Anti-Gun activist breaks Gun Free Zone Law

and what if he "consented" to the pat down?

The Police have a report of a man with a gun, right? I think that could be argued that is the articulable and reasonable suspicion. The are patting down the students before letting them exit the building.

He gets in line, not concerned, because a) he "forgot" he was wearing a gun, or b) thinks because he has a permit, his butt is covered.

Steps up when its his turn, and "oh..what's THIS????!!!!!"

not sure you could make the argument to get the search thrown out IF that's about the way it happened...
 
If it is consensual, no problem. However, an anonymous tip saying "man with a gun" is not enough. There's actually a U.S. Supreme Court case that says so and with facts more favorable than those here. I can't think of the name of it off the top of my head. Students are in a different category and have diminished rights while at school, though I do not pretend to know much about the parameters of their rights.

My scenario is admittedly speculative. I'm just throwing it out there as a possible way out for everyone involved if they want to open that door.

Added: The case is Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). There's a description of it at http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articles_and_outlines/anonymous_tips.pdf. Just read the first numbered section. BTW, the Supreme Court has just agreed to review an anonymous tip case.
 
Last edited:
I can see the clear difference between students at school, and an adult on school grounds. Being minors, and at school means their legal rights are different. agree.

I was giving a possible situation, again, just for consideration. The actual details will determine what applies and doesn't for this case.

Just some things to think about, if you might ever be in a remotely similar situation.
 
^^^ Another brilliant example of the demise of journalism in the U.S.

Ferguson originally faced a number of charges including one count of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Now he’s only facing one count.

Erie County Assistant District Attorney Michael Flaherty said, “He was originally charged with possession of weapon in the second degree. That charge has not been held for the grand jury because Mr. Ferguson has a permit. He had a lawful permit for the weapon.”

News 4 asked Ferguson if he wanted to comment. He declined.

Flaherty says this case could be resolved before it’s presented to the grand jury. But Flaherty says it’s too early to know if any charges will be dismissed.
Click to expand...
If "any charges" will be dismissed?

If he's only facing one charge, if ANY charges are dismissed he walks. Even a first year journalism student should be able to figure out that one minus one equals zero.
 
Anybody know why it was transferred?
Click to expand...
Just a guess, not really knowing anything about N.Y. courts — this was transfer from a court of limited jurisdiction (arraignments, etc.) to one with jurisdiction over felonies. The article linked to states:
Dwayne Ferguson waived his right to a felony hearing in Buffalo City Court Thursday morning. Now, his case is being transferred to Erie County Court.
Click to expand...
 
^^^ I don't think a misdemeanor prevents him from owning firearms nor from carrying... not much more than getting a parking ticket keeps one from driving provided one pays the fine on time.

I wouldn't even call this a slap on the wrist.
 
Surrender is caused by FELONY conviction IIRC. Yet another way to apply some super slick grease to ease the sippin' & slidin'.:rolleyes:
 
While a misdemeanor conviction (other than domestic violence) does not strip him of his gun rights, ANY conviction (other than a traffic offense -and sometimes even those) can be grounds for revocation of his pistol license.

And any "gun" crime usually is automatic revocation. It may not be a statute requirement, but it is what they do, almost without exception.

This may be the exception, the "crime" was a)non-violent, b)admitted to, c) the guy obviously has some stroke in his local area, D) was an "honest mistake..etc..)

SOO, he might not get his permit pulled, or might get it re-instated (perhaps after a "cooling off" period when attention to the case has faded), if he is nice enough to the right people.

When someone on the anti-gun side breaks a gun law, their side usually tries to make it no big deal, he broke a "rule", simple mistake, no one was hurt, etc. When someone on our side of the issue does exactly the same thing, they scream about violations of LAW! Children could have died, stiff jail time and loss of rights MUST BE APPLIED!, Etc., etc., etc.

Double standard is the mildest thing I can say about it....
 
IANAL, so I'd like one of ours to comment.

Am I being paranoid to think the case is being carefully adjudicated in order to avoid creating some case law that mignt be used by some real bad guy (like thee and me) to someday skate, as well?

W.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top