Man arrested carrying weapons at Pelosi hotel

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

How much you wanna BET...

That this guy did NOTHING illegal???

Anyone?

Not even with odds.....

Here is the ugly part about all these gun control laws.

Almost every one of them was enacted under the noble cause to stop criminal intent.

Yet they are routinely applied to people with NO criminal intent and the system makes no distinction or allowances for the normal law abiding gun owner legal possession.
The laws were the prosecutor would normally have to show intent to lock someone up; all of a sudden doesn’t apply to gun law enforcement.

I don’t know any more details about this incident other than listed in this article.

Let study this particular case as an example: I am assuming this guy was just in the wrong spot at the wrong time and 40 years ago when common sense was not replaced with gun control laws no one would have cared, if he was doing nothing wrong.

Was this guy a prohibited person not allowed to legally own firearms?
Was he the legal owners of the firearms?
Did he threaten anyone with them?
Can anyone show or prove this guy had criminal intent to use the firearms to harm anyone?
So this guy only crime is he broke a “law” enacted to stop criminal intent, yet he got arrested for what then? no intent, no crime, no arrest then

Even IF this guy beats the bum rap, how much is it going to cost him, most people including me don’t have 10,000 to 20,000 dollars just laying around to spend on a defense lawyer to prove you didn’t have criminal intent and beg the court to let you go because of a poorly written law.

Gun control laws have ruined many people’s lives that had no criminal intent just like this guy is going to find out. That's why it’s so important for gun owners to take a proactive stance to fight against them before being enacted. It’s a lot easier to stop a poorly written law before enactment, because it’s really hard to remove one once it been signed into law.

[adymond]

Here's a question that might get be a beat down, but does anyone else think this was profoundly stupid even if there was nothing illegal that he did? He was not using the long guns for hunting since the seasons for hunting don't start for at least another week or so. He checks into a hotel where the Speaker of the House is staying durring the DNC. I mean talk about common sense. That's just a bad idea. I know he may have been within his rights and if there was nothing going on here other than an over reaction I hope a good lawyer will work pro bono and then take a portion of a settlement that will come later, but you have to wonder where his common sense was.

[pex]

Originally Posted by adymond

Here's a question that might get be a beat down, but does anyone else think this was profoundly stupid even if there was nothing illegal that he did? He was not using the long guns for hunting since the seasons for hunting don't start for at least another week or so. He checks into a hotel where the Speaker of the House is staying durring the DNC. I mean talk about common sense. That's just a bad idea. I know he may have been within his rights and if there was nothing going on here other than an over reaction I hope a good lawyer will work pro bono and then take a portion of a settlement that will come later, but you have to wonder where his common sense was.

Everyone in the DNC gets to follow the same laws as this guy. Why are they getting special treatment?

It really shouldn't matter that there's a DNC anything there.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by pex

Everyone in the DNC gets to follow the same laws as this guy. Why are they getting special treatment?

It really shouldn't matter that there's a DNC anything there.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't say there should have been special treatment. I simply said that if he didn't have a planned use for the firearms he is basically just going to get himself into a problem (maybe totally not of his making) due to increased security. If he said I am staying here on the way to a game reserve or something I think there would have been no problem. I just think common sense would say:
1. Speaker of the House in the same hotel = Secret Service looking for any potential threats
2. DNC is in town so there will be extra security
3. Unless I am going to be using these firearms for hunting (no hunting season as of today being active is a concern) I would not think it a good idea to head to a hotel under the above circumstances

I guess if he had a pistol or two on him only I would be more willing to say this is just overblown, but two pistols and two long guns without an active hunting season and with the DNC in town is just asking to have things looked into. I don't think it is necessarilly wrong for it to be investigated either, but if the guy says I'm hunting next week and just staying here for the night then no harm no foul.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by adymond

but if the guy says I'm hunting next week and just staying here for the night then no harm no foul.

but that's the problem...or potential problem.

assuming the guy broke no laws, there was no foul. yet he is going to suffer harm.

the rules absolutely must not change just because some political big wig is staying in the hotel. that is the foundation of rule of law...the same laws apply in the same way to everyone.

we can't protect america by flushing everything it stands for down the toilet.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

but that's the problem...or potential problem.

assuming the guy broke no laws, there was no foul. yet he is going to suffer harm.

the rules absolutely must not change just because some political big wig is staying in the hotel. that is the foundation of rule of law...the same laws apply in the same way to everyone.

we can't protect america by flushing everything it stands for down the toilet.

I think you are being a bit extreme. I'm not saying what happened was no harm no foul. I said if he checked in and Secret Service said "Excuse me sir, may we ask what you are planning to do with those rifles (assuming they know he has rifles in the rifle cases)?" The man replies in any of the following ways:
1. I am heading to a hunting lodge
2. I am selling them and will be meeting the person at XXX
3. Some other reasonable reason to be bringing in rifles into a hotel in the middle of a city

I don't think that is harm or changing any rules. That is simply inquiring as to the reason one has rifles in a place that rifles are not expected to have a reasonable use. If you are traveling through the city that's one thing, but this guy was stopping for a period of time that he checked into a hotel. I don't think asking for an explination is out of bounds. Aprehending him and confiscating his firearms is unless there is more to the story.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by adymond

Aprehending him and confiscating his firearms is unless there is more to the story.

as i read it, that's exactly what they did...and they are also planning to charge him with something about carrying a concealed weapon.

does carrying a hunting rifle in a case really constitute illegally carrying a concealed weapon in colorado? if so, i'm very glad i don't live there...how the heck are you supposed to transport hunting rifles in that state?

they did not just ask him what he was doing. the arrested him and they are planning to charge him. i would be pretty much absolutely shocked if they did not also confiscate the guns.

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by adymond

I think you are being a bit extreme. I'm not saying what happened was no harm no foul. I said if he checked in and Secret Service said "Excuse me sir, may we ask what you are planning to do with those rifles (assuming they know he has rifles in the rifle cases)?" The man replies in any of the following ways:
1. I am heading to a hunting lodge
2. I am selling them and will be meeting the person at XXX
3. Some other reasonable reason to be bringing in rifles into a hotel in the middle of a city

I don't think that is harm or changing any rules. That is simply inquiring as to the reason one has rifles in a place that rifles are not expected to have a reasonable use. If you are traveling through the city that's one thing, but this guy was stopping for a period of time that he checked into a hotel. I don't think asking for an explination is out of bounds. Aprehending him and confiscating his firearms is unless there is more to the story.

But that is changing the rules. He has no reason to answer those questions. They had no right to ask him those questions. This is America and he should not be subject to that kind of treatment, having broken no laws. Now if someone can show me where he broke the law simply by carrying a rifle case into a hotel............I'll wait.

Dave

[adymond]

Originally Posted by adymond

Here's a question that might get be a beat down, but does anyone else think this was profoundly stupid even if there was nothing illegal that he did? He was not using the long guns for hunting since the seasons for hunting don't start for at least another week or so. He checks into a hotel where the Speaker of the House is staying durring the DNC. I mean talk about common sense. That's just a bad idea. I know he may have been within his rights and if there was nothing going on here other than an over reaction I hope a good lawyer will work pro bono and then take a portion of a settlement that will come later, but you have to wonder where his common sense was.

Originally Posted by adymond

Maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't say there should have been special treatment. I simply said that if he didn't have a planned use for the firearms he is basically just going to get himself into a problem (maybe totally not of his making) due to increased security. If he said I am staying here on the way to a game reserve or something I think there would have been no problem. I just think common sense would say:
1. Speaker of the House in the same hotel = Secret Service looking for any potential threats
2. DNC is in town so there will be extra security
3. Unless I am going to be using these firearms for hunting (no hunting season as of today being active is a concern) I would not think it a good idea to head to a hotel under the above circumstances

I guess if he had a pistol or two on him only I would be more willing to say this is just overblown, but two pistols and two long guns without an active hunting season and with the DNC in town is just asking to have things looked into. I don't think it is necessarilly wrong for it to be investigated either, but if the guy says I'm hunting next week and just staying here for the night then no harm no foul.

Originally Posted by adymond

I think you are being a bit extreme. I'm not saying what happened was no harm no foul. I said if he checked in and Secret Service said "Excuse me sir, may we ask what you are planning to do with those rifles (assuming they know he has rifles in the rifle cases)?" The man replies in any of the following ways:
1. I am heading to a hunting lodge
2. I am selling them and will be meeting the person at XXX
3. Some other reasonable reason to be bringing in rifles into a hotel in the middle of a city

I don't think that is harm or changing any rules. That is simply inquiring as to the reason one has rifles in a place that rifles are not expected to have a reasonable use. If you are traveling through the city that's one thing, but this guy was stopping for a period of time that he checked into a hotel. I don't think asking for an explination is out of bounds. Aprehending him and confiscating his firearms is unless there is more to the story.

Okay let me try to clear this up. I don't know why it's so tough, but here is what I am saying. What happened was wrong unless there is more to the story. I was trying to say that in the first post and had to clarify that I didn't think it would be wrong had they just asked a question. I don't think it's that hard to see what I am saying.

What happened is wrong.

What should have happened is SS asked him what he was doing in the hotel with the firearms. Depending on his response the situation would be further evaluated.

Did I explain what I am trying to say? Maybe I am missing communicating something I am thinking.

Originally Posted by WhiteFeather

man carrying two hunting rifles and two pistols tried to check in to the hotel..

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10292097

The concealed weapons charge may have come from two pistols. Now we don't know if those pistols were in cases (if so bogus charge) or if they were on his person (in which case depending on local regulations may be legit).

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

but that's the problem...or potential problem.

assuming the guy broke no laws, there was no foul. yet he is going to suffer harm.

the rules absolutely must not change just because some political big wig is staying in the hotel. that is the foundation of rule of law...the same laws apply in the same way to everyone.

we can't protect america by flushing everything it stands for down the toilet.

Damn straight. Rep in bound.