Indiana applicant blows carry permit application

[Euromutt]

From the Richmond, Indiana Palladium-Item: http://www.pal-item.com/article/20090918/NEWS01/909180302

Mitchel L. Legg got the $50 back that he paid Thursday with his application to carry a gun. He also was arrested on a charge of carrying a gun without a license.

Legg visited the Richmond Police Department at 11:30 a.m. to fill out an application. Officers and staff members noticed a heavy smell as he was doing the paperwork.

"He reeked of marijuana, so they patted him down," said Chief Kris Wolski. "Officers (Heather) Edwards and (John) Lackey were aware that things just didn't add up. It's a good thing they did."

That's because the patdown discovered that besides marijuana, Legg was carrying a .22 semiautomatic handgun.

What actually chaps me about this story is that the unlicensed carrying of a concealed handgun is a Class A misdemeanor, but possession of marijuana is a Class D felony. What's more likely to be used to harm somebody?

Still, you have to be pretty frickin' stupid to stroll into a police station smelling of weed. Probably for the best that this guy doesn't get a permit.

[Roon]

1. I know someone who strolled through metal detectors at court

with a baggie of meth.She wasn't even the one in trouble, she was there supporting a friend of hers.Methgirl served time for that huge mistake.

[old mark]

2. Yet another reason

they call it "dope",

mark

[Treo]

22. When did metal detectors start detecting drugs? NT

[michreject]

25. In the courts around here (MI)

You empty your pockets and remove anything metal before walking through the detector.

[Treo]

26. Ahhhh, now I get it. NT

[michreject]

27. It's one of those oops moments

:)

[proteus_lives]

3. Moron.

I mean, how stupid can a person be?

[MO_Dem]

4. Fella here in MO lost his permit

He witnessed a purse-snatching, so decided to pursue the snatcher and when he got an opportunity, he started firing at the offender. That Lone Ranger won't be riding again! (at least not legally)

[Euromutt]

5. Frankly, good!

As pro-RKBA types on this board (including myself) constantly have to explain, it's not the mere act of theft that justifies the use of unlawful force; it's the threat to life or limb that does. No, we don't advocate capping purse-snatchers and pickpockets, and I resent the insinuation that we do.

[MO_Dem]

6. I didn't mean to imply that all carriers would do this

I meant to imply that this particular guy may carry a concealed weapon in future, but he won't be carrying it legally. He lost the right. What he did is illegal in MO.

[Treo]

7. As well it should be NT

[Euromutt]

12. Not meant as a slam on you, MO_Dem

Sorry if I gave that impression.

[Chulanowa]

9. Resent away

Because as far as I can tell, most gun nuts are, you know. Nuts. And when you define yourself by the 2nd amendment, you are a gun nut. Ergo, even if you are a fully lucid and sane human being, you share company with the people who shoot up schools, gun down people over traffic arguments, and long for the day they get to have a shootout with the ATF.

You can "true scotsman" until you're plaid and smell like lanolin. But you've got some screwballs in your clubhouse, man.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. What about those of us who define ourselves by all ten of the bill of rights?

And that includes the 2nd. I haven't seen any pro-RKBA posters here who define themselves purely by the 2nd. All of us are balanced and define ourselves using all ten of the BOR.

[Euromutt]

11. As it happens, I don't define myself by the 2nd amendment

Even then, that doesn't make your argument less of a pile of crap. "True Scotsman," you said it, and going "is not!" isn't an adequate refutation of that. Hey, you know what? I bet you're a carbon-based, bipedal placental mammalian vertebrate of the species Homo sapiens, just like the gun nuts you describe. Big fucking deal.

You want to argue with the proponents of private firearm ownership on this forum, you argue with us, not with the Montana Freemen, the JPFO or Alan Gottlieb.

[PavePusher]

14. Seriously?!

You equate lawful gun owners with "the people who shoot up schools, gun down people over traffic arguments, and long for the day they get to have a shootout with the ATF". Really?

Do you relish taking every opportunity to appear to be a rectal-chapeau, or is it purely happenstance?

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. By your reasoning, *these* kids are the equivalent of Stormfront:

Because they "share company with" nasty people who express their First Amendment rights:

http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a1_5dresscode.7025247sep20,0,5855851,print.story

Were T-shirts worn by Palmerton Area students free speech?
They say yes -- and the ACLU is on their side
By Steve Esack and Brian Callaway

OF THE MORNING CALL

September 20, 2009

When students decided to use their perceived First Amendment rights to protest Palmerton Area School District's dress code last week, they trekked into a 40-year-old legal landscape that has been more tested and traversed than the zinc-polluted mountain that looms above their Carbon County community.

School officials suspended protesting students who came to school last week wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with ''Property of PHS'' and their student identification numbers. The American Civil Liberties Union sees that as a violation of the students' right to free speech and is willing to take the case to federal court.

If students decide to move forward, such a lawsuit would pit their rights to self-expression against Palmerton Area High School's right to maintain order, a conflict that has played out repeatedly in federal courtrooms since a landmark 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case affirmed students' rights to express themselves in school.

ACLU staff attorney Valerie Burch said Palmerton officials overstepped their bounds when they reprimanded the students. The shirts were clever and innocent, she said, and constituted protected free speech. At least one of the suspended students has been in touch with the ACLU....

Do come back and post again after you've had your craniorectal inversion treated!

[paulsby]

17. canards abound

being for right to carry does not make one a gun nut.

it's makes on a civil rights advocate.

i advocate for rights under ALL the amendments. i am not an abortion nut, a gun nut, or a free speech nut

[gorfle]

20. How can you lift such a heavy paint brush?

By your logic, because there are people who express crazy ideas through their first amendment rights like, say, racism or anti-homosexual bigotry, everyone who expresses their first amendment rights is similarly crazy.

How can you lift that paint brush you are painting with?

[SteveM]

21. Classic approach of the prohibitionist: the thing makes one evil (nt)

[rd_kent]

29. What is this "clubhouse" you speak of?

Those of us that you so charmingly call gun-nuts but aren't nuts at all, don't have a clubhouse or have any ideology other than that the Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.
Your analogy is like saying someone that believes in a god but does not subscribe to any religion is in the same category as a xtian fundie. You would be wrong on both accounts.

[PavePusher]

13. Chasing? A-O.K. Shooting while chasing? Not so much... n/t

[rrneck]

8. If you sent him out to fuck up

he'd fuck up on the way.

[paulsby]

16. they call it dope for a reason

and i firmly support decriminalization of mj. i think the war on drugs sucks

but i also find it hilarious how mj and bone headedly stupid behavior collide.

i see it all the time

[spin]

18. Carrying a firearm illegally is a class A misdemeanor? Gun grabbers please...

raise hell about this.

Carrying a firearm illegally should be a felony and a SERIOUS one.

[Treo]

23. How about decriminalizing possession of a firearm?

I can stand at the the corner of the busiest intersection in town W/ a firearm openly displayed and it's not a crime if I put a jacket on it's a class two misdemeanor and the only thing that changed was a millimeter of cotton. how does that make sense? Mere possession of a firearm (mala prohibita) by anyonedoes not harm or violate the rights on another person why should it be a crime?

[Euromutt]

24. The two points are not mutually exclusive

We can desire that carrying of a firearm in public not require a license and still be of the opinion that, until that goal is achieved, it is our responsibility as gun owners to abide by the existing laws governing possession of firearms and expect to be harshly punished if we violate them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with requiring a license for concealed carry. That "millimeter of cotton" of yours makes the difference between letting people know you're armed and trying to keep people in the dark about that fact. Mere possession of a firearm does not, in and of itself, inflict harm, but some people do carry firearms because they intend to inflict harm with them, and such people tend to carry their weapons concealed precisely not to let on that they're armed, which is part of why we have the "Terry stop." I do think open carry shouldn't require a license, however.

[spin]

28. Much depends on the state...

Florida allows licensed concealed carry but not open carry in urban areas. There is a movement to pass open carry in Florida. I am starting to change my opinion on the issue and favor open carry.

I have to admit that it would make carrying a handgun such as a full sized Colt 1911 45 acp, much easier.

Florida will probably never allow open carry as it would scare the hell out of the tourists.

[oneshooter]

19. It seems to me that

this is the type of feller who could screw up a stick of firewood to the point it can't be used!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas