Senator arrested outside Ferguson PD

[SunsetBengal]

http://endingthefed.com/us-anti-gun-senator-jamilah-nasheed-arrested-with-a-loaded-gun-extra-clips-and-drunk-in-ferguson.html

Quote:Guess who got arrested Monday night after she refused to get up off the ground out in the middle of the road in front of the Ferguson Police Department?

And not only arrested, but arrested while her breath reportedly reeked of alcohol and she just so happened to be carrying a fully loaded 9mm with extra ammo?

Why none other than Anti-gun Missouri Senator Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis), who has herself sponsored multiple gun control bills.

“It was a symbolic arrest – sending a message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown, but we don’t want it in vain,” Nasheed said outside the jail Tuesday morning.

Here she is below chanting in the street in protest of the Michael Brown shooting — which the autopsy has now revealed happened after Brown went for Police Officer Darren Wilson’s gun — prior to her arrest. Police gave the Senator and her companion numerous warnings to get out of the street and back on the sidewalk before they arrested her but she refused to budge.

So the Senator’s message to Ferguson protesters on how to protest “peacefully” involves what police describe as “intoxicants,” carrying a loaded gun, and kneeling in front of traffic in the middle of a busy street and refusing to move?

The Senator told KMOV4 that she has a concealed carry permit, yet police seized her gun and the rounds upon her arrest. When KMOV4 asked Ferguson Police Officer Tim Zoll why the gun was taken if Nasheed had a permit, Zoll replied, “If she had a concealed carry permit, I’m sure she would have shown it to the officers.”

Gotta love how those Gun Control proponents live by a double standard.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 03:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: http://endingthefed.com/us-anti-gun-senator-jamilah-nasheed-arrested-with-a-loaded-gun-extra-clips-and-drunk-in-ferguson.html



Gotta love how those Gun Control proponents live by a double standard.

Does "gun control" = "no one can have guns ever"?  Or did I miss something over the weekend?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-28-2016, 03:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Does "gun control" = "no one can have guns ever"?  Or did I miss something over the weekend?

You don't see the irony that a Senator, who has introduced anti-gun legislation, would be arrested for not following an order to disperse, and being found to have a loaded hand gun with several extra loaded magazines?

[GMDino]

Here she is in 2013:

https://www.mdn.org/2013/STORIES/GUNED.HTM

Quote:JEFFERSON CITY - With just weeks left in the year's legislative session, Republican lawmakers in both chambers pushed forward more gun legislation Thursday, over the vocal objections of Democrats who say the focus of gun debates should be on preventing violent crime.


The state House voted 123-34 to pass a measure that would allow school teachers to carry concealed weapons in their classroom and act as "school protection officers." Republican supporters said during debate that those teachers could protect students from a school shooting like the one that killed 26 people in Newtown, Conn. in December.

But Democrats, led by Rep. Stacey Newman, said that putting guns in classrooms would be a dangerous practice. Newman, D-St. Louis County, said
Republicans were backing the bill as a means of expanding firearm usage to support gun manufacturers. She said lawmakers should be doing more to prevent gun deaths in the urban areas of the state, many of which she said are inner-city children. 

"And we think it's funny. We think it's all about being powerful, it's all about our 'rights', but the rights of those kids are ignored," Newman said.

The House passed the measure after about an hour of contentious debate between Newman and several GOP lawmakers. Republicans like Rep. Wanda Brown made the case that the absence of guns in school actually leave children more vulnerable because there is little a teacher can do to respond to an armed intruder.

"People like you have fought for years to make those gun-free schools zones and look what happened, " Brown said to Newman. "So if you want to talk about shameful, maybe you need to look in the mirror."

In the Senate, the General Laws Committee voted 3-1 along party lines to move forward a bill that would lower the age limit for getting a conceal and carry permit from 21 to 19. That idea is part of a bill that would also make it a felony for any state official to enforce federal gun laws.

Sponsoring Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, said the provisions on federal gun laws are not merely symbolic. He said that he fears that Congressional Democrats will move to expand federal health care laws to include gun control measures in light of the Newtown shootings. He said he wants to stop those additional laws from being enforced in Missouri.

"For a calculated president to pass legislation through Congress and really shove it down the American citizens throat and then to tie in gun control--that's deplorable," said Guernsey, R-Bethany.

St. Louis Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, said gun laws have a more negative impact on urban areas like St. Louis than they do on rural areas.

"They way we deal with guns in the inner city is totally different from the way those individuals deal with guns in rural areas," Nasheed said. "They like to hunt animals. We have criminals that like to hunt people," Nasheed said.


Nasheed added that she owns a gun and has a conceal and carry permit herself. Nasheed said she does not have much of a problem with this specific bill, but she thinks the state legislature is wasting too much time and effort on gun laws.


"We've been dealing with guns all session, and we have more pressing issues like the budget and Medicaid expansion," Nasheed said. "We have the opportunity to receive millions of dollars of federal money (for Medicaid) for three years at no cost to the state, and we're saying to our constituents no?
And then we want to talk about guns all day long? I don't think so." 

Guernsey said the importance of the bill is to protect the sanctity of the U.S. constitution.

"We have guaranteed in the constitutional a right to bear arms, and if you believe one part of the constitution you have to believe all of it," Guernsey said. "It seems like in this day and age, people want to believe the constitution is a suggestion if anything, and the fact of the matter is we have a tenth ammendment right to preserve all of our constitutional rights when the federal government steps out of bounds which is exactly what we are seeing in Washington these days."

That bill is now headed to the Senate floor and can be sent to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon with a single vote if senators don't make any changes. The bill aimed at arming school teachers must work its way through the Senate committee process and get a vote of the full Senate before it can go to the governor. Lawmakers' actions on the two bills come as time is running short in their regular spring legislative session, which ends May 17. 

Nixon himself has largely been absent from the debate on gun rights measures, in contrast to governors in other states like Connecticut, where the governor had a strong hand in the passage of more stringent gun control measures. Missouri's governor has spent most of the session barnstorming the state to try to generate support for an expansion of the state's Medicaid program, an idea that has been voted down several times and that Republican lawmakers declared "dead" late last month. 

But then I saw another story from 2014 where MO had a bill voiding all federal firearm laws and threatened federal officers if they tried to enforce them.

So there's a whole bowl full of crazy there just waiting to be baked.

Oh, and the NRA opposed that last bill...because they said there was a $1000 fine if a gun owner did not report a weapon stolen within 72 hours.  They thought it was too arbitrary of a time frame.  

Quote:“Those who are unable to report a lost or stolen firearm within this arbitrary amount of time, would be subject to penalties including: a $1,000 fine, Class A misdemeanor and the loss of their Right to Carry Permit.”

And the amendment (proposed by Nasheed) didn't include any fine at all.  

Politics!

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 03:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You don't see the irony that a Senator, who has introduced anti-gun legislation, would be arrested for not following an order to disperse, and being found to have a loaded hand gun with several extra loaded magazines?

No.  Not unless she proposed outlawing the things she was doing.

Otherwise it just sensationalism.

[BigPapaKain]

An elected official is a hypocrite and has been caught thus?

Shock and awe.

[Rotobeast]

Alcohol and firearms DO NOT mix.
I do not know the state's laws regarding consumption or limits and I'm on my phone, so navigating to find out may be difficult.
However....if she broke the law, roast her.
If she was within limitations, then she was within her rights to carry.
Regardless, she should cooperate with law enforcement.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2016, 04:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Alcohol and firearms DO NOT mix.

But she had a permit.

I must really be out of the loop as the OP asks Why they took her gun when they arrested her. Is it common practice to allow folks to keep their weapons when they are arrested?

[Rotobeast]

(06-28-2016, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But she had a permit.

I must really be out of the loop as the OP asks Why they took her gun when they arrested her. Is it common practice to allow folks to keep their weapons when they are arrested?

Nope.
I believe that in most states they can keep it for 24 hrs, if they ask for or take it from an individual, even without the person commiting a violation.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-28-2016, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But she had a permit.

I must really be out of the loop as the OP asks Why they took her gun when they arrested her. Is it common practice to allow folks to keep their weapons when they are arrested?

I don't remember asking that..  However, the answer seems pretty obvious, once you read the part about reeking of alcohol...

[SunsetBengal]

(06-28-2016, 03:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.  Not unless she proposed outlawing the things she was doing.

Otherwise it just sensationalism.

Yes, oh yes.  And, let's not forget Leland Yee..

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 06:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't remember asking that..  However, the answer seems pretty obvious, once you read the part about reeking of alcohol...

Quote:...while her breath reportedly reeked of alcohol...

 ...is not the same as being drunk.  Or really even her really reeking of alcohol.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, oh yes.  And, let's not forget Leland Yee..

Okay, but he's not her.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-28-2016, 09:43 PM)GMDino Wrote:  ...is not the same as being drunk.  Or really even her really reeking of alcohol.

Isn't it, now?

(06-28-2016, 09:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay, but he's not her.

But, it follows along with the narrative of liberal politicians that appear to be anti gun being the opposite.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2016, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Isn't it, now?


But, it follows along with the narrative of liberal politicians that appear to be anti gun being the opposite.

To me it speaks to how quickly people are to label someone anti-gun for even minor legislation favoring gun control. Maybe not these two specifically, I don't know their voting records or bill specifics, but it happens all the time. Any attempt, no matter how minor, to enact any sort of gun control gets a politician labelled by the NRA as anti-gun and they are immediately crucified by those that just swallow what they have to say.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Isn't it, now?

No, it's not unless that is in the police report.

(06-28-2016, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, it follows along with the narrative of liberal politicians that appear to be anti gun being the opposite.

The only narrative is a calling anyone who proposes any kind of gun regulation "anti-gun".

So I'll repeat: Unless she was doing something she herself proposed to make illegal it is not hypocritical to have the gun.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me it speaks to how quickly people are to label someone anti-gun for even minor legislation favoring gun control. Maybe not these two specifically, I don't know their voting records or bill specifics, but it happens all the time. Any attempt, no matter how minor, to enact any sort of gun control gets a politician labelled by the NRA as anti-gun and they are immediately crucified by those that just swallow what they have to say.

Read post #4.

A GOP senator running on a "gheys are evil" platform getting caught using a gay escort service is hypocritical.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2016, 10:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Read post #4.

A GOP senator running on a "gheys are evil" platform getting caught using a gay escort service is hypocritical.

To be fair, that doesn't tell us her whole history with the topic. I saw what yo had there, and it supports what I am saying, but it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story for her.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 10:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, that doesn't tell us her whole history with the topic. I saw what yo had there, and it supports what I am saying, but it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story for her.

Well i did a quick search and those were the two stories that came up.

At least from those she doesn't sound like she wants to go door to door to taker yer gunz.

[GMDino]

Here's her voting record from one site:

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/65451/jamilah-nasheed/?p=2#.V3MlgLgrKM8

btw, MO seems like a GOPers wet dream based on the majority of those bills.

Again, it doesn't show everything.  Clearly she doesn't like concealed carry without a permit or guns in the workplace.