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:9091 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.
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon. Really? Pretty sure it says more than just that. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, I just got up and I am starting some caregiver duties.
Your question asking me “Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you” is an excellent question and of great importance.
So I will make a deal with you, You like deals, don’t you? Of course you do….especially ones that you expect to greatly benefit from.
Okay, here’s the deal: I will think about your question while performing the caregiver duties and answer it when I am finished.
That’s my part of the deal.
In the meantime while I am busy, you will post which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you.”
That’s your part of the deal.
Sounds fair, right? And you of course do believe in fairness, right?
Okay, you make your post and I will respond when I return….forgive me, but it may be a while.
I look forward to reading your post telling which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you” with great excitement and high expectations.
#37. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#36)
I see that you haven’t had time or the inability to intelligently post your answer to: Which part of "shall not be infringed" is NOT confusing to you? So, I will therefore proceed with my answer to your queston as promised.
Repeating your question:
Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, the whole phrase is confusing to me and I will be more than glad to specifically tell you why. However, with your closed biased mind I don’t expect you to understand. Therefore, I take the time do this so those with objective minds reading our exchange will understand and maybe learn something.
The factual truth you are ignorant of or will not admit to is that America has regulated guns since its earliest days and gun control is embedded as a part of history starting under the founding fathers
A shocking statement….I will admit it is. But let’s look for the truth behind the statement. Shall we?
As a practicing libertarian, it will be astounding to you to learn the founding fathers who crafted the Second Amendment did not believe that the right to “keep and bear arms” was a great libertarian license and a “divine” proclamation for anyone to have any gun anywhere he wanted. Oh, the founding fathers did believe the right to “have arms” was an individual right. And they believed that the government should never be able to completely disarm the public.
You probably have never known that the founding father actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Surprised? Oh, they surely did....slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. Reason? Because the founding fathers feared they might revolt if armed.
OMG, the shocking truth is that the founders would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white also. Does that surprise you? Of course it does! But wait, those people could own guns if the swore allegiance yo the government forming for the Revolution. What? You would blow a heart valve if today you were required to swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. Now those good people who were not permitted ot have a gun were not traitors fighting for the British….they were simply among the 40 percent of people who….wait for it….strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and simply felt that 13 small disorganized colonies who were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea.
Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishedson the Internet.
So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare.
If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not?
The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time.
I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you?
#40. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#37)
The last portion of my post reposted without the italics I forgot to close off. This will make for easier reading….thanks for the understanding.
/…./
Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishes on the Internet.
So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare.
If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not?
The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time.
I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you?
then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill.
Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance?
Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a military serviceman or woman with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another.
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill.
At least, not that we know….right?
Anyway, who ever said Deanna Robinson is a criminal or mentally ill?
then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
Your association here with Robinson being a criminal olr mentally ill absolutely make no sense.
Care to explain …
Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a former military service person with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another.
And I am pretty sure that you are right about that. But then do you actually know what the founding fathers advocated jailing people for?
We hear the term “Founding Fathers” frequently thrown around this day and time during a lot of political and Second Amendment discussions. This is usually done….as you are doing now,….in questioning what the Founding Fathers “did” or “did not do” and what they "intended" or "would have wanted." But come on now, fess up….what do you really know about out Founding Fathers? You probably don’t even know that the term “Founding Fathers” itself wasn’t actually coined until a 1916 in a speech given by Warren G. Harding. I have no doubt this bit of knowledge I am imparting to you comes as a complete surprise. I can give you a few more intriguing but lesser- known facts about just a few of the people who might qualify for the appellation “Founding Fathers” or, in one case, Mothers. But then I will save that for another time. We certainly don’t want to information overload your brain….now, do we?
Getting back on point …
What is the association of your remark about the “Founding Fathers not advocating jailing a former military service person” with the information in my post you are responding to where I pointed out that the founding fathers actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. And the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun.
Can you even phantom the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun? I can’t….but the Founding Fathers did. “Sad.”
Those white people whom the Founding Fathers prevented from owning guns were not traitors fighting for the British. They were simply among the 40 percent of people who strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and felt that 1 small disorganized colonies wo were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea.
I’m sorry and I don’t mean to be cruel to you….at least this time….but sometimes your posts express things in an incomprehensible and confusing way. This is definitely one of those times youy post is definitely unclear.
You may have a “do-over” for your post here, if you so desire …
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
They swore allegiance to the Revolution.
The government in power at that time was the British.
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
They swore allegiance to the Revolution.
The government in power at that time was the British.
Bzzzt – Wrong!
Once again you are showing your ignorance. Don’t continue with this and make me also into an idiot. For it would be ar Robert Kiyosaki said: “If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots.”
The members of the “American Colonial Society” rejected the authority of the British Parliament. In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain. Each of the thirteen colonies formed a Provincial Congress that assumed power from the old colonial governments and suppressed Loyalism, and from there they built a Continental Army under the leadership of General George Washington. The Continental Congress determined King George's rule to be tyrannical and infringing the colonists' rights as Englishmen, and they declared the colonies free and independent states on July 2, 1776.
So, it is as I correctly stated: “A law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government.”
Tell me, why did you sleep through your American history classes …
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
Which did not supersede the British government.
That is not the point. You get so damned lost in the exchanges that it is tough for me to keep you straight.
The point was NOT whether the alternative government supersede the British government or not.
The point always was that the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies.
Damn, boy, I hope your poor ole mama didn’t have as much trouble keeping you straight as I am …
This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers and yet you continually stand up for them like they walk on water. This swearing to support the government is gross by your standards against how any American government should operate. I can only image how you would react if Trump requited you to swear allegiance to the government before you could have a weapon.
At some point in your life, you really do need to your shit together and GET FUCKING REAL …
