• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Armed man arrested at NC airport as Obama departs

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

SMW wrote:
I don't think anyone else has brought this up so I will: Obama was there so the place was probably crawling with secret service and any other kind of leo that could be drummed up. If secret service saw him, I don't expect that they would think about OC being legal in NC, they would only think about a man with a gun in the same area as Obama. But thats just my .02.
McVey was arrested by Asheville Airport Authority Police.

NOT the Secret Service. NOT the NC State Police. Not even Asheville City Police.

The Airport police arrested him. For not breaking ANY laws.

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I hope his lawyer is knwledgeable about 2A laws and aggressive in pursuing punitive damages against Asheville. The AAAP and the Buncombe County Prosecutor need to be made an example of in the courts for this gross infraction of 2A rights, and their egregious violation of Mr. McVey's 4A and 8A rights.

I hope this one goes to the Fed courts, as a Civil Rights violation case...
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

I'm not going to argue whether this guy should have been arrested or charged...I wasn't there, so I don't know. The facts presented through the media are clear as mud.

With that being said, who in their right mind would expect to be treated with indifference after showing up at an airport, armed, expressing their intent to see the president??

This sounds just as fishy as stepping out in front of a car in a crosswalk just so you can fake an injury and collect the insurance money. This guy is one of 3 things: down right idiotic, completely oblivious, or ballsy as hell. I'm guessing it's some combination of those.
 

RegalNC

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
79
Location
Raeford, NC Hoke County, ,
imported post

DreQo wrote:
I'm not going to argue whether this guy should have been arrested or charged...I wasn't there, so I don't know. The facts presented through the media are clear as mud.

With that being said, who in their right mind would expect to be treated with indifference after showing up at an airport, armed, expressing their intent to see the president??

This sounds just as fishy as stepping out in front of a car in a crosswalk just so you can fake an injury and collect the insurance money. This guy is one of 3 things: down right idiotic, completely oblivious, or ballsy as hell. I'm guessing it's some combination of those.

I concur!

IMHO this was a poor choice of a location to excise one's rights. No regard to situational awareness?I hope he enjoy's his Free Vacation.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Adam H wrote:
According to the NC Supreme Court, a firearm is an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purposes of GATTTOTP. It doesn't matter that we don't think it is. Case law trumps our opinions any day of the week.

State v Huntley:
It has been remarked that a double-barrel gun, or any other gun, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements[sic]--as a part of his dress--and never, we trust, will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace-loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment
Far be it from me to contradict a justice, but the failed premise to the quoted argument militates for revisiting the decision.

"No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accouterments--as a part of his dress--and never, we trust, will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace-loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment."

That the premise is cast as a universal quantification requires only a single counter example for it to be falsified. I always wear a holster and fill it when the gun will not be illegal or a matter of controversy.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
That the premise is cast as a universal quantification requires only a single counter example for it to be falsified. I always wear a holster and fill it when the gun will not be illegal or a matter of controversy.
It was cast as a universal aspersion to gun-owners and gun carriers.

It is only a controversy when some panty-waist limp-wristed liberal gets their britches in a bunch because they can't fathom anyone else taking lawful responsibility for their own safety and defense.

It is beyond them. And, because as liberals are prone, if they aren't comfortable with it then they don't want anyone to be comfortable with it.

That a "court order" calls a gun an "unusual" weapon also fails because it creates two classes of people. Those who can carry a firearm and have it NOT be an unusual and dangerous weapon (police) and those who cannot (citizens).

For the test to pass, the same criteria must be applied to all guns, not just those in the hands of certain individuals.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

Wylde - I think at this point in time it still meets the unusual criteria. It is not currently "usual" for someone to carry a sidearm. Police are "unusual" in many respects also - it is not "usual" for an average person to wear a police uniform or have a light bar on their vehicle.

There are many things that are "unusual" that aren't necessarily bad or good, just not the norm. I would say that it's unusual to see a lawyer with a nose piercing. That doesn't make it illegal, bad or otherwise, just not usual.

We are not to a point yet where a sidearm is a usual thing. It meets both parts of the test both in case law and in reasonable application in my opinion. Do I want it to be unusual? No, I do not, but at this point in time it is.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
We are not to a point yet where a sidearm is a usual thing. It meets both parts of the test both in case law and in reasonable application in my opinion. Do I want it to be unusual? No, I do not, but at this point in time it is.
That may be your experience, but it is not mine.

I hope to do my part to aid my second-favorite state's status as recognizing a sovereign right to be NOT unusual.

Part of my argument is that police officers are not unusual. The equipment they carry is not unusual. Something cannot be "usual" in one instance but not in another. It does not magically become unusual because a normal citizen is carrying it.

If that is a perception you have witnessed or understand to be prevalent in North Carolina, then I pledge to do what I can to aid in overturning it.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

I think we're both working toward the same goal. I also think we'll not agree on what is unusual. I believe that something can be entirely usual on one person or in one circumstance and completely unusual on or in another. My nose piercing example stands - it would be unusual to see an attorney with one, but would you be surprised to see one at a Marilyn Manson concert? Additionally, it would probably be unusual to see a guy carrying a brief case and wearing a suit at said concert. Neither style is universally unusual or usual, their "usual-ness" is circumstantial.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
Neither style is universally unusual or usual, their "usual-ness" is circumstantial.
With this I can somewhat agree.

You are applying a contextual argument. The object is not in-and-of itself unusual, rather the manner in which it is displayed and by whom.

That, however, is a form of prejudice from my perspective. It is for a similar reason that we in Virginia are trying to get the General Assembly to stop recognizing certain law enforcement and commonwealths attorneys as a special class of people, with special exemptions under law that the rest of the citizenry does not enjoy simply because of their station.

That violates the very fundamental principles of a Constitutional republic.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

We agree on this also. I would like to see NC adopt a legitimate brandishing law and forever abolish our foolish common law with no application.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

"Unusual" is the wrong term for any holstered firearm. "Uncommon" may apply.



"It is not unusual to have a firearm in a holster. But, it might be uncommon to see someone in public with a firearm in a holster."



It seems that media and LE desire to have it fit the term "unusual" to make it into "scarry-carry."
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

The NCGA rejected all British Common Law in 1838. Somehow we still have this common law offense, however. There is no need for a common law of this nature if we have a purpose-written law that supersedes it.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Apologies. In my haste I have somehow mentally substituted "common" with "natural" law.

I was comparing apples and hand grenades. :lol:
 

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
imported post

Ohio sheriff pulls gun permit of man in NC arrest


By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) –– An Ohio sheriff suspended the concealed weapons permit of an armed man who authorities say told them he wanted to see the president in North Carolina, and a report given to The Associated Press said the sheriff's office recently lectured the man about proper gun handling.

Coshocton County Sheriff Tim Rogers cited Joseph Sean McVey's arrest Sunday for the permit suspension. He described his action as a suspension pending the outcome of the North Carolina investigation.

McVey had a handgun at his side when he was spotted by police in an Asheville Regional Airport parking lot Sunday just after Air Force One departed, police said. His car was loaded with police equipment, including a siren and lights, and had a note with formulas used for firing a rifle with a scope, authorities said.

McVey, whose mother lives in Asheville, was being held Tuesday under a $100,000 secured bond on a misdemeanor charge of going armed in terror of the public. Rogers sent the letter to McVey at the Buncombe County, N.C., jail Monday

The suspension was not the first time the sheriff's department had contact with McVey about his handling of a gun. A sheriff's office report released to the AP said deputies questioned McVey in January.

McVey, a member of a volunteer group that helps police and firefighters, stopped to see if a couple who had pulled to the side of the road needed help, according to the report.

After a man at the scene refused to respond, McVey went back to his car, retrieved a .40-caliber handgun and placed it in his holster so that it was visible, the report said. He walked back to the car, where the man was talking to the woman through her window, the report said.

"I asked if there had been a wreck or what had happened. He swore at me and came towards me," the report quotes McVey as saying.

McVey said he stepped back, called a dispatcher on the radio, explained the situation and was told he could go.

Shortly after McVey left the scene, sheriff's deputies pulled him over at gunpoint until the situation could be sorted out, the report said.

McVey was not arrested but was lectured on the proper way to handle a gun in a car, according to the report. Rogers said Tuesday it was the deputies' choice not to arrest him.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEpwdPejLaKoqw58yCNINMHY16KgD9FBHRNO0
 

RegalNC

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
79
Location
Raeford, NC Hoke County, ,
imported post

DrMark wrote:
Ohio sheriff pulls gun permit of man in NC arrest


The suspension was not the first time the sheriff's department had contact with McVey about his handling of a gun. A sheriff's office report released to the AP said deputies questioned McVey in January.

McVey, a member of a volunteer group that helps police and firefighters, stopped to see if a couple who had pulled to the side of the road needed help, according to the report.

After a man at the scene refused to respond, McVey went back to his car, retrieved a .40-caliber handgun and placed it in his holster so that it was visible, the report said. He walked back to the car, where the man was talking to the woman through her window, the report said.

"I asked if there had been a wreck or what had happened. He swore at me and came towards me," the report quotes McVey as saying.

McVey said he stepped back, called a dispatcher on the radio, explained the situation and was told he could go.

Shortly after McVey left the scene, sheriff's deputies pulled him over at gunpoint until the situation could be sorted out, the report said.

McVey was not arrested but was lectured on the proper way to handle a gun in a car, according to the report. Rogers said Tuesday it was the deputies' choice not to arrest him.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEpwdPejLaKoqw58yCNINMHY16KgD9FBHRNO0

AHHHHHHHA!

The plot thickens.
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

I wonder if he'll be OC'n all the time now that his permit is pulled or will he just not carry? I think it's more of a reason to OC. I hope he got names and nails them to the wall.
 

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
imported post

I still have lights and sirens on my car. I still have a gun on my hip. I also have a 911 Dispatch radio, and I still have a gun on my hip. Which item must I remove to be legal, I am confused. I need the radio to get told where the fires are. I need the lights and siren to get there safer, and I need the gun because our politicians don't seem to understand there is a special place where career criminals belong.

I got a feeling I wouldn't agree with McVey on alot of things, especially that traffic stop, but that doesn't mean he did anything illegal. Guess now that the facts are out, I am a bit confused as to why he was actually arrested.
 
Top