Cops stop former teacher from murderous rampage

[HumblePie]

What they needed to do instead was protect us from the drive-by media.

He was arrested. What happens next? Who cares! You're outraged, you don't care about any follow-up. And tomorrow will be a completely new half-story to be outraged over!

In other words, let's actually see what the punishment is before spreading sensationalized outrage-inducing stories about what the punishment might be.

Being arrested in an of itself IS a form of punishment even if nothing else comes from it. If you have a hard time imagining why being dragged out of your home in handcuffs in public wouldn't be a humiliating punishment in and of itself....

Yay for the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms shall not be infringed... except of course unless you are driving in New Jersey with a antique collectable only flintlock pistol in your car. That last part was in the Constitution right?

I really hope he challenges this all the way up because the law is not Constitutional.

 

[rudeguy]

Being arrested in an of itself IS a form of punishment even if nothing else comes from it. If you have a hard time imagining why being dragged out of your home in handcuffs in public wouldn't be a humiliating punishment in and of itself....

Yay for the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms shall not be infringed... except of course unless you are driving in New Jersey with a antique collectable only flintlock pistol in your car. That last part was in the Constitution right?

I really hope he challenges this all the way up because the law is not Constitutional.

Violating a state gun law is not Constitutional?

He didn't take 30 seconds to look up proper storage and transportation of a firearm. If he can't be bothered to know the laws, he doesn't need to own a firearm.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Violating a state gun law is not Constitutional?

He didn't take 30 seconds to look up proper storage and transportation of a firearm. If he can't be bothered to know the laws, he doesn't need to own a firearm.

There's a law back in my old home town, that states you cannot be seen in public with anyone that looks like you. (brown, with tats)
Maybe old people just don't realize how far we've come.

 

[rudeguy]

There's a law back in my old home town, that states you cannot be seen in public with anyone that looks like you. (brown, with tats)

Which is not anywhere close to a state law on the transportation of firearms.

If the guy had put the thing in a case, there would be no issue. Humble ranting on like its some travesty of justice as just absurd. This is a standard law in many states. It is actually a good law since if you follow it, a kid won't be able to grab your gun out of the glove box and shoot someone.

I'm 120% pro gun rights. I'm 150% anti moron.

 

[HumblePie]

Violating a state gun law is not Constitutional?

He didn't take 30 seconds to look up proper storage and transportation of a firearm. If he can't be bothered to know the laws, he doesn't need to own a firearm.

Many laws are passed by states that are never challenged on their Constitutionality. If they aren't challenged, they don't always get deemed as un-Constitutional until they are challenged. Thus they stay on the law books. Many recent gun laws, that were enforced laws in places like Illinois and DC, had people arrested on un Constitutional laws. It wasn't until they person arrested decided to fight back and appeal the law all the way up that the law was struck down. No different than some of the gay marriage ban laws going on now. Do you not really know how our system of governance works in this country?

The guy broke a state law that really is an un Constitutional law. I am hoping he challenges it up to have it struck down. Most don't because of the financial burden, effort, and time involved in doing so which I can at least sympathize with to a degree.

 

[DrPizza]

He may be able to skate on a technicality then; most flintlock pistols use >= .50 inch bullets.

You'd be hard pressed to find a < .40 inch bore on a genuine antique pistol.


... though I can't imagine it's a valid loophole in NJ law; otherwise any pistol of .38 caliber or greater would be legal to carry =\

Hey! you can't carry that BB gun! Take a sensible firearm; like this Desert Eagle.


In either case. Never consent to a search. EVER.

...Otherwise it is a crime of the second degree.
Are you saying that getting charged with a more serious crime is "getting off on a technicality"?

 

[rudeguy]

Many laws are passed by states that are never challenged on their Constitutionality. If they aren't challenged, they don't always get deemed as un-Constitutional until they are challenged. Thus they stay on the law books. Many recent gun laws, that were enforced laws in places like Illinois and DC, had people arrested on un Constitutional laws. It wasn't until they person arrested decided to fight back and appeal the law all the way up that the law was struck down. No different than some of the gay marriage ban laws going on now. Do you not really know how our system of governance works in this country?

The guy broke a state law that really is an un Constitutional law. I am hoping he challenges it up to have it struck down. Most don't because of the financial burden, effort, and time involved in doing so which I can at least sympathize with to a degree.

What law is that? And how is it unconstitutional?

 

[Zargon]

Violating a state gun law is not Constitutional?

He didn't take 30 seconds to look up proper storage and transportation of a firearm. If he can't be bothered to know the laws, he doesn't need to own a firearm.

its a 200+ year old flitlock pistol that shoots balls.

I would be more scared of a legit slingshot.

in most states, the glove box is considered an appropriate place to store a firearm for transport, by the way.

he probably doesn't even consider it a real firearm since he collects antiques

What law is that? And how is it unconstitutional?

do you mean besides the obviousness that his right to bear arms is being heavily infringed...?

 

[rudeguy]

its a 200+ year old flitlock pistol that shoots balls.

I would be more scared of a legit slingshot.

in most states, the glove box is considered an appropriate place to store a firearm for transport, by the way.

he probably doesn't even consider it a real firearm since he collects antiques



do you mean besides the obviousness that his right to bear arms is being heavily infringed...?

I have zero problems with forcing idiots to store their firearms safely.

If the issue here is that its a relic gun, well they are treated as regular guns. Feel free to try to amend the laws however you want but its still a gun. My point is the guy didn't follow the law. I don't see where anyone can possibly find any outrage here. The right to bear arms was not infringed.

 

[Zargon]

I have zero problems with forcing idiots to store their firearms safely.

If the issue here is that its a relic gun, well they are treated as regular guns. Feel free to try to amend the laws however you want but its still a gun. My point is the guy didn't follow the law. I don't see where anyone can possibly find any outrage here. The right to bear arms was not infringed.

its stupid that they are

maybe he will get lucky and it will be missing one of the important pieces and be considered 'broken down'

ever heard of the difference between the 'spirit of the law, and the letter of the law'?

he seemingly isn't breaking the spirit of the law

 

[rudeguy]

its stupid that they are

maybe he will get lucky and it will be missing one of the important pieces and be considered 'broken down'

ever heard of the difference between the 'spirit of the law, and the letter of the law'?

he seemingly isn't breaking the spirit of the law

I don't know. I think the spirit of the law is to not have firearms in where people riding in the car can access them.

The idiot wouldn't be in this mess if he had the thing in a case. If its a 300 year old antique, why the hell wasn't it in a case?

In case you haven't noticed from my posting history, I'm a gun nut. But I'm an even bigger safety nut. You follow the laws, you follow the safety rules and you will be protected from things like this. Its just that simple.

 

[moonbogg]

I consented to a vehicle search once. I was trying to be nice and respectful and cooperative. They emptied my glove box and left the shit all over the seat and didn't put anything back. They left ID cards, credit cards and just shit spread all over. Never doing that again. Fuck them because they don't give a shit about you or your stuff.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Watch the video. He explains what happened to him.

In this case, the officer threatened to call in a search dog if he did not consent.

My point remains. If I'm stopped they can bring their damn dog if they wish, or threaten me with whatever they can think of. I'm polite as can be during police interactions, and will answer any questions they have until I suspect that is has turned from casual interaction into suspicion, at which point my cooperation will cease, regardless of whether I have something to hide. Hell, any time I watch cops it boggles my mind how many people that actually have contraband on them will submit to a search. Local high schools in areas known for police harassment and stereotyping should consider a brief course to educate their students on what their rights are when interacting from police.

 

[z1ggy]

In some states you can't have a firearm in the passenger compartment. This is NJ, so I assume having a 300 year old unloaded gun in the passenger compartment has the same punishment as killing 42 people.

I'm surprised he wasn't beaten down, tazed and maced on the spot. Dirty felon needs to ROT!
/s

 

[sao123]

You don't even know what the word "reputable" means, and I'm the moron?



Seriously, do you read this crap all day looking for something retarded enough to post here and add to your reputation? You need help man.

You must be looking for this then...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/flintlock-from-1700s-could-land-elderly-nj-man-in-prison/

much obliged!

 

[Blanky]

If the guy had put the thing in a case, there would be no issue.

NJ requires a permit. I don't think he had one.

 

[Paul98]

Just as stupid as all these drug and other laws we have, you end up putting people in jail for stupid things.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I have zero problems with forcing idiots to store their firearms safely.

Was the gun loaded and able to fire? How is he an idiot or how is it stored unsafely if there is zero chance it could be used in anger or in an accident? Are you worried that someone might break into his car, that they might have a flintlock bullet, and that the pistol is the last thing they are missing to become an armed and dangerous maniac? When calling someone an unsafe idiot, I think it's important to be able to articulate the unsafe thing that could happen as a result of their unsafe actions. In this case, we cannot.

If the issue here is that its a relic gun, well they are treated as regular guns. Feel free to try to amend the laws however you want but its still a gun. My point is the guy didn't follow the law. I don't see where anyone can possibly find any outrage here. The right to bear arms was not infringed.

I don't buy the whole "the law's the law" argument. It's a stupid law, and as a tax payer I don't want to pay $50,000 per year to keep this guy in jail. I don't want to pay for his trial. I don't want to pay for his welfare after he gets out of jail. I don't want to pay for his family's welfare while he is in jail. I don't want to see his life ruined over this incident. Why in the fuck would anybody be pro-ruining this guy's life because of something as asinine as "the law's the law, son." We're more intellectually capable than that.

 

[rudeguy]

Was the gun loaded and able to fire? How is he an idiot or how is it stored unsafely if there is zero chance it could be used in anger or in an accident? Are you worried that someone might break into his car, that they might have a flintlock bullet, and that the pistol is the last thing they are missing to become an armed and dangerous maniac? When calling someone an unsafe idiot, I think it's important to be able to articulate the unsafe thing that could happen as a result of their unsafe actions. In this case, we cannot.



I don't buy the whole "the law's the law" argument. It's a stupid law, and as a tax payer I don't want to pay $50,000 per year to keep this guy in jail. I don't want to pay for his trial. I don't want to pay for his welfare after he gets out of jail. I don't want to pay for his family's welfare while he is in jail. I don't want to see his life ruined over this incident. Why in the fuck would anybody be pro-ruining this guy's life because of something as asinine as "the law's the law, son." We're more intellectually capable than that.

I don't disagree with any of what you are saying. But the problem is people are morons and sometimes we make laws to protect the rest of society from them. Is it stupid to treat this the same as if the gun was a Glock? Yea. Is it the right thing to do? Well its making people aware that you can't keep a gun in your glove box. Should the law treat these guns different than modern guns? I don't know.

All this guy had to do was check the law. I do it on a regular basis if I have even a bit of doubt. If we don't follow the law, we are criminals.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I don't disagree with any of what you are saying. But the problem is people are morons and sometimes we make laws to protect the rest of society from them. Is it stupid to treat this the same as if the gun was a Glock? Yea. Is it the right thing to do? Well its making people aware that you can't keep a gun in your glove box. Should the law treat these guns different than modern guns? I don't know.

All this guy had to do was check the law. I do it on a regular basis if I have even a bit of doubt. If we don't follow the law, we are criminals.

That's a well thought out response, thanks. I guess the long term solution is to get rid of the stupid law. If we have to pass laws for morons that must also apply to non-morons, then we need to think the law through more thoroughly.

I have to stand by my rejection of your calling him an idiot and labeling his actions as dangerous. They weren't dangerous and he's not necessarily an idiot for those actions.

And I have to reject the "if we don't follow the law, we are criminals" point of view, because that could be used to justify requiring Jews to wear gold stars. Yeah, yeah, Godwin. Whatever, it's true and applicable. If a law is unjust, we should spend more time getting it repealed than enforcing it and calling the breakers of the unjust law stupid and criminal. Up and down the chain, every actor decided that we should ruin this man's last few precious years of life. The cops decided it, the DA, and probably a judge and jury. Fuck those guys.

 

[rudeguy]

That's a well thought out response, thanks. I guess the long term solution is to get rid of the stupid law. If we have to pass laws for morons that must also apply to non-morons, then we need to think the law through more thoroughly.

I have to stand by my rejection of your calling him an idiot and labeling his actions as dangerous. They weren't dangerous and he's not necessarily an idiot for those actions.

And I have to reject the "if we don't follow the law, we are criminals" point of view, because that could be used to justify requiring Jews to wear gold stars. Yeah, yeah, Godwin. Whatever, it's true and applicable. If a law is unjust, we should spend more time getting it repealed than enforcing it and calling the breakers of the unjust law stupid and criminal. Up and down the chain, every actor decided that we should ruin this man's last few precious years of life. The cops decided it, the DA, and probably a judge and jury. Fuck those guys.

Well said.

This is one of those cases that comes up that there are a thousand ways to look at it from. My feathers got ruffled when humble said the constitution was being violated. I don't see that at all. I don't think this guy deserves jail time but I also don't think we can ignore a law because we don't like it. But is a gun like that really the type of gun the law's are meant for?

Way too many questions on this one. Way too many ways of looking at the situation. But we for sure can't say anything about this violated the second amendment. Save that for when it's true.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Well said.

This is one of those cases that comes up that there are a thousand ways to look at it from. My feathers got ruffled when humble said the constitution was being violated. I don't see that at all. I don't think this guy deserves jail time but I also don't think we can ignore a law because we don't like it. But is a gun like that really the type of gun the law's are meant for?

Way too many questions on this one. Way too many ways of looking at the situation. But we for sure can't say anything about this violated the second amendment. Save that for when it's true.

It's great to see an open mind on this issue. I agree that in theory we can't ignore laws that we don't like. However, in practice it happens all the time. Take for instance, "professional courtesy" that cops provide each other. Technically, the law says that when the cop pulls someone over for speeding, that person gets a ticket. In practice, if the person pulled over is discovered to be a fellow cop, then they will never get a ticket. Cops are allowed to use their discretion. That's what I'm calling for here as a short term solution. Use discretion. Don't ruin a life over a flintlock pistol. The DA doesn't have to pursue a conviction. Warn the guy and be on with life. Sure, in the long term, we need to change the stupid law.

 

[bradley]

You must be looking for this then...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/flintlock-from-1700s-could-land-elderly-nj-man-in-prison/

much obliged!

I'm having no problem find the story on several fairly reputable sites dated from two days ago: Washington Times, Daily News, Daily Mail.

Man, 72, faces 10 years in prison for antique pistol: ‘Beware of New Jersey’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/17/gordon-van-gilder-72-faces-10-years-in-prison-for-/

And yeah, a state creating laws doesn't mean their Constitutionality cannot be challenged in a higher court.

 

[PlanetJosh]

I hope they don't prosecute him and just drop the charges. Think of the possible anarchy that could cause. A conservative Jersey politician could simply store an antique pistol that is fully functioning (capable of deadly results) in his car and brag about. And if police even hint at arresting him he could go to a pre arranged refuge in a state building protected by supporters some of which could be sympathetic law enforcement officers.

And he could say he won't surrender unless the elderly teacher is re-arrested and charged. Which would put the legal system over a barrel. In effect it would be a rebellion. Of course because of this it's not likely the Jersey authorities are going to drop the charges. They could just give him probation, as long as the guilty verdict remains.

 

[rudeguy]

It's great to see an open mind on this issue. I agree that in theory we can't ignore laws that we don't like. However, in practice it happens all the time. Take for instance, "professional courtesy" that cops provide each other. Technically, the law says that when the cop pulls someone over for speeding, that person gets a ticket. In practice, if the person pulled over is discovered to be a fellow cop, then they will never get a ticket. Cops are allowed to use their discretion. That's what I'm calling for here as a short term solution. Use discretion. Don't ruin a life over a flintlock pistol. The DA doesn't have to pursue a conviction. Warn the guy and be on with life. Sure, in the long term, we need to change the stupid law.

I'm actually hoping the DA uses prosecutorial discretion and drops the charges. But you have to remember that the cops didn't arrest this guy at first. They let him go and gave it to the DA (or PA) to decide what to do.