Anti-Gun activist breaks Gun Free Zone Law

Labels....

Forum members keep using labels like "anti-gun" & "liberal" for Furgueson.
Do any of these TFLers know him? Or have spoken with him directly where he expressed these political views?
Was it Kinche who said; When you label me, you negate me. :rolleyes:

I can understand the points about double-standards or hypocrisy. But I don't think we(the forum members) can really call this guy names or bash him w/o all the facts. He could at least have his day in court, if it gets that far.

Clyde
 
Forum members keep using labels like "anti-gun" & "liberal" for Furgueson.
Click to expand...

I don't know if "liberal" ought to be applied, I don't know his politics in that area, nor do I care.

By publically supporting the NY SAFE act, and saying it "didn't go far enough", that puts him firmly under the anti-gun label as far as I'm concerned.

I have noted a difference between what he has said and what was, and is being reported. In the interview he said he was not asked "if he had a gun with a permit", and he is not saying he "forgot" he had a gun on him, he is saying he did not think it would be a problem, because he did not know there was a law against it. Guess he never noticed all those signs?...

or perhaps he thought that because he had a permit, they didn't apply?

It boggles my mind how someone, anyone, could go through the NY permit process, buy, and carry a gun, and would still be so ignorant of one (at least) of the major laws covering it.
 
Post #83, words...

I agree with post 83.
The subject seems & sounds disingenuous when asked directly about the weapon and his contact with LE.
I think(and it's pure speculation at this point) that the local DA/courts will only get the gun on school grounds charge & maybe the obstruction charge to stick. The others may be cut.
The guy's background & standing in the community will help him defend against the other charges.
If I were a juror I wouldn't find his statements credible.

Clyde
 
Well, he's either lying or an idiot if he said that he didn't think it would be a problem when he supported the very law that he is feigning ignorance of. Either way, maybe he'll reconsider his position on this issue after going through this wake-up call.
 
Steve4102 said:
4.12 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gb5cNHruk
Click to expand...

So, first he says he didn't know it was illegal to carry a gun in a school.

Then, when asked if he lied to the police about having a gun, he dodged the question. His answer: "No police officer asked me about having a gun with a permit." Reality check, Ace -- that wasn't the question.

And to the gentleman toward the end of the video, no this is NOT like charging everyone who drives a car with speeding. It's sort of a lot more like charging everyone who is speeding with speeding.
 
By publically supporting the NY SAFE act, and saying it "didn't go far enough", that puts him firmly under the anti-gun label as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I see no reason how anybody supporting that law could remotely be seen as someone who is even neutral on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. It's a punitive law that was poorly thought out, support of such a law indicates a desire to make life difficult on people who have done nothing wrong.

If that isn't anti-gun, I really wonder what it would take to be considered anti-gun.
 
Technosavant said:
Exactly. I see no reason how anybody supporting that law could remotely be seen as someone who is even neutral on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. It's a punitive law that was poorly thought out, support of such a law indicates a desire to make life difficult on people who have done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm sure his spin is or will be that he thought the law would only work to prevent gangstas from getting guns, he didn't think it would affect "honest people" ... like him.

In other words, a middle class elitist who favors laws that restrict everyone except himself.

And I'm still not buying that he didn't know it was against both federal and state law to carry a gun into a school. As the saying goes, "It's true I was born at night, but it wasn't last night."
 
"Middle class elitist"...

I'm sure many US citizens would consider themselves "middle class elitists" in some situations.
About 2 years ago I recall a woman who made a huge media stink over how her child would be searched by TSA agents at a international airport.

If I were a TSA agent or manager Id politely ask the mother if she was aware of the security screenings or security SOPs at the airport. :rolleyes:
I'm sure she though she was an exception or could "talk" her way out of any screening process, :rolleyes:.
Doing security work, you run across people like Furgueson or the airport woman a lot.
One young woman I dealt with got irate & starting screaming "that's what you do, you just keep talking until you get what you want". :mad:
No, doing that just gets the LE officers or security more angry then you get arrested or thrown out.

This guy in Buffalo NY is not the only person who thinks the laws or rules don't apply to them or that they can "talk" their way out of any problems.
 
While I do agree that one who pushed for the law definitely should have known better, known the law, and acted to stay within the law, I have to ask...Is this the guy's first and only ever criminal offense? If so, there is a good chance in many places (not sure about NY though) that this guy could have various options such as a reduction in charge, etc, which is typically available to any first time offender. Just a thought.
 
I am thinking about writing some letters to push for this getting some media time. If it was just the average person, with a first time offense, I might think they deserved a break. This guy pushed for the law he broke. Pleading ignorance of the law is ridiculous and ignorance of the law is not an affirmative defense by any standard I know of. He should be held to and prosecuted to the letter of the law he wanted and advocated for.
 
RORed....

Apparently the media reports state the guy was RORed by the judge due to his background in the community & the "clean record" he had prior to this incident.

I'm a US military veteran with 2 state issued licenses in the security industry(both valid & onfile). I had no criminal records, arrests or convictions anywhere prior to 2012. The criminal court judge in my 2012 case didn't let me go free. :mad:
I pled not guilty & the prosecutors later decided to drop/close the entire case when I asked to speak directly to the State Atty(an elected official who is also a US Army combat veteran).

The US criminal justice system is full of incidents like this...
 
Chaz88 said: He should be held to and prosecuted to the letter of the law he wanted and advocated for
Click to expand...

No offense, but, we (all of us 2nd A types) seem to have a difficult time getting our main point(s) across in cases like this (And Gregory's).

Aside from the importance of equal treatment under the law;

We need to find a way to emphasize that no otherwise law-abiding citizen should be "...prosecuted to the letter..." of a law that so restricts our liberty to no gain for the general public.

Best,

Will
 
We need to find a way to emphasize that no otherwise law-abiding citizen should be "...prosecuted to the letter..." of a law that so restricts our liberty to no gain for the general public.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree with you. It is a bad law and should not exist. BUT!, I can not get past the fact that he advocated for the law he broke. If he suffers the full consequences I call it poetic justice and maybe he will think twice before he advocates for more of the same.
 
personally, I feel its a good idea for those who advocate slavery to have the pleasure of wearing the chains for a while.

The overwhelming majority of those who support gun control laws do so simply because those laws do not affect them, personally, and sound like they would actually help reduce crime.

Just as the people who do not ride motorcycles and support helmet laws. They "got no dog in the fight" but DO have an equal voice to the people who actually do have a dog in the fight.

When I first heard of this guy and they said he was a supporter of the SAFE ACT, I thought he was some level of politician. He's not. He's just a concerned guy who tries to help "at risk" kids, and apparently doesn't know jack squat about gun right, or gun laws, other than what it took for him, personally to get a permit.

Heard him say how kids are buying guns on the street, and from "our stores"...

Kids buying guns in NY from "our stores"...really? Wonder if he could point one out...one that if it is doing it, isn't breaking at least half a dozen existing laws?

He may be a nice guy caught in an innocent mistake. He may do great things for at risk kids. But from his own mouth, to me, his integrity and credibility are shot to heck.

he got caught, realizes (now) that he stepped in it, rather bigtime, and seems to be trotting out anything that might possibly be an excuse.

Also I think the manner of his speech (the choices of phrases he uses) are not being understood in just the manner he intended them. I'm thinking the "I forgot I had a gun" was meant to mean "I forgot I would get in trouble".

I could be wrong, I have been before, but this time, I don't think so...
 
Safe Act

This story needs more media attention...but that's not likely. Hopefully if this happens to a conservative rather than a liberal they will be able to use this case to their benefit and eventually repeal the safe act....which does nothing to keep anyone safe.

Seems reaction of the parents is that they need security at the school...lol how ironic.

http://video.buffalonews.com/?video=3166773188001
 
Last edited:
The original story in the Buffalo News said:
It was not until police were patting down students so they could evacuate the school that they found the gun on Ferguson, Brinkworth said.

Ferguson was wearing it in a holster, and at no time during the lockdown did he notify police that he was carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the police patted Ferguson down and found the gun but maybe he just admitted to it when they were patting the students down. If the police patted him down, then it is likely an unlawful search and seizure. Police have to have articulable and reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in wrong doing or carrying contraband and may be armed before conducting a pat down. Students have less protection.

So, if police did pat this guy down, the search should probably be suppressed. Sounds like a possible way out. Or maybe cut a deal and plead to a misdemeanor and community service with the questionable search giving the prosecutor political cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top