Viorel
Regular Member
imported post
Um, ok?
Um, ok?
Yes, I saw that. I can read. I disagree.If I were going somewhere that I knew the president to be, and I had the intention of hoping to see the president, even if only from a distance, I would NOT go there armed. It is inviting problems.
Whether or not anyone thinks that we should have to disarm in this situation is irrelevant to my point. The point being that we all know just how tight security is around the president, and we know how the secret service & others in law enforcement are going to view an armed civilian anywhere in the vicinity of the president.
Unless one is hoping to be some kind of test case in court, why put yourself in that situation to begin with? This is why I say (again) that it is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Ruger wrote:Yes, I saw that. I can read. I disagree.If I were going somewhere that I knew the president to be, and I had the intention of hoping to see the president, even if only from a distance, I would NOT go there armed. It is inviting problems.
Whether or not anyone thinks that we should have to disarm in this situation is irrelevant to my point. The point being that we all know just how tight security is around the president, and we know how the secret service & others in law enforcement are going to view an armed civilian anywhere in the vicinity of the president.
Unless one is hoping to be some kind of test case in court, why put yourself in that situation to begin with? This is why I say (again) that it is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Thanks for the heads up, but to clarify I said...Viorel - you are wrong about the charge. The AG document is not and never has been accurate in the way it reads. You must be able to prove intent and you must be on or about public highways. Carrying a firearm openly (even in the hand) does not automatically convey intent, carrying one holstered and not making threatening remarks or actions bolsters the argument that there was no intent to terrorize.
...but you are correct, I left out highway.You have to... 1. Have the weapon... 2. Have the intent.. 3. Act in the manner.
Red flag: The kid stated he was there to see Obama, establishing the link between him and the President, yet the SS didn't want to bother with it?This is a common law charge, there is no statute. I have yet to see one instance where it stuck, period. If there were such an instance, I highly doubt it had anything to do with simply open carrying. This charge is used as a tool by PDs and DAs to try and leverage us into forgoing our rights, but we are an open carry state and we have plenty of case law to support it.
From my knowledge, there is not Case Law or Statutory Law prohibition on being a geek in NC. If there was, most of the people on this forum would have their pictures hanging up in Post Offices...
OK, since I seem to be the "go-to expert" on this one I'll take it, and try and clear the GAttTotP thing with all the out-of-staters and foreigners...
snip...
[line]snip...
He should he cited for driving without a valid DL, slapped with a fine, and sent on his geeky way...
Thanks for the heads up, but to clarify I said...Viorel - you are wrong about the charge. The AG document is not and never has been accurate in the way it reads. You must be able to prove intent and you must be on or about public highways. Carrying a firearm openly (even in the hand) does not automatically convey intent, carrying one holstered and not making threatening remarks or actions bolsters the argument that there was no intent to terrorize.
...but you are correct, I left out highway.You have to... 1. Have the weapon... 2. Have the intent.. 3. Act in the manner.
Red flag: The kid stated he was there to see Obama, establishing the link between him and the President, yet the SS didn't want to bother with it?This is a common law charge, there is no statute. I have yet to see one instance where it stuck, period. If there were such an instance, I highly doubt it had anything to do with simply open carrying. This charge is used as a tool by PDs and DAs to try and leverage us into forgoing our rights, but we are an open carry state and we have plenty of case law to support it.
The law isn't very OC friendly at all. It pretty much says "yeah you can carry a gun, but if people freak out...".
Oh, I got you now.Which is not in any way what the common law means. To support the above, it seems like you quoted the oft quoted and little understood AG document. Thus my reply above.
I understand where you're coming from on this, but that is still a poor reason to violate the rights of a law-abiding citizen (and it is looking more and more like that is what happened).Oh, I got you now.Which is not in any way what the common law means. To support the above, it seems like you quoted the oft quoted and little understood AG document. Thus my reply above.
Yeah, I was typing with my fingers, not with my head & didn't follow-up. It happens sometimes.
My thinking in the first post (the one you quoted) was it seemed they simply arrested him for carrying, regardless of the charge. I think it was PA where a LEO was part of some kind of dialog about OC and the LEO said "nope". Then it was mentioned that it was a lawful carry, which the LEO replied "then they'll be arrested with [--insert bogus charge-].
I can't speak for the dept & since I wasn't there, who knows why they charged him (we'll all find out soon enough no doubt), but what it seems (at least partially) is that the agency didn't want the publicity of letting some armed kid with scope data & "other creepy stuff" loose while the President is still fresh in people's mind.
"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."
It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
HOWEVER, when he handed the Asheville PD an invalid DL, things REALLY started to go downhill for Mr. McVey...
Thanks for the great post, Dreamer.The only thing he appears to have done that was actually a violation of any law was that his DL was invalid when they tried to run it. The media hasn't stated whether it was a fake ID or his DL was just expired, so it might just be that this kid wasn't paying attention and let his DL expire or something...