Gun Control For Thou, But Not For Thee....

[BluesStringer]

David Codrea of Gun Rights Examiner reports:

Link Removed

Link Removed
​

February 8, 2014


In an incident seen by some as a bit of supreme irony, a local “gun control” proponent has been arrested on two felony charges for bringing a concealed handgun into a New York elementary school, causing “an hours long lockdown,” Link Removed.

“Dwayne Ferguson ... was a well-known face in the movement for the SAFE Act, the state law that made carrying a gun on school property a felony,” the report explains. “He was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony. Prior to New York State’s adoption of the SAFE Act last year, in response to the Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut, it was a long-established state law that guns could not be brought onto school property. The only difference was that the crime carried less punishment as a misdemeanor.”

What’s telling is the reaction of Ferguson’s apologists, offering excuses and justifications. “Associates defend man who had gun in school,” the article headline states, adding the subhead “Say he made honest mistake in incident prompting school lockdown.”

While the observations of some, coming to the realization that a good person with a gun on school grounds can provide protective benefits, is hopeful, it also seems fair to wonder if the same support would be offered should a gun rights advocate be caught in similar circumstances. That’s because such one-sided support for citizen disarmament proponents running afoul of the law is hardly unique, as another recent story illustrates.
​

More at the link about another public official breaking the laws they're sworn to uphold and/or enforce.

The line between criminal and public "servant" draws ever thinner, if there's anything left of it at all. We are living under a lawless oligarchy filled to overflowing with thugs and tyrants. Prepare accordingly.

Blues

 

[gunnerbob]

David Codrea of Gun Rights Examiner reports:

Link Removed

Link Removed
​

February 8, 2014


In an incident seen by some as a bit of supreme irony, a local “gun control” proponent has been arrested on two felony charges for bringing a concealed handgun into a New York elementary school, causing “an hours long lockdown,” Link Removed.

“Dwayne Ferguson ... was a well-known face in the movement for the SAFE Act, the state law that made carrying a gun on school property a felony,” the report explains. “He was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony. Prior to New York State’s adoption of the SAFE Act last year, in response to the Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut, it was a long-established state law that guns could not be brought onto school property. The only difference was that the crime carried less punishment as a misdemeanor.”

What’s telling is the reaction of Ferguson’s apologists, offering excuses and justifications. “Associates defend man who had gun in school,” the article headline states, adding the subhead “Say he made honest mistake in incident prompting school lockdown.”

While the observations of some, coming to the realization that a good person with a gun on school grounds can provide protective benefits, is hopeful, it also seems fair to wonder if the same support would be offered should a gun rights advocate be caught in similar circumstances. That’s because such one-sided support for citizen disarmament proponents running afoul of the law is hardly unique, as another recent story illustrates.
​

More at the link about another public official breaking the laws they're sworn to uphold and/or enforce.

The line between criminal and public "servant" draws ever thinner, if there's anything left of it at all. We are living under a lawless oligarchy filled to overflowing with thugs and tyrants. Prepare accordingly.

Blues

Not meant for you, Blues...

Well, first off... he seems to have gotten what he deserved (being a hypocritical scumbag!). Second, I am a believer that it shouldn't be illegal to carry in public schools... being as that criminals and other such crazy people do it anyway so what's the phucking point of outlawing it for the good, honest people who want to defend children and themselves!? If criminals are ignoring the law anyway... it AIN'T doing any good, is it!? Well, except for preventing law-abiding people from proper defense! Damn it all!

Now, to the bold text, you're absolutely right Blues! Public "servant" my @ss! He's a thug who's out for "his" and is willing to step on the People, make them less powerful, less effective and less capable of taking care of themselves. I hope this douche bag gets a stiff sentence from the very law he supported!

 

[BC1]

Here's to kicking your own ass Dwayne. This bud's for you.

 

[vernsimpson]

Typical lib-o-rat crap! Laws are for all us pee-ons not for the elitists such as this moron!!!!

But if a pro-gun NRA member had did this the anti's would have built the gallows on the school ground to hang him!!

 

[sdprof]

"... did not realize he had it on him when he went to the school as part of the mentoring program."

That kind of shows him to either be outright lying, or a complete idiot for not knowing he was packing.

This would be such irony if he gets convicted of the felony and....can't have guns any more.

 

[r1derbike]

An honest mistake my ass. They need to charge this black lawbreaker with felonies, convict him, jail him, and strip his right to own firearms, just like anyone else.

If he was white, I'd say the same thing. The law is the law; black, white, brown, yellow, red.

Watch our judicial system, media, Obama and Holder step-in and pardon this felon of his crimes, because anything else would be racist, and hey, it was an honest mistake.

Talk it over while drinking some suds with Obama.

Ignorance of the law, or thinking one is above it, is no excuse. Book 'im, Dano.

The irony of a gun control SAFE advocate getting charged with firearm felonies while he was in a school. This is rich. I want to see a "real" mug shot of this felon.

Maybe a "who got arrested" lineup on the local news website will have his mug shots?

 

[wolf_fire]

Hmmmmm.... while I'm in total agreement that this a$$hole is a lying hypocritical piece of horse hockey, my concern is for our reaction.

I see this as a means to break down the tyrannical laws of New York. If "good guy" Dwayne can carry in a school and get away with it. Maybe we should allow all "good guys" to do the same.

Wanting him to hang for something we believe no one should hang for to me is hypocritical. Use this as precedent to destroy the NY laws.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hmmmmm.... while I'm in total agreement that this a$$hole is a lying hypocritical piece of horse hockey, my concern is for our reaction.

I see this as a means to break down the tyrannical laws of New York. If "good guy" Dwayne can carry in a school and get away with it. Maybe we should allow all "good guys" to do the same.

Wanting him to hang for something we believe no one should hang for to me is hypocritical. Use this as precedent to destroy the NY laws.

As long as the law remains on the books, there's no excuse to let this hack (or the rest of 'em) off the hook. Certainly none of us whose reactions concern you would be exempted from prosecution because we are good guys, while this guy most certainly is not if for no other reason than that he advocated for SAFE to begin with.

The law should not be repealed because it caught one of their own hypocritical oligarchs, it should be repealed because it's bad law, it's unconstitutional, and the effected citizenry rises up to disallow its enforcement. Since that last thing will never happen and the law will continue to be enforced on the citizenry, this hypocritical oligarch should burn under its provisions too.

Being nice to the enemy does nothing but set yourself up to be a victim of the enemy. Not me. Never again.

Blues

 

[wolf_fire]

As long as the law remains on the books, there's no excuse to let this hack (or the rest of 'em) off the hook. Certainly none of us whose reactions concern you would be exempted from prosecution because we are good guys, while this guy most certainly is not if for no other reason than that he advocated for SAFE to begin with.

The law should not be repealed because it caught one of their own hypocritical oligarchs, it should be repealed because it's bad law, it's unconstitutional, and the effected citizenry rises up to disallow its enforcement. Since that last thing will never happen and the law will continue to be enforced on the citizenry, this hypocritical oligarch should burn under its provisions too.

Being nice to the enemy does nothing but set yourself up to be a victim of the enemy. Not me. Never again.

Blues

While I agree with the principle behind why the law should be repealed.... should we not take the opportunity to repeal it while we have it? Or would this set bad precedent in a way that I am not seeing?

 

[BluesStringer]

While I agree with the principle behind why the law should be repealed.... should we not take the opportunity to repeal it while we have it? Or would this set bad precedent in a way that I am not seeing?

I don't see anything that prevents "us" from doing two things at once. (It's more like "them" in NYS, but I understand what you're saying.) There's no reason that repeal-advocates can't use the hypocrisy of the law as a cudgel to help get it repealed, while at the same time calling for prosecuting the hypocrite(s) who get hoisted by their own oligarchical petard to the fullest extent of their oligarchical law. I don't know what the disconnect is here, but I personally don't see the value in not demanding prosecution for this hack under the same law that any of us would be prosecuted under the exact same circumstances that got him arrested. The hypocrisy of the law is still there to wave in the rest of the oligarchy's faces, so use it to whatever advantage it might provide. Even make the repeal apply retroactively to anyone, including this hack, who was successfully prosecuted under its provisions if you want to, but there's nothing stopping the gun-rights movement from walking and chewing gum at the same time. If there is such an obstacle, I would say that would be the precedent that we wouldn't want set.

Blues

 

[BC1]

Hmmmmm.... while I'm in total agreement that this a$$hole is a lying hypocritical piece of horse hockey, my concern is for our reaction.

I see this as a means to break down the tyrannical laws of New York. If "good guy" Dwayne can carry in a school and get away with it. Maybe we should allow all "good guys" to do the same.

Wanting him to hang for something we believe no one should hang for to me is hypocritical. Use this as precedent to destroy the NY laws.

While agree with you, this lying bastard help get the restrictive laws passed, only to be bit by them. If he knew and disregarded his own law he should be thrown out. If he didn't know he's too dumb to legislate anything in which case he should quit. Jail him. That's exatly what he wanted for everyone else. What a hump. I've met some dumb bastards in my time but this guy takes the cake.

 

[mappow]

"... did not realize he had it on him when he went to the school as part of the mentoring program."

That kind of shows him to either be outright lying, or a complete idiot for not knowing he was packing.

This would be such irony if he gets convicted of the felony and....can't have guns any more.

Nor probably ever run for public office again.

 

[nogods]

There is no doubt he was and is a fool. First, his illogical support of the SAFE Act. Then his claim that he didn't know it was illegal to posses a firearm in a school, even though he spoke out in favor of making it a felony (was a misdemeanor) under state law. Then he claimed he knew the law, but forgot he had the gun. Better if he just kept his mouth shut until he saw a lawyer. He thought he could talk his way out of the problem.

But it will be interesting to see how the various parties play out in this case.

Will the state pursue the matter as aggressively as it did the illegal gun sale case against Ben Wassell?

Will Tea-NY show up to support Ferguson and protest the application of the safe act against him as they did in for Wassell? Link Removed

The NYS Attorney General presented the Wassell case to a grand jury and obtained an indictment with 5 felony counts. will the AG presrnt Ferguson's case to a grand jury?

This will either create some strange bedfellows - the AG prosecuting a SAFE Act promoter and supporter and promoter, and TEA-NY supporting a a SAFE Act promoter and supporter and promoter, or hypocrites - the AG not prosecuting a SAFE Act promoter and supporter who appears to have violated the SAFE Act, and TEA-NY not supporting a legal gun owner being prosecuted under the SAFE Act.

The other curious detail about this case is that the call to police came from outside the school. Assuming Ferguson had his weapon concealed, the person who called must have some personal knowledge that Ferguson carried a weapon when he entered the school and must have known he was at the school at that time.

That person's use of the "man with a gun" report instead of giving police the specific information, caused an unnecessary disruption of teachers, staff, children, parents, and put first responders at risks. If they knew the specific but intentionally failed to provide them, they should be prosecuted as well.

On the broader front, the case opens the never answered question of whether the 2A guarantees every person the right to possess any gun in any place at any time. Those who think it does will expect and hope for the Ferguson charges to be dismissed under the 2A.

 

[BluesStringer]

Will the state pursue the matter as aggressively as it did the illegal gun sale case against Ben Wassell?

Will Tea-NY show up to support Ferguson and protest the application of the safe act against him as they did in for Wassell? Link Removed

Good grief, I sure hope not. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting a victim of the state's denial of natural rights, and in turn hoisting on his own petard an enemy to the cause who helped to foist the law upon them. You're setting up a straw man, a false "hypocrisy," and no one should buy it for a millisecond.

The NYS Attorney General presented the Wassell case to a grand jury and obtained an indictment with 5 felony counts. will the AG presrnt Ferguson's case to a grand jury?

Wouldn't surprise me at all if he didn't, but every freedom-loving citizen of NYS should be willing to criticize such inaction at the very least, rather than trying to paint as hypocrites those who demand the equal treatment under the law of even tyranny-supporting hacks. Are you a freedom-loving citizen of NYS nogods, or just someone using your usual pretzel logic to justify calling law-abiding citizens with a more conservative bent hypocrites?

This will either create some strange bedfellows - the AG prosecuting a SAFE Act promoter and supporter and promoter, and TEA-NY supporting a a SAFE Act promoter and supporter and promoter, or hypocrites - the AG not prosecuting a SAFE Act promoter and supporter who appears to have violated the SAFE Act, and TEA-NY not supporting a legal gun owner being prosecuted under the SAFE Act.

And just who are you a bedfellow with?

The other curious detail about this case is that the call to police came from outside the school. Assuming Ferguson had his weapon concealed, the person who called must have some personal knowledge that Ferguson carried a weapon when he entered the school and must have known he was at the school at that time.

That person's use of the "man with a gun" report instead of giving police the specific information, caused an unnecessary disruption of teachers, staff, children, parents, and put first responders at risks. If they knew the specific but intentionally failed to provide them, they should be prosecuted as well.

Good grief. If you hadn't said in the past that you're retired, I might think you're just looking for a new client to milk in defense of a nothing charge. Whether they had personal knowledge that he was carrying, or just spotted a glimpse of his weapon as the wind blew his jacket open or whatever, the "specifics" consisted entirely of a MWAG, and had nothing to do with what the consequences of reporting that fact to police might be. Are you really suggesting that the person reporting it, if they did indeed have personal knowledge of both who he was and his carry status, should've said something to the effect of, "Look officer, I know this guy so don't call out the SWAT team or anything drastic like that, but he's carrying a loaded gun in the school. Just go in there and remind him that he forgot to unstrap before he went in, OK?" And that such a ridiculous request should've been followed, and that since such a ridiculous request wasn't made, that now the person making the report should be prosecuted?!?! What statute exists that would force cops to respond any differently between one way of reporting a crime in progress, and another way of reporting the same crime? It wasn't the way the crime was reported that initiated the SWAT and lock-down response, it was the fact that there was a MWAG committing a felony by being inside a school.

On the broader front, the case opens the never answered question of whether the 2A guarantees every person the right to possess any gun in any place at any time. Those who think it does will expect and hope for the Ferguson charges to be dismissed under the 2A.

Utter nonsense. The only broader front brought into question here is equal treatment under the law.

"Gun control for thou, but not for thee" doesn't work for me. If it does for you, then you are the hypocrite, not those who believe this guy should reap what he's sewn for everybody else.

Blues

 

[nogods]

Utter nonsense. The only broader front brought into question here is equal treatment under the law.

"Gun control for thou, but not for thee" doesn't work for me. If it does for you, then you are the hypocrite, not those who believe this guy should reap what he's sewn for everybody else.

Blah..blah..blah..

You apparently have no idea what a strawman argument is. But let me give you a hint - it isn't an answer to a set of results that logically flow from the factual circumstances.

More importantly, why don't you take a stab at trying to answer the 2A question? Is it it too difficult for you?

Seems rather simple. you can even add all the explanatory notes to your yes or no answer you think might help.

Do you think the 2A guarantees the right of every person to own any arm (firearm, nuclear arm, chemical arms, etc) in any place (schools, jails, prisons, private property, etc) at any time?

 

[NavyLCDR]

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Hopefully he gets his "privilege" of possessing any firearm removed for life for the felony conviction. That's what he would want if it was someone else, right?

 

[ventman]

I would wager that he will get a pass.

Curious that he didn't tell the police who had come into the school that he was packing. They didn't know he was the man with a gun until being patted down to leave.

I hope someone can keep us up to date on this.

 

[jrs]

As an advocate for the POS law called the SAFE ACT, it's great to see that he gets to eat his own cooking!!! If he really didn't "remember" that he was armed, then he has no business carrying a weapon. Carrying a deadly weapon, while a right, carries a great deal of responsibility.... a responsibility that he obviously cannot handle. So, if he forgot....he should not carry. If he knew and carried anyway....he should not carry. In either case, he should be prosecuted and his permit to carry revoked forever. I hope he enjoys his own cooking.... and hopefully he will have a lot of time to digest while he sits in the "tin can hotel" serving his term under the SAFE ACT.

 

[BluesStringer]

Blah..blah..blah..

Indeed.

More importantly, why don't you take a stab at trying to answer the 2A question? Is it it too difficult for you?

Absolutely not, it is actually quite simple for anyone who can read and do a modicum of research on their own without the din of modern, self-appointed intellectuals telling them that the Constitution is so yesterday while they're working to find the truth.

Seems rather simple. you can even add all the explanatory notes to your yes or no answer you think might help.

Gee, thanks for allowing me to include whatever I damn well please, Mr. Intellectual.

Do you think the 2A guarantees the right of every person to own any arm (firearm, nuclear arm, chemical arms, etc) in any place (schools, jails, prisons, private property, etc) at any time?

People incarcerated in jails and prisons, and on private property where the owner disallows it, no, but everywhere else that I can think of would be an unequivocal "Yes!"

Now, do I believe that the Framers also had in their minds rules of etiquette and decorum that would prevent all but the most boorish of human debris from being armed in certain places or situations? Yes, I'm sure they did, but they left that not to themselves through the abuse of authority by the federal government that they created, but to societal norms and pressures that make people act as members in good standing of society, or suffer as outcasts of the same society. Do I think that any of the Framers would have criminalized such behavior as long as no one else's rights were harmed by simply being armed in an inappropriate place or situation? Absolutely not. None of the Framers can be shown to have sanctioned criminalization of any of the rights that they either wrote, or contemplated as being a part of, the Constitution, or that were reinforced and codified for perpetuity in the Bill of Rights.

I already gave you a valid example of how Jefferson expressed in no uncertain terms that, even when they were wrong in their reasoning for waging rebellion against the state, the followers of Daniel Shays were within their rights to take up arms against it. They were not made "prohibited" persons, they used the same kinds of weapons that were in use by the military at the time, those weapons were privately owned, and Jefferson praised their spirit of revolution even while understanding that their rationale for waging it was wrong. Shays was not only not disarmed through legal trickery, he was one of the first to be given a pension by the federal government for his five years of service to the Continental Army, that service having been given before the rebellion that bears his name, and the pension coming several years after the rebellion and subsequent ratification of the Constitution and BoR. That is one clear example that demonstrates that the original intent of our federal government was to never criminalize the ownership of any weapons, military grade or otherwise.

Another clear example is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, which says:

The Congress shall have Power... 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

Now, you may (or may not) know more than me about the technicalities of how "letters of marque and reprisal" have been used over the history of the country, but generally-speaking, that clause allows Congress to hire privateers to do what a nation's navy or military would normally do. It extends the use of military force to be waged by private citizens as long as the private "army" has congressional approval. Letters of marque and reprisal were used extensively authorizing private ships and crews to battle the Barbary Pirates at the turn of the 19th Century. Then again multiple times during the Link Removed, private ships and crews were given Letters of Marque to serve the same function on the sea as the US Navy did elsewhere during the same conflict. In the link I just gave, it documents a ship of "18 guns" was being commissioned under that Letter of Marque. The ship had the guns (large cannon) before the Letter of Marque was issued. That means the guns were held in private hands both before the Letter of Marque was issued, and after it expired, and the private ownership of military grade weapons can be tracked forward from there until at least the first quarter of the 20th Century.

So absolutely yes, the private ownership of military grade weaponry was not only intended by the Framers to be protected for the citizenry of the US, but it was a common occurrence for at least half of our history as a sovereign nation.

The only things to change that stopped those common occurrences from being common were unconstitutional laws like the NFA '34, the same national "lethargy" that Jefferson spoke of when writing about Shays' Rebellion, and a bunch of traitorous oligarchs in black robes riding roughshod over the Constitution with authority that nobody but their predecessors gave themselves 100 or so years prior in Marbury v. Madison. Play all the word games you want to, but the legal private ownership of military grade weapons is awash throughout the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the provable history of this once-great nation. Everything you use to counter that statement represents either a usurpation by traitors to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or blind denial and/or dismissal of that provable history.

Again, next.

Blues

 

[SR40c]

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me... and you just can't make this chit up!!! :lol::lol::lol: