• 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

C

CarryOpen

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

I'm confused about the $100,000 bond on a misdemeanor. The media is making this out to be something that it is not. It sounds to me like an open carrier wanted a look at the president. Until I hear otherwise, this is what I am going to assume.
 
M

murf26

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
62
Location
Spruce Pine, North Carolina, USA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
I'm confused about the $100,000 bond on a misdemeanor. The media is making this out to be something that it is not. It sounds to me like an open carrier wanted a look at the president. Until I hear otherwise, this is what I am going to assume.
Click to expand...

I think the airport authority wanted to look good for the Secret Service so they posted this unbelievable bond amount. I've never heard such a high amount for a misdemeanor. I checked Ohio's regs...they said you had to have a concealed carry permit to open carry in a car. It didn't say anything about open carry on the individual.

This is not going to put the airport police ninjas in a good light as far as I'm concerned. I think they jumped to conclusions too early. How would they have reacted had their been a felony conviction. Bet they don't get much excitement there so when they do, they resort to the "BIG GUNS"!
 
F

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

northofnowhere wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

It depends on the local law of the area of the traffic stop. I think you missed this part:
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.
Click to expand...
It sounds like he was for some reason OCing an empty holster at the beginning of the stop. In any case, his actions ofhandling a gun in public and making sure it could be seen, sound like a sort of passive-aggressive threat.
 
wylde007

wylde007

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

The man did not respond to him and there was a woman in the vehicle. Perhaps he armed himself in the instance that the man was not necessarily well-meaning?
 
C

CarryOpen

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

I thought the same thing when I saw that the man was talking through the window. Someone has a car stopped, talking through the window and refuses to respond to another offering assistance. Perhaps he disarmed himself at first because he didn't want to alarm the motorists and rearmed himself when the man seemed to have some il-intent.
 
W

wrightme

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

CarryOpen wrote:
I thought the same thing when I saw that the man was talking through the window. Someone has a car stopped, talking through the window and refuses to respond to another offering assistance. Perhaps he disarmed himself at first because he didn't want to alarm the motorists and rearmed himself when the man seemed to have some il-intent.
Click to expand...
If the indication upon first contact was that assistance was not desired, contact should have ended. It appears that contact did not end.
 
C

CarryOpen

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

What if there was no clear indication as to whether the female driver was being hurt or helped by the other individual? Still just time to drive off?
 
W

wrightme

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

CarryOpen wrote:
What if there was no clear indication as to whether the female driver was being hurt or helped by the other individual? Still just time to drive off?
Click to expand...

Yes. Unless there is clear duress. Remember that he is approaching as a civilian.

Drive away, call LE if you are suspicious.
 
C

CarryOpen

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

From my reading, he did report to LE and then leave. I see no problem with the events outlined without further information. If I feel that another may be under duress I may choose to wait until the police arrive. We all have personal limits, but if I didn't feel right about this situation, I wouldn't have left until LE was on the scene. The other man in question had every right not to answer, but McVey also seems to have had every right to remain there until he was satisfied that no one was in trouble.
 
N

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
imported post

First, I gotta ask, can anyone give me an example of a "usual and non-dangerous" weapon. I'd like to be so armed when passing through NC to avoid trouble with the authorities. ;)

Next, with all sincere deference and support to the 2A and OC, you've got to be a little off to walk up to an LEO wearing a sidearm and ask to see the President.
 
C

CarryOpen

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

I didn't see anywhere that he approached an LEO or that he asked to see the president. My understanding is that he was there to "see" (as in get a look at) the president and that he was approached by LEOs because he had a sidearm.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,948
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
I didn't see anywhere that he approached an LEO or that he asked to see the president. My understanding is that he was there to "see" (as in get a look at) the president and that he was approached by LEOs because he had a sidearm.
Click to expand...
That is how I read it as well.
 
S

SMW

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Oakboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
I didn't see anywhere that he approached an LEO or that he asked to see the president.  My understanding is that he was there to "see" (as in get a look at) the president and that he was approached by LEOs because he had a sidearm.
Click to expand...

That was my impression of the situation as well.
 
N

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
I didn't see anywhere that he approached an LEO or that he asked to see the president. My understanding is that he was there to "see" (as in get a look at) the president and that he was approached by LEOs because he had a sidearm.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa. Still, exactly how far did he expect to get towards seeing our Commander-in-Chief while carrying a firearm? These days, even shoes are anti-presidential weapons!
 
C

CarryOpen

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

If seeing means getting a glimpse I don't see where there would be a problem. There have been armed protesters close to him.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,948
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Neo wrote:
CarryOpen wrote:
I didn't see anywhere that he approached an LEO or that he asked to see the president. My understanding is that he was there to "see" (as in get a look at) the president and that he was approached by LEOs because he had a sidearm.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa. Still, exactly how far did he expect to get towards seeing our Commander-in-Chief while carrying a firearm? These days, even shoes are anti-presidential weapons!
Click to expand...
I got fairly close while OCing and protesting when he came to Norfolk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top