F430murci

Look at the debate again. I think it is near the one minute spot when the male guest suggests Piers should get an assault weapon and go "pop him". This comment brought much hilarity to both Piers and his other guests.

In the context of this particular conversation "pop him" would mean to shoot him in the US.

Cannot locate the original video of the interview, only propaganda bites from Alex Jones infoweek website that pop up in every search - got the original interview URL? I do recall during the debate their was a comment to invite Jones to a boxing ring and bring along your legally obtained AR15 and pop him. My interpretation was making fun of the pro gun lobby insisting semi auto are fine if legally obtained, not a threat to Jones and his family. USA seems to have weirdos who may take the comment seriously; therefore inappropriate. As you know Jones has a screw loose with his allegation the US govt was behind the Oklahoma and Twin Towers attacks and other hate filled commentary - appears to have a considerable following in the US. Suggest he's a lot more dangerous than Piers Morgan ever could be, but that's OK. Unfettered Free Speech no matter the outcome eh?

Haha, yeah we got all types. Keeps thing interesting, but reality is I spend half my time a year in the coolest city in US (certainly not LA or NY and in fact most are escaping LA to move here). I spend the other half of my time in a Florida tourist beach destination. I never run across these extreme whacko views in real life. Only hear about them on television and here. Everyone I know and run into is more concerned about where to eat, what movie to see, what car to drive to movies or restyrant tonight and what's on sale at Macy's or some of the boutiques around here. Just real life stuff and living life issues. Reading this stuff and peoples views is entertaining.

Do not remember the debate word for word, but it was not my takeaway that you could construe veiled threats were made to Alex Jones and his family - that innuendo I would definitely recall.

Look at the debate again. I think it is near the one minute spot when the male guest suggests Piers should get an assault weapon and go "pop him". This comment brought much hilarity to both Piers and his other guests.

In the context of this particular conversation "pop him" would mean to shoot him in the US.

I guess seeing the difference between hyperbole by a talk show host versus threats from nut case who actually has guns and is perhaps dead serious about using them if he does not get his way eludes some.

I guess it eludes the police too as they haven't arrested the guy nor have they arrested that Morgan chap.

Uhm, okay. Thanks. I feel more complete now. Where's my sling shot.

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

I read this from the above piece, "Not only were threats made against Jones but innuendos about hoping Jones "kids aren't killed" were made. These types of veiled threats are not only illegal but they are immoral and Piers Morgan should be, at the very least, fired for this."

You mean he didn't say any of those things? If they just made that stuff up I'm sorry I posted it. I should have checked better.

Do not remember the debate word for word, but it was not my takeaway that you could construe veiled threats were made to Alex Jones and his family - that innuendo I would definitely recall.

Look at the debate again. I think it is near the one minute spot when the male guest suggests Piers should get an assault weapon and go "pop him". This comment brought much hilarity to both Piers and his other guests.

In the context of this particular conversation "pop him" would mean to shoot him in the US.

I guess seeing the difference between hyperbole by a talk show host versus threats from nut case who actually has guns and is perhaps dead serious about using them if he does not get his way eludes some.

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=business

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

Are you serious?

A guy, who announces, he will go an kill people, if certain laws are passed....

So he is strolling away from abiding LAWS and instead will go bezerk...but sure he has the right to voice this opinion...by LAW???

...and that is exactly, what is wrong in America: you cherrypick the laws, you like.

Freedom of speech! Yeah, I like it! Separation of church and state...naaaah....not so much!

If someone says, he will not obey past laws...what right has he to fall back on other laws, just because they might fit his POV?

Haha, just throw reason out the window. Why even bother trying to reason.

i was to busy chuckling at his accent to get incensed over its content

I agree. It took me quite a while to realize he was speaking English. :-) While his statement sounds outrageous ,

I think that is a somewhat standard rape defense. I wonder if he uses the same defense for acid attacks.....

Maybe in India, but that is not the standard rape defense in civilized cultures. His statement is a reflection of a cultural issue wherein it apparently is okay to forceably rape or gang rape a women if you have the subjective belief that she deserves it.

A defense is they did not do it or she consented.

Info on men publicly hanged in Iran for rape in recent times. Some graphic images.

http://www.rawstory....anging-in-iran/

http://www.payvand.c...11/oct/1129.htm

http://deathpenaltyn...c-for-rape.html

Excellent well done the Iranians, nice to see a progressive forward thinking country dispensing its own form of justice.

Posted the info as some posts have claimed under sharia law difficult to obtain convictions for rape. From Wikipedia 10-15% of executions in Iran are for rape. "for most part, convictions are made either by confession or "judge's knowledge", rather than witnesses.

That choice between being painfully tortured at best before death or quick death by hanging if you admit guilt is a tough choice to make. Worked well a few hundred years ago when trying to figure who was a witch or the sons and daughters of Satan. They found a bunch of them.

Morally, both India and Iran are on about equal footing, but for different reasons. India only rarely or selectively enforces laws relating to deprivation of human rights, especially if the rights violation relates to women. Iran will just torture you and will probably only use excuses like rape to torture a confession when in reality the reason one is being targeted is politically motivated.

Not sure why anyone would want to defend eithe culture as it relates to that conduct which should not be acceptable or defended.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/11/iran-blogger-who-told-supreme-leader-khamenei-your-judicial-system-is-nothing-but-a-slaughterhouse-t.html

"Mr. Khamenei, [in Iran] people are arrested, and are then subjected to a series of tortures until they confess to crimes they did not commit. Burning cigarettes are extinguished in their flesh; they are branded with hot irons, their heads are shoved into toilets full of excrement until they confess to a sin they never committed.

"After the passing of a sentence based on this confession, the laws of shari'a and of God's religion are implemented!...  Is this [indeed] God's religion – or is it [merely] violent behavior in the name of God's religion, with the aim of remaining in power?

"Mr. Khamenei: As an Iranian, I see you and your judicial system – your slaughterhouse – as artists in the art of murder. Believe me [when I say] that I think you’re an artist."

Info on men publicly hanged in Iran for rape in recent times. Some graphic images.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/29/convicted-rapists-put-to-death-by-hanging-in-iran/

http://www.payvand.com/news/11/oct/1129.htm

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2012/12/iran-five-executed-in-public-for-rape.html

And the point is . . . How wonderfully humane in support of women and race equality Iran is. Hope they got the right dudes and some body with a vendetta did not make an accusation for revenge or improper motives.

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else.

Rubber chickens would be a suitable replacement.

Or a sling shot for jello shooters.

Drops in crime are related to a litany of factors. NRA trying to attribute drops in crimes related to increaes in gun sales is comical. Even more comical that anyone would buy into that theory.

Crime rates correlate to many factors including better enforcement of laws, stricter laws on drug violations with mandatory sentencing guidelines, better investigative technology (criminals pretty much know that cannot get away with crap) and decreases in crack epidemic in some key locals.

Give credit where credit is due. Lots of hard working cops, prosecutors, politicians and judiciary making strides to be tough on crime. Knowing you will get caught and lose your freedom is biggest deterrent on commission of crimes.

Experience is a much better teacher than television or media so not sure how someone who has been away from US for many years and educated primarily by long distance media sources could have an accurate feel for what it us truly like here in the streets and in the criminal justice system.

Problem with NRA theory, besides ignoring other factors, is that we do not have any control groups to use as a bench mark. Perhaps other factors are driving crime lower and crimes would be 1000 percent lower over same time period had a gun ban been in place.

The climate alarmists have gone beyond desperate into risibly idiotic.

DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- Bangladesh has recorded its lowest temperatures in nearly 60 years, an unexpected result of global warming, scientists said.

The severe cold wave sweeping through normally tropical Bangladesh brought normal life and businesses to a near standstill, officials said.

Experts are blaming the cold temperatures on more intense cold fronts resulting from global warming melting polar ice.

"Extreme events are on the rise throughout the world and they will continue to increase further due to global warming," said Aninun Nishat, an environment specialist. "We're part of the world. So, we're also feeling here the pinch of the global warming."

High temperatures are claimed to be a result of global warming, and now low temperatures are claimed to be a result of global warming, according to these charlatans.

How much lower will these 'scientists', 'experts' and 'specialists' (read: activists) stoop to keep their gravy train running or have they finally hit bottom?

Study weather patterns and climatology and you may understand. Global warming could actually throw Europe in a deep freeze and it's easy to understand how if you make an effort to understand.

Remember it's a lawyer's job to defend the indefensible, though why anyone would want to defend these little shits is beyond me.

And you also have to remember that this is India and there are millions of Indians out there hoping they get off. The silence in some quarters is deafening.

There is a difference in defending an accused in a court room and going public and bashing every single poor woman that has been raped or sexually abused by stating they are trash and all deserved it.

I am a lawyer and this guy's statements offend me. Other lawyers at my office were appauld. His conduct and statements are inexcusable and sadly reflect a larger problem in India.

Sadly, if he said that around me or, worse, worked for me, I sadly would probably stoop almost to his level and break his orbital bones with an elbow. I would then tell him no self respecting scumbag lawyer ever gets the shape of their face permanently rearranged.

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Jeez, I shouldn't look. This stuff is like a car wreck. You cannot help but look.

A revolution. Oh wow. Haha. Really . . . The thought processes of pro gunners is very entertaining. I am saddened by the millitary people with PTSD. God bless them for their service. Seems like they are turning the guns on themselves more than anything. The number of vet suicides is now exceeding the number killed in service.

. . . Anyway . . . there will be no revolution. Americans are fat and happy. Too much to lose. Absent a very vocal minority, most could care less if guns were taken away. Individuals may say they are against bans in polls, but that does not mean they would lose a nights rest if in fact guns were taken away.

True, you get groups like the Branch Davidians who loved their guns. Some guys out in Montanna believe taxes are unconstituttional, live in compounds and will fight government trying to take their guns.

You get some whacko nut job fruit loops saying they will starting shooting people if guns are taken away. Whatever. These guys are like the guy who shot his pet snake and Dale Earnhart colleciton. Lots of hot, drunken air, but little else.

I suppose some Southern white supremecy guys would blast away if you tried to take their guns away . . . but most Americans are more concerned about where to eat tonight, and what movie to see or what purse or shoes to buy at the mall tomorrow than anything about guns.

Revolution. Ha, not a chance.

F'd up all over, not just India, Middle East, So. America. Even in the gold standard legal system of the USA, defense lawers attempt to disgrace and discredit the victims. Reruns of Law and Order must be on satellite everywhere..

I am not a criminal Defense law, but I do recall writing on this issue for a State Supreme Court Justice when I clerked back in the mid 90s. To my recollection, this is not the gold standard in the US and it is actually very difficult to place a rape vicitm or sexual assault victim's character at issue.

My recollection is generally can only be done that or those defendants had previously had consenesual sexual relations together to show he rasonably believed consent for the challeneged conduct or to show no contact with vicitm and that semen samples reveal she had sex withsomeone other than the accused.

Here is the Federal Rule and most states are patterned after Federal Rules. India is just messed up and, actually, no attorney worth their weight in salt would make such a statement unless there was a likelihood of a jury agreeing with such a statement. I also think that specific statement would be an ethical violaiton in US.

FRE 412 - Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition

(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.

The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions ( and ©:

(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.

(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

( Exceptions.

(1) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:

(A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;

( evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution; and

© evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.

(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim.

© Procedure to determine admissibility.

(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision ( must --

(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and

( serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative.

(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise.

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

The funny part though is you would believe just because Reagan and his administration are or were a Republican he or they would not cover anything at all up. Haha. Speaks volumes.

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Iran-Contra and Ollie North hearings? I actually tried a class action case with Ollie's lawyer once.

And is there any wonder why India is the dregs of society of a modern world.

I am totally baffled.

There is a background check on your criminal record...and THAT IS IT?

You can buy ANYTHING avaiable on the free market, with ONE licence?

Those are no rules AT ALL and the gun- nuts are screaming bloody murder, if those NON-RULES are being tightened?

Sorry, guys...you are downright crazy!

Good luck with the next mass- shooting and good luck with the next 5year old who has his face removed when daddies 44 Magnum accidentallt goes off!

i wonder what gives you the right to call Americans crazy because their constitution gives them the right to bear arms.

by the way, no background check when you go to the next flea market and buy whatever is offered there (talking about a decade ago). i bought for my brother, who is a collector, a number of beautiful old weapons for a fistful of dollars which are worth a fortune in Europe.

Therein lies the problem. No background checks for certain avenues of purchase. My only grip is closing these loopholes, require background checks and registration on all sales (even from private individuals), require at least mental compentency question which if answered falsely is a felony (if answered in affirmative, then they can requests a release for records or just deny) and ban AR-15 and AK knockoff semi autos and large capacity clips.

Seriously, no one needs an AR or a five seventy pistol. Can still have fun with normal stuff.

And to those that keep saying Obama wants to take guns away . . . no. Todat they said he really is just in favor of requiring background checks and some checks and balances on mental status (no elaboration) and looking to ban large capacity clips (no elaboration on size). Obama, however, did not say anything about AR-15 type assualt weapons being banned.

Haha, I think I will just defer to the politicians and retire from gun debate days . . . lest I might buy a gun and shoot myself. I can kick enough ass if necessary without a gun and never feel the need to even lock my doors whether home or not home . . . God bless America and thank God I don't live in Kentucky.

The best place for N.Americans to retire is CUBA. Opening up this year. Check it out,so close to home,and cheap.

The infrastructure is a mess, food outside international hotels is shakey, transport is almost non-existant, locals are treated very poorly by the police...who are extremely corrupt. Beautiful country, but has issues to deal with. I've been a few times.

Me too, and ditto. I love the most of the people and much about the culture, but the "romantic Cuban revolution" died a long time ago. A shame.

Yeah, for sure, but . . . a big but at that . . . if they can get straightened out politically and embargo is lifted eventually, I would imagine this place could wind up being pretty cool. Many years off though. I have always thought Cuba was such a wasted opportunity given that it is even closer than Carribean and has so much to offer from an environmental perspective. A big problem is just the uneducated impovershed culture. That could either be a lingering problem or they could really use that as drive to rebuild the country and better their lives provided the opportunity. That being said it may stay just the same politically, culturally and economically fore ever.

Pissing in a bottle in the aisle on an airplane, drunken assault and wrecking a scooter while wasted. The guy doesn't need a tax lawyer. He needs an AA meeting.

The best place for N.Americans to retire is CUBA. Opening up this year. Check it out,so close to home,and cheap.

And there is nothing really cheap about the place. About 3 times the price of Mexico.

Gllad you like Mexico, but it is a hole in my opinion. Sorry, just my opinion and people should research it well before venturing into Mexico. Border patrol, cops and Narcos will all kidnap your butt if your in wrong place at wrong time and Maerican embassy will not come after you. Several months ago some of the Mexico millitary cops that were cartel even shot up a convoy full of American CIA agents. Lucky for them they were in bullet proof vehicles and no one got killed, but the Narco dudes are afraid if nothing, armed to the teeth and rather make your suffer as much as possible than just kill you.

Why chance it? I would not set foot in that country any more and I am in Costa Rica and Nicaragua area every month, sometimes twice a month. Used to surf at several spots in Mexico, but too many rapes, kidnaps and murders of campers and surfers in those areas. Recently a group of young girls on a church retreat or youth mission were raped, tortured and killed. The stuff about safe if not into drugs is bs.

Mexico is getting worse...but so are many places around the world. We like CR, but not cheap. Property near the beach is expensive and the "green" season is much tougher there than here. Especially if you are on the East coast.

Nicaragua was interesting, but quite dangerous. We encountered crime several times during our 3 week visit there. IMHO.

You've got some great experience. Can you join in the conversation here?

Yes, property got very expensive on or near beach. I started investing in propert down there 12 years ago. Bought one piece of commercial property for like $ 800, sold for $10,000 a year later 2002. Similar lot in similar location would be $30,000 plus now.

US coastal property hit crazy highs in 2004-2007. At one point, beach front was costing $2.5 to $3.0 on Florida Gulf coast for crappy old center block homes. That was cheapest could get on ocean. People started looking to places like Costa Rica for beach front and drove prices up exponentially in mid 2000s. My place in Costa Rica has tripled in value in 9 years and I over paid for location back in 2003.

The best place for N.Americans to retire is CUBA. Opening up this year. Check it out,so close to home,and cheap.

And there is nothing really cheap about the place. About 3 times the price of Mexico.

Gllad you like Mexico, but it is a hole in my opinion. Sorry, just my opinion and people should research it well before venturing into Mexico. Border patrol, cops and Narcos will all kidnap your butt if your in wrong place at wrong time and Maerican embassy will not come after you. Several months ago some of the Mexico millitary cops that were cartel even shot up a convoy full of American CIA agents. Lucky for them they were in bullet proof vehicles and no one got killed, but the Narco dudes are afraid if nothing, armed to the teeth and rather make your suffer as much as possible than just kill you.

Why chance it? I would not set foot in that country any more and I am in Costa Rica and Nicaragua area every month, sometimes twice a month. Used to surf at several spots in Mexico, but too many rapes, kidnaps and murders of campers and surfers in those areas. Recently a group of young girls on a church retreat or youth mission were raped, tortured and killed. The stuff about safe if not into drugs is bs.

The best place for N.Americans to retire is CUBA. Opening up this year. Check it out,so close to home,and cheap.

Cuba is so full of potential if can ever get on track politically.

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

Read my post above, and then take some remedial reading courses. You are misquoting federal law. As I said, when lawyers go to court, 50% of them lose which tells you how intelligent they are, or how much stock I should put in their opinions.

In the case you are quoting, it says that if a person has a valid concealed handgun license, BATF has agreed he may carry in a school if the state allows it.

In your case, the person lacked the state license.

Haha, you know. You are absolutely correct. Sorry for wasting your time on this one. I should have read the full statutory exceptions . . . I can admit when I am wrong . . .

Here is full text of section including part dealing with discharge:

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to

possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects

interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual

knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(b Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a

firearm -

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do

so by the State in which the school zone is located or a

political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or

political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains

such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or

political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified

under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is -

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is

on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school

in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into

between a school in the school zone and the individual or an

employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while

traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to

public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school

premises is authorized by school authorities.

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (b, it shall be

unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for

the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a

firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or

foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.

(b Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm

-

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school

zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered

into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an

employer of the individual; or

(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

capacity.

iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Just because it may not be impremissible under a state statute does not mean it is not prohibited under a federal law. State may not be able to prosecute, but Feds can . . . Need to meet certain exceptions under 922 such as unloaded, locks or etc.

RE: Whether purview of Feds or State

Sorry, Post Lopez decisions have clearly upheld the framework of 922 as in case I quoted above. Says it "affects interstate commerce" so Feds can regulate. All court's have upheld as valid. My quick westlaw search yielded 32,000 cases on this statute post Lopez and all upheld statute.

As the old saying goes, he he represents himself has a fool for a client. Believe what you want . . .

The issue is comparable to the marijuanna laws. Many states have made legal even though still illegal under federal law.

Are you an Oregon licensed attorney? If so, I still remind you that 50% of all lawyers lose in court. If airline pilots had that record, no one would fly.

I've been a licensed firearms instructor for 30 years. My signature plus a background check will get you a concealed handgun license in the State of Oregon. You get my signature after you sit in my class for eight hours and then pass the test. The class and test are mostly about concealed firearms laws, firearm safety, and the laws regarding what is lawful self defense and where you may and may not carry.

The test is prepared by the State of Oregon's Attorney General, has been nearly the same for 30 years, and the answer to whether you may carry in a public school including a kindergarten or a state university is "yes." Every single law enforcement officer in the state knows this as do the heads of schools.

I don't know if you're a US citizen, but if you are you know the US isn't a democracy. You know it's a republic of states. You know that there a 100 members in the Senate - two from each state. Regardless of population, each state gets two. That keeps the big states from ruling the small states. The smallest state has as much clout in the senate as the biggest state. The majority doesn't rule.

Each state tightly holds on to its promise under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that powers not specifically given to the feds are reserved for the states.

I don't have time to research your case but I don't have to. Somewhere you're reading something into it which isn't there.

The feds don't have the power to regulate when or where I carry a handgun except on federal property.

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Here is a 2012 Oregon Federal District Court generally upholding 18 USC 922 under commerce clause challenge in Oregon:

A. Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

1. Commerce Clause Analysis

1 Defendant argues that Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power, both on its face and as applied to the defendant.

However, the United States Supreme Court has expressly held 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a), the predecessor statute of § 922(g)(1), a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). The Court held the statute valid though the statute required only “the minimal nexus that the firearm have been, at some time, in interstate commerce.” Id. at 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has also held that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g)(1) ensures a sufficient nexus between possession of firearms and interstate commerce to constitute a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 514 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir.1995).¹

United States v. Ernst, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1102 (D. Or. 2012)