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:9084 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 …
