Title: Mother, Air Force Vet Kidnapped, Sent to Rikers for Traveling in NY with Her Legal Texas Handgun Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mo ... veling-ny-legal-texas-handgun/ Published:Nov 26, 2017 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2017-11-26 12:46:53 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:9093 Comments:122
Robinson had harmed no one, had not taken anyone’s property and was merely traveling peacefully in her car when she was kidnapped by police and thrown into Riker’s Island at the Rose M. Singer Center with violent armed robbers and murderers.
Robinson was driving from Texas to New York to bring her two children to spend some time with their father when she was arrested by the NYPD in the Bronx and charged with “265.03 FC (CRIM POSS WEAPON-2ND DEGREE C Felony)” for having her legally purchased and licensed handgun in her glovebox.
Robinson, who spent five years on active duty, had secret military clearances and also has her active and valid Texas License to Carry.
According to Federal law, an individual is not restricted from transporting legally acquired firearms across state lines for lawful purposes except those explicitly prohibited by federal law to include convicted felons; persons under indictment for felonies; adjudicated “mental defectives” or those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions; illegal drug users; illegal aliens and most non-immigrant aliens; dishonorably discharged veterans; those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; fugitives from justice; persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. Therefore, no federal permit is required (or available) for the interstate transportation of firearms.
Robinson does not fit any of the restricted person criteria as described above. However, having the gun in the glovebox is likely what the New York police have taken issue with.
“Deanna Jo, loving mother of two adorable boys, Veteran, Activist and friend in liberty, was arrested in NYC on Nov 11 while traveling from Texas, when her self-defense handgun was discovered in her vehicle. Please help us free her from Rikers.
Two beautiful little boys are wondering where their mother is after the family of three traveled across the country from Texas to NYC so the children could spend time with their estranged father. Deanna Jo is a responsible mother and a veteran with military clearances and a Texas License to Carry. Concerned primarily with her children’s safety and posing no threat to any other person, Deanna Jo arrived at her destination, where her estranged husband took the children into his house then contacted police, who found her self-defense handgun in her vehicle.
No mother should be forced to leave behind her best means of self defense, yet the City of New York sends a clear message: “We do not care about your Constitutional rights or your personal safety, and the only people who have guns here are criminals.”
Now Deanna Jo sits in a cage at Rikers Island, stripped of her rights and incarcerated, and her children are missing her dearly. She needs to return to them so they can be with their mother. The city has basically told her that her life and the lives of her children are meaningless and that her right to protect them is trivial.
We are a group of friends who want to see Deanna Jo reunited with her children as soon as possible. This fund is to help us do that, plus assist with the legal battle to come.”
The goal set on the fundraising page is $25,000 and as of this writing has reached $6,400. The Free Thought Project spoke with Second Amendment and free speech activist Michael Picard who bailed Robinson out on Friday. He told us that Robinson is going to fight the charges all the way as there was no victim of her alleged crime.
“She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her,” Picard told TFTP.
Unfortunately for Robinson, this is the second time she’s had an unjust experience with police. As TFTP reported at the time, Robinson was raided by police who were there to take her children over an alleged custody dispute. Robinson, who had a camera rolling at the time of the raid was seen pinned into a corner by Hunt County Deputy Josh Robinson who began beating the handcuffed 9-month pregnant woman as she screamed out in horror.
Deputy J. Robinson was subsequently no-billed by a Hunt County grand jury and has since been reinstated to full duty. Robinson was cleared of any wrongdoing and CPS later admitted there was no warrant.
If you’d like to call Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and peacefully express to him that this woman has been through enough and doesn’t deserve to be locked in a cage for protecting herself and her children, you can so at this number: 718-590-2000. Also, if you’d like to donate to her legal fees, you can do so at her Funded Justice page.
Robinson does not fit any of the restricted person criteria as described above. However, having the gun in the glovebox is likely what the New York police have taken issue with.
The Federal law “would be” … The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA. 18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms | US Law Really?
Yea, really.
… replace the 2nd Amendment?
It didn’t replace the 2nd Amendment. It regulated the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, TRANSPORT, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories.
“Transporting” a firearm? That was what she was doing. Right? Of course it was.
When …
1986. It revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon. Federal laws say what kind of weapons you can have and where you can carry weapons. If you have a problem with that then you take it up with the SCOTUS. I’m not your huckleberry.
Federal laws say what kind of weapons you can have and where you can carry weapons.
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on-board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
Because...wait for it - the LAW is always right and we should never disobey any government edict.
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
That starts out as a false premise, transitions to a supposition, moves to a hypothesis before finally ending in a flat out guess.
I don’t deal in premises, suppositions, hypotheses and definitely no guesses.
If you want to continue a serious discussion….then you must give me something factual to respond to.
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
Gee whiz pumpkin - it's a simple question, since it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact.
“Pumpkin” you called me….no, I’m Bumpkin. If fact, Cal Smith wrote a song about me famously known within the country music circle. But, you were close since pumpkin is mentioned in the song. Maybe that’s what mislead you.
Here, I’ll let you listen to it …
And, your question was not a simple question. It is the same type false premise I would use were I to ask you: “If the people to whom you give blowjobs start requiring you to rinse your mouth with Listerine before you try to swallow their dicks….would you do it?”
See how stupid that is. Your question was just as stupid.
It was stupid and a false premise since it is something for which there is no evidence it would ever happen [let’s hope so in your case] ergo, it was a mute unanswerable question as I see it.
You really do need to get real. I know I have said that before….but I cannot say it often enough to you.
… it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact.
No that is not obvious, that is only a false opinion you have conjured up in your mind since you do not posses the intelligence to objectively comprehend my messages.
I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember. But I am not going to waste time searching my memory bank to try to find one.
That does not mean I will, nor is it intended to imply that I will, support all future laws the federal government enacts. I will make a decision when and if it ever becomes necessary.
FOOTNOTE: Get the fuck out from under your bed, Deckard, and quit falsely worrying each day that the Feds are going to smash in your front door and confiscate your guns. Learn to live life to the fullest….turn off the worry mode. Geeze …
Sidebar Question: Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
Sidebar Question: Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
Riddle me this,fatman. WHY the HELL is identifying their names so freaking important to you? They are long dead,and it is now impossible for you to lick their boots.
What is important is recognizing their accomplishments.
I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein. Does that mean you understand his theories?
I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein.
Of course, I do. I stood many times at the address where old Al was born. It was directly across from the Ulm Hauptbahnhof. Our headquarters was in Ulm and I rode the train over there many times. I am however, vastly surprised you even knew how to spell Einstein’s name. Fess up, now….you really did need to use a “Spell Checker.”
While the American Revolution was great, it however did not sweep away the English common law….most now independent colonies still followed the English common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence which included the ban on traveling armed in populated areas
The Founding Fathers insured that the American colonies continued a variety of gun restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. Armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions.
SInce the Founding Fathers and the now independent colonies elected to continue following most English common law….thusly, there was no general right for individuals armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted and most certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons.Talk about gun control.
Yep, the colonies had it really bad under the Founding Fathers. The traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.
You can demonize government power for gun control today all you want to and I will join with you at all times for that, but I will never let you ignorantly portray the times under the Founding Fathers were the best for gun ownership and freedom to carry.
For in 1786, Boston acted on the legal principle established by the Founding Fathers in that it prohibited the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city.
How ‘bout them apples, Pete. It would surely frost your ass today, if you had to obey the mandate set that the guns in your house had to be kept unloaded.
In addressing Second Amendment fanatics….I mean those die-hard fanatics uneducated on the Second Amendment….I will continue to point out that the:
The Founding Fathers engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian populating during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.
Perhaps - however The Declaration of Independence would indicate that "to everything there's a season".
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If the signers of the Declaration were alive today, it's a pretty safe bet they would agree that "it's time to shoot the bastards".
If the signers of the Declaration were alive today, it's a pretty safe bet they would agree that "it's time to shoot the bastards".
Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today….it’s a pretty safe bet that you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and your assumption is grossly absurd since it is well known that you as an extremely biased skeptic of current governmental authority have an uncontrollable blind hatred for the enforcement of laws.
I continue to be very much shocked at some of your disputing assumptions which are absolute sanctities only to you where they will forever remain quite improbable propositions delivered in the dishonorable heat of defiance and indignation.
All of this is to say that based on what the signers of the Declaration did during their day, you are a stupid fool to believe you can predict what the signers of the Declaration of Independence would do today.
Get frigging real….asshole. Quit trying to predict what dead people from long ago would do today and clean up your own act to properly conduct yourself in your own actions.
Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today…
You will no doubt be surprised to learn studies have shown that there are much higher instances of mental disorder in creative geniuses than in the general population.
And while it's impossible to be completely sure of a correct diagnosis of a historical figure, that hasn’t stopped researchers from making educated guesses.
I can provide you with a speculative look at the mental health of 11 of history's big thinkers when I have time between my stock market action.
Oh, not that I would ever try to compare myself to any one of them….although I will graciously permit you to freely do so.
Many of whom used marijuana and/or other mind-altering drugs.
I just remembered that Sigmund Freud used cocaine more than a personal indulgence; he highly regarded it as a veritable wonder drug.
It messed his mind up so much that today many refer to a fuck up as a “Freudian slip”.
They do so when they try to gloss over a parapraxis….an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought.
You know the feeling of having many times committing a parapraxis….I have seen you do it often.
I did take time to look up one of the names on the list. It was the last name on the list and I only happen to notice it as I made my post to you. Here is what I learned about Clarence Thomas …
This is someone you have labeled as aSuccessful Marijuana User who admittedly “smoked marijuana several times” [meaning more than two but only a few times] in college and believes “it was a mistake and never repeated it.”
This admitted to mistake by Thomas who never repeated it again is such an inconsequential matter that it has absolutely no relevancy in any way to making Thomas a successful person because of the foolish youthful mistake of smoking a few joints.
