Gun-rights activist Adam Kokesh arrested in Herndon

[rdharma]

YES! He was charged with possession of schedule I and II drugs while in possession of a firearm

Gun-rights activist Adam Kokesh arrested in Herndon

By Trishula Patel, Updated: Wednesday, July 10, 7:21 AM

~snip~

The search warrant was served by U.S. Park Police, a federal agency that is responsible for policing Freedom Plaza, the park on Pennsylvania Avenue NW where Kokesh was videotaped loading a shotgun, in violation of local gun laws, according to a YouTube video posted on July 4.

“We will not be silent. We will not obey,” Kokesh, an Iraq war veteran and Internet talk show host, says in the video. “We will not allow our government to destroy our humanity. We are the final American Revolution. See you next Independence Day.”

Kokesh unveiled plans in early May to lead an armed “Open Carry March” into the District on July 4. He described the proposed event, in which he said participants would carry loaded guns across the Memorial Bridge from Arlington into Washington, as an act of civil disobedience against “tyranny.”

But the march was canceled after police said they would enforce D.C.’s strict gun laws, which prohibit the carrying of loaded weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/activist-adam-kokesh-reportedly-arrested-in-herndon/2013/07/10/73dbc8c2-e943-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html

[Duckhunter935]

1. good, enforce existing laws

seemed to work with this knucklehead

[rdharma]

2. But he'll get out of prison........

..... will 'existing' laws keep him from getting another gun?

[ExCop-LawStudent]

4. Nah, he's toast if convicted

Schedule II is marijuana, which in normal user amounts would be a misdemeanor.

But Schedule I includes drugs like meth, heroin, ecstasy, etc. Those are felonies.

Felony conviction, no more guns.

[rdharma]

5. No more guns?

Under current laws....... it won't be hard for him to get his hands on guns after he gets out.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

8. Not legally

Unless you are advocating that he violate 18 USC 922.

Is that what you are proposing he do?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Illegally yes.

Go figure. Illegal things are illegal, and people might still do them even though they are illegal.

[rl6214]

16. If he's convicted.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

3. The guy was a nutcase anyway

I don't guess we'll be listening to his podcasts and youtubes anymore.

It's a real shame.

[rdharma]

6. A nutcase?

There are plenty of them out there to replace him.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

7. I agree

More and more show up advocating banning guns and otherwise violating 2A rights.

Baaaaa!

[rdharma]

9. He wasn't advocating banning guns......

But you know that.

[premium]

12. He wasn't referencing Adam Kokesh.....

But you know that.

[Eleanors38]

10. LOL!

[premium]

11. LOL.

I love it.

[rdharma]

13. Another "responsible firearms owner" gone bad

As Gov. Rick Perry would say....... Oops!

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. There's no evidence whatsoever that he was a "responsible firearms owner"

But you knew that...

[rdharma]

15. He could legally own a gun.......... right?

You mean it's lawful, under current laws, for somebody other than a "responsible gun owner" to legally possess a firearm?

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. There's a difference between 'legal' and 'responsible', and there's a way to understand...

...the difference between the two:

Drive a car for two or three days in either Boston or Miami. You will quickly learn
the difference between "legally allowed to drive" and "responsible driving"...

[rdharma]

18. Explain the 'difference' .......

...... As it pertains to firearms ownership.

TIA

[ExCop-LawStudent]

23. It's like the First Amendment

People have the right to speak. Nothing in the Constitution require that they be responsible.

Last time I checked, nothing in the Second Amendment required that they be responsible either. Responsible does not equate to eligible. I know some felons that have turned their lives around and are now responsible people, but they are not eligible to own or carry a firearm.

The "responsible" argument is a strawman.

[rdharma]

24. Nothing in the Constitution requires people to be "responsible"

Great! That means I can I can freely distribute kiddie porn, yell "fire" in a crowded theater, slander and libel as I please..........Right?!!!!

Woo hoo!

[ExCop-LawStudent]

25. LOL, still not getting the lesson I see

Responsible also does not equal illegal.

Webster's might be a good investment for you. Words have meaning.

But hey, if you want to chose to do those things, I'm not going to stop you.

[rdharma]

26. "Responsible also does not equal illegal."

Oh, you don't say!

[ExCop-LawStudent]

27. Very good

I'm glad that you see that your earlier position was incorrect, since "responsible" doesn't equal "illegal."

Now we'll work on educating you on the Rights of the People as a term of art in the Bill of Rights.

Let me know when you're ready.

[rdharma]

28. Let me know when you realize that rights under the Constitution are not unlimited! nt

[gejohnston]

19. actually, maybe not

if he ever marked "no" on a 4473 asking if he was a habitual user of illegal drugs, that could be additional federal counts. Not saying the feds could prove he was a drug user at the time, just saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'm surprised that hasn't been challenged in court yet.

After all, a convicted felon cannot be busted for not having a CPL if found with a gun, because a felon cannot get a permit without testifying against himself (a fifth amendment civil rights violation)

Don't see how the 4473 is any different.

[anomiep]

29. ???

Is there something sarcastic/etc I'm missing here, or, if not, do you have a cite for "because a felon cannot get a permit without testifying against himself (a fifth amendment civil rights violation)?"

Whether or not someone has a felony conviction is a matter of public record, not self-testimony.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Haynes vs. U.S. (1968)

“a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.”

Same scenario. Attempting to register it is an admission of a crime. (Felon in possession.)

[anomiep]

31. A person who fills out a license form or a 4473

Are they being compelled to do so?

I see the point WRT a felon in possession getting an additional charge of not registering simply because registering would require them to incriminate themselves.

However, convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms and getting carry permits in the first place, and they're not under a compulsion to either buy firearms or apply for carry permits.

So, my net comment here is ... I don't know, I'd like to see case law specifically with regard to 4473 forms and carry permit applications. The logic that 'you can't be charged for something where you're being asked to incriminate yourself', taken to an extreme, where the crime itself is the testimony (as it could be on a 4473 or a CHL application) would seem to imply that nobody could ever be charged with perjury for signing that their statement was true and correct on an affidavit where they'd lied.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. 4473 is for the purchase of a gun.

If that form is used in connection with CPL applications, it's not done so in my state. Possible I guess.

No felon would pass the background check for a CPL, that's what the fingerprints are for.


"would seem to imply that nobody could ever be charged with perjury for signing that their statement was true and correct on an affidavit where they'd lied."

That is precisely why so many of us hold the court decision in that particular case to be ridiculous.

[anomiep]

33. I referenced 4473

because of the statement in the original post I responded to that 'I don't see why a 4473 would be any different' (paraphrased quote, not direct).

I know what a 4473 is for

[ileus]

22. Libertarians and their love of drugs...

serves the druggie right...