or a very good shot. Given that "shots" plural were fired, I'm inclined to belief it was a bad shot.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    And now the REST of the story...

    ...
    Agreed - the kid was appropriately charged and got off lucky by only getting hit in the leg (with what sounds like the only one of multiple bullets launched in his direction as opposed to being aimed at him*).

    I'm rather amazed that the news reported enough facts in the follow-up story to let us legal nitpickers reach a conclusion.

    stay safe.

    * Yes, I am aware of how difficult it is to hit a moving target while you are also in movement. But since the cops are The Only Ones who should be allowed to have guns because of all the training they undergo, they should be able to shoot the wings off a fly in a tornado while riding a horse backwards.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The article said he was charged with assault by pointing a gun. The question is, how was he pointing it? Up? Down? Or at someone?


    The article also says he was shot in the leg before fleeing. In the leg? Really? Either a very poor shot, or a very good shot. Given that "shots" plural were fired, I'm inclined to belief it was a bad shot.
    Yep, you are correct. My point was more about how he did that; I still think there is more to this than what has been released.

    As for being shot in the leg, you have some of the same questions I have. I'm not familiar with the campus police there, so I will reserve comments on their ability to shoot. I'm wondering, too, how close were they when they shot; also, since it was 2:30 in the morning, when did they notice the firearm was being pointed at them, they were in a wooded area. Just some questions, not alleging anything.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    You are 100% correct on the GAttTotP charge. It is a "pile on charge" that they almost ALWAYS throw at people who do stupid things with firearms in NC. By the letter of the law (actually, there is NO statute that defines GAttTotP--it is a court-precedent based common law violation), a person must meet 4 conditions to be guilty of GAttTotP according to the NC AG's "Firearms Laws" brochure:


    If he was carrying an AK-47-style rifle, he undeniably meets condition #1.

    ...........
    I'd question #1 as well. An AK is the most common gun in the world. How does that qualify as "unusual".

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkad View Post
    I'd question #1 as well. An AK is the most common gun in the world. How does that qualify as "unusual".
    Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.
    As Dreamer cited above -

    By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to:
    1) arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
    2) for the purpose of terrifying others,
    3) and go about on public highways
    4) in a manner to cause terror to others.

    The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
    That's how the law works in NC. Either get the legislature to change it, challenge it in court, or move away from there.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.
    The GAttTotP common law violation in NC is based on a court case from the 1843 called "State v. Robert S. Huntley":

    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

    This ruling uses as it's benchmark precedent an ENGLISH common law ruling from the 1300s (Reign of King Edward III). A VERY good argument can be made that this ruling is essentially illegal, because the Article 4 of the original Mecklenberg Declaration of Independence made ALL dependence and reference to English Law null and void:

    http://www.cmstory.org/history/hornets/declare.htm

    As we now acknowledge the existence & controul of no law or legal officers, civil or military, within this County, we do hereby ordain & adopt as a rule of life, all, each & every of our former laws - wherein nevertheless the crown of Great Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.
    All that said, however, the "Huntley" ruling determined that, as a general rule, the carrying of firearms in the context of specific intent to cause terror or intimidation while out and about on the public highways was "unusual" because:
    No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never, we trust, will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace-loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.
    --State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)
    It is not the firearm itself that is unusual, but rather it's carry that the Court deemed unusual in Huntley. In fact they go to great lengths discussing the near-universality of firearm ownership and use among the People of the day, and state that they fully support such rights:

    ...for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort...

    ...For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun...
    --State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)

    What Huntley boils down to is a "crime of intent", whereby the carry of a firearm is done with the specific intent of causing terror or mayhem, or as an instrument of crime or violence:

    It is the wicked purpose, and the mischievous result, which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.
    --State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)

    Unfortunately, the day HAS come when the wearing and carrying of a firearm HAS become "an appendage of manly (and womanly) equipment" due to the lawlessness of our streets, the diffidence of our LEAs, and the utter disregard for fundamental human rights of our government.

    However, even with the current state of affairs today, the NC Common Law Violation of GAttTotP is a VERY specific violation, and to be convicted the accused myst meet 4 very specific requirements. Given the circumstances involved in the OP's story, it is looking more and more like the accused actually IS guilty of GAttTotP.

    I have been looking for over 3 years for an instance where a "stand-alone" charge of GAttTotP was successfully prosecuted, and I have yet to find one. Usually it is a "pile-one" charge for someone who did something much more serious (armed robbery, assault, etc) while using a firearm, and they throw it at people just to make the case seem stronger, and to intimidate the defense, and to demonize the open carry of firearms in th eyes of the uneducated public.

    Funny thing is, most LEOs have NO CLUE as to the actual legal background of GAttTotP, and many "anti-OC" LEOs like to throw it around in an attempt to intimidate OCers to not OC.

    If you are every lawfully OCing in NC, and an LEO says "I can charge you with GAttTotP", your response should be "Please, do..." because 99% of the time the case will be tossed by the local prosecutor before it even enters the docket. And even if the case makes it to trial, any competent judge will toss it out once they learn that you were not doing anything illegal or unlawful, or in anyway had the EXPRESSED INTENT of causing terror or intimidation.

    NC needs to strike this violation from the books with a Statute, and adopt a VA-style Statutory definition of "Brandishing" that is clearly, specifically, and clearly articulated. the GAttTotP violation is too vague and open to interpretation to be relied upon as any sort of effectively enforceable violation, and it's vagueness lends to easily to abuse by gun-unfriendly LEOs...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 11-11-2011 at 11:56 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "...carrying an AK-47 on a college campus..."

    Not a wise choice.

    Every choice we make in life has a consequence.
    Are you suggesting he carry an AR?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •