[Malum Prohibitum]

They arrested him.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/i ... xml&coll=3

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

According to this article, it was not even loaded. They arrested him for legally carrying an unloaded long arm.

 

[Brian618]

I hope this guy has a good attorney, I think he has a great case against the PD.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I still have not seen any indication that he did anything threatening. Has anybody else?

If he did, I should think the news would be all over it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Freeman did not point the rifle at anyone or threaten anyone, Costello said.

Costello said Freeman was also carrying a 30-round magazine, but it had not been inserted into the rifle at that time.

Gallichant said that police confiscated the rifle after they arrived at Freeman's home and found it loaded with a magazine in it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Would this man have been better off simply not to have answered the door and cooperated with Officer Friendly, apparently even allowing them to enter the home?

Is this question anti-LEO?

Would it have been "paranoid" not to cooperate?

 

[Rammstein]

Yes.

No.

No.

 

[Thorsen]

Damn. I guess every firearm in my house could be confiscated if the criteria is that it is loaded. I personally don't see much use to an unloaded firearm as their are more balanced items you can use to throw at an intruder.

 

[wsweeks2]

[T]here are more balanced items you can use to throw at an intruder.

:lol:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Damn. I guess every firearm in my house could be confiscated if the criteria is that it is loaded. I personally don't see much use to an unloaded firearm as their are more balanced items you can use to throw at an intruder.

No, that is not the criterion in this case. You would have to go outside with it unloaded, first, and then it could be confiscated if you loaded it inside later, I guess.

 

[budder]

Damn. I guess every firearm in my house could be confiscated if the criteria is that it is loaded. I personally don't see much use to an unloaded firearm as their are more balanced items you can use to throw at an intruder.

No, that is not the criterion in this case. You would have to go outside with it unloaded, first, and then it could be confiscated if you loaded it inside later, I guess.

Then I'm okay. I only go out with loaded guns! Unless I'm going to the range, then some of them are unloaded. :?

 

[Axeman]

:screwy:

 

[ptsmith24]

:screwy:

+1

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Any updates?

 

[ptsmith24]

Any updates?

Not that I can find.

 

[blind_shake]

If they needed my sig to proceed with the arrest after they told me" its not illegal to carry the AK but we are going to arrest him on a DC violation." I wouldve said nevermind. but I would'nt have called anyway. rather been like " are you going to the range cuz hold up I got my bag in the trunk, i'll go with you."

 

[Macktee]

An 18 years old is mature enough to carry a rifle in defense of his/her country but not in his/her own defense?

Actually, with parental permission, 17 year-olds can join the military.

I think I read someplace a larger percentage of Marine recruits are younger than 18 when they sign up as compared to the other services.

8)

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Actually, with parental permission, 17 year-olds can join the military.

I did.

 

[Macktee]

Following along the same general direction, how about a guy who gets arrested for not doing anything???

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123092.html

Standing in the Place Where He Was; He Stands Accused, Refuses to Stand and Lose; But He's Still Standing, Better Than He Ever Did; Won't Stand Up for Falling Down

Radley Balko | October 19, 2007, 8:51am

It's apparently a crime to stand still on the streets of Manhattan:

...when Matthew Jones of Brooklyn lingered on the corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, gabbing with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by, something unusual happened: He was arrested for it.

A police officer said Mr. Jones was impeding other pedestrians and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Mr. Jones is not taking the charges lying down (so to speak). After trying twice to get the charges dismissed, he has taken his case to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments here on Wednesday.

In the prosecution’s view, it appears, the innocent do not dawdle. According to the original complaint against Mr. Jones, the officer “observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around†on a public sidewalk in June 2004. Mr. Jones was “not moving, and that as a result of defendants’ behavior, numerous pedestrians in the area had to walk around defendants.â€

Surely there's more to this story, right? Ms. Prosecutor?

Paula-Rose Stark, a Manhattan assistant district attorney, argued that the facts in the complaint were sufficient for the charge of disorderly conduct. Mr. Jones’s reckless intent, Ms. Stark said, was evident from the fact that his behavior was noticeable in the first place “amid the inevitable hustle and bustle of Times Square, the construction, the vehicular traffic.â€

Ah. So he was standing noticeably. Now that....still makes no sense at all. Fortunately for Jones, New York's highest court appears to believe he has a leg or two to stand on:

“Isn’t that lawful conduct?†wondered Judge Robert S. Smith. Later he added, “Your conduct can’t be illegal just because an officer noticed it.â€

His colleague Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. questioned what other violations might attract law enforcement attention.

“All I could think of was a bunch of lawyers from the New York City Bar Association standing around trying to figure out where to have lunch,†Judge Pigott said. (The association has offices a block and a half from Times Square.)

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye seemed likewise nonplused. “This is at 2 a.m.?†she asked, wondering how many pedestrians it would have been possible to inconvenience at that hour. “I guess I’m not in Times Square at 2 a.m. very often.â€

Good to know that New York taxpayers are paying the state's brightest legal minds to sort this important matter out.

:screwy: :handcuffs: :jail:

 

[ptsmith24]

Actually, with parental permission, 17 year-olds can join the military.

I did.

My brother did.