ProShooter
Regular Member
http://www.nbc12.com/story/21114872...nging-gun-into-chesterfield-elementary-school
No one from here I hope....
No one from here I hope....
Pretty dumb on his part, but many people I've run across who don't know gun laws have no idea a person is forbidden by law from carrying a gun in school. It makes no sense them. The fact that he was arrested the following day with no issue, shows the folly of the prohibition on carrying a firearm in schools. If he had intended to cause harm, he'd have done so, just like anywhere else.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/21114872...nging-gun-into-chesterfield-elementary-school
No one from here I hope....
A Chesterfield County father has been charged with openly carrying a pistol last Thursday into his daughter’s elementary school.
Chesterfield County police said Michael A. O’Berry, 33, of the 100 block of Ruthers Road, walked into A.M. Davis Elementary School with a 9mm holstered to his side.
Oliver had arrived to pick up his daughter, said Chesterfield police Lt. Randy Horowitz.
After conducting his business in the school’s front office, he left without incident.
The next day, police charged O’Berry with possession of a firearm on school property, a felony. Police confiscated the weapon.
O’Berry told police he didn’t know it was against the law to carry a gun onto school property.
I just wonder if his intent was to force a case to SCOTUS before Obama changes the court. If that is the case, I pray for him, if he loses he will suffer until and if he is cleared. God speed!
I honestly doubt he didn't know.
Chesterfield County police said Michael A. O’Berry, 33, of the 100 block of Ruthers Road, walked into A.M. Davis Elementary School with a 9mm holstered to his side.
Oliver had arrived to pick up his daughter, said Chesterfield police Lt. Randy Horowitz.
It appears that the administration of A.M. Davis Elementary School does not care about either the safety of the students or about following School Board policy. As soon as someone noticed he had a gun the school should have instituted its lock-down procedure. Had Mr. O'Berry been a mentally deranged individual bent on rapid mass murder, the failure of the school to go into lock-down mode would have forced him to work that much harder to achieve his aims.
Eithrer that or someone at the school has figured out that going into lock-down is one of the best ways to assure a high body count. But what are the chances of that?
stay safe.
Why should any person here ridicule this man for violating a moronic-and above all, unconstitutional-law?
Because now the judicial system has an opportunity to make up for all those times when someone illegally brought a gun to school and didn't get prosecuted (because they killed themselves). Mr. O'Berry is about to become the Poster Maniac for Endangering School Children.Even if he "didn't know" as he claims, I wonder just why the judge is keeping him locked up until trial NEXT MONTH??????
Seems a bit overboard to me.
That's real simple. He just made it easier to toughen the GFZ laws.
I always wonder where someone with a post or two, that floats in on an [sic] Lifeboy Soapbox....floated from.:uhoh:
Any criticism of this man from people here plays into the hands of the anti-RKBA zealots. Why should any person here ridicule this man for violating a moronic-and above all, unconstitutional-law?
We should be talking about setting up a defense fund for this man, and protesting in front of the jail on his behalf, rather that competing with our worst enemies in stigmatizing a man who did absolutely nothing wrong (wrong being defined by sane standards, and not mere laws made by opportunistic imbeciles). :banghead:
Blame for that rests with the anti-liberty fools. Blaming a fellow gun owner for violating an asinine, unconstitutional law shows weakness which you better believe that the Brady Bunch will exploit.
Certainly not North Korea. Is there some rule against criticizing those who imitate the anti-SA tyrants ("OMG he took a gun into a SCHOOOOOOOL!!!!!111") if your post count is in the single digits?
Firearms have been stigmatized enough. People who support the RKBA should be trying to reverse this, which does not entail acting as if the combination of "gun" with "school" is inherently bad.
Yes, he violated a statute, which essentially every last person does, as it is impossible to know every single law on the books, so that is a rather weak angle (especially since this particular statute should never have been put on the books in the first place).
But, you see, that's just the point.
While the law may be both flawed and ineffective in preventing any actual harm to those at the schools, we have all (go read the forum rules) agreed that the way to addres that is by those lawful means in existence for changing the laws. Advocating for or endorsing someone's violation of the law is not supported - at least not publically.
I find it difficult to believe that the person did not know that his action was illegal. As much as I "forget" certain things, I find myself reviewing the go/no-go status of my destinations both as I leave the house and as I travel during the day. I have met a few who knowingly gambled at not being found out to be violsating the law, but they took steps to reduce the possibility of being seen/discovered violating the law. From what little information has been made available it seems Mr. O'Berry OC'd into the school.
While I agree that the law is both useless and harmful, I am reluctant to spend money defending someone who intentionally violated the law unless they specifically set out, like Ghandi or MLK, Jr. or many others, to challenge the law. I would be hard-pressed to consider donating to a fund for Rosa Parks, who never wanted or intended to challenge the law, but knowingly violated it for personal convenience. (That does nothing to reduce the import of the outcome of her criminal trial. It just defines the way I see things.)
If you are going to stage a protest against the incarceration and criminal prosecution of Mr. O'Berry, I would suggest you do so in front of the Commonwealth Attorney's office rather than in front of the jail. The jailers did not make the decision to arrest him, and they will have nothing to do with bringing him to trial and seeking to convict him. (Additionally, there is public access to amenities at the CA's office but not at the jail. If you have never protested before you will not understand why acess to such is important.)
Since the crime alleged is a misdemeanor http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.1 the chance for jury nullification does not exist.
That leaves us with convincing the General Assembly that the law is both ineffective, foolish, and wastes taxpayer money and time.
stay safe.