The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: mrclose on October 21, 2014, 08:35:04 PM
-
Armed, drunk, racist, challenging the police in the street to create more riots?
Nasheed is an unwavering gun-control advocate serving St. Louis.
Like all libs .. Guns for me .. just not for thee!
NRA "Misfire" Unites Two Opposing MO Senators To Defend Gun Bill Amendment | Riverfront Times (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/02/nra_denounces_missouri_gun_bill_unites_brian_nieives_jamilah_nasheed.php)
FERGUSON, Mo. (KMOV.com) – Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed had a gun in her possession at the time she was arrested Monday night outside the Ferguson Police Department, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
Nasheed declined comment about the having the weapon, but did tell News 4 she has a concealed carry permit.
Sources also told News 4 Ferguson police requested St. Ann to administer a breathalyzer test at the time of her arrest, but Nasheed refused to do so. Nasheed said Tuesday she was not intoxicated at the time.
Nasheed was formally charged with Failure to Obey Lawful Order of Police and Manner of Walking in the Roadway. She was released from St. Ann jail before 11:00 a.m. Tuesday morning.
Sen. Nasheed had handgun on her at time of arrest, refused breathalyzer, police say | KMOV.com St. Louis (http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/State-Senator-arrested-outside-Ferguson-Police-Department-279860142.html)
-
Pretty sure it's illegal to carry a gun while you're intoxicated. That sounds like a felony.
-
Pretty sure it's illegal to carry a gun while you're intoxicated. That sounds like a felony.
It might depend on their laws regarding the breathalyzer test. She wasn't driving and they might not have a mandatory test for carrying a gun.
-
Pretty sure it's illegal to carry a gun while you're intoxicated. That sounds like a felony.
Well, at the least she can say goodbye to that CCW license.
-
Laws, rules, regulations.....there for the little people.
I AM SOMEBODY.....Jesse Jackson says so.
-
Well, at the least she can say goodbye to that CCW license.
The chances of that happening are two--'slim' and 'none,' with 'slim' having gone to fight ISIS. :whistling:
-
Well, at the least she can say goodbye to that CCW license.
Nope, because that would be racist to deprive a black woman of her protection in the 'hood that is Ferguson. (/DUmode off)
-
From Missouri law, in part:
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap571.htm
To that extent, the article is wrong when it states it "isn't illegal" to carry a firearm while intoxicated.
The only problem, of course, is that the state cannot prove that she was intoxicated. She refused to submit to an breathalyzer or other test. She was walking in a street on which were sidewalks, which is apparently illegal. Despite several warnings by police officers to get out of the street, she continued to show her ass and was arrested as a result.
The dumbass scrunt evidently forgot that if you're drinking, you shouldn't be carrying.
I'd love to see her prosecuted to the full extent of the law; have her lose her CCW; pay a hefty fine, and serve about a month in the slammer.
-
Euph, there is still the required additional element of actually brandishing or using the firearm, in some manner that could be considered dangerous or irresponsible or dangerous, to make out a violation of that section. Simply having it on you with a CCW while intoxicated, with nobody being the wiser until the cop asks if you have a weapon, (As bad an idea as that may be) does not make out a violation of it. I'm not gonna look it up, but under the circumstances it might be grounds to revoke the CCW card, though. I doubt if any politician, the Sheriff, or the State Police have the brass balls necessary to pursue that versus an elected office holder, particularly with a Dem governor in power.
-
Euph, there is still the required additional element of actually brandishing or using the firearm, in some manner that could be considered dangerous or irresponsible or dangerous, to make out a violation of that section. Simply having it on you with a CCW while intoxicated, with nobody being the wiser until the cop asks if you have a weapon, (As bad an idea as that may be) does not make out a violation of it. I'm not gonna look it up, but under the circumstances it might be grounds to revoke the CCW card, though. I doubt if any politician, the Sheriff, or the State Police have the brass balls necessary to pursue that versus an elected office holder, particularly with a Dem governor in power.
You're correct, based on the reading of the statute. And I'd fully agree with you that the LEOs aren't going to go after this dumbass scrunt. Nixon will surely throw anyone and everyone he can under the bus, and that includes LEO management that won't buck the groupthink.
-
Nixon's lame-ass race card support, instead of quelling this BS and standing up for the cop's presumption of innocence, has got to be pissing off nearly every cop in MO and about everyone except the urban welfare class, those who depend on their votes to make a living, and the brain-damaged academic Leftists.
-
Nixon's lame-ass race card support, instead of quelling this BS and standing up for the cop's presumption of innocence, has got to be pissing off nearly every cop in MO and about everyone except the urban welfare class, those who depend on their votes to make a living, and the brain-damaged academic Leftists.
Nixon, ever the opportunist, looks after himself first.