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:10210 Comments:122
Robinson had harmed no one, had not taken anyones property and was merely traveling peacefully in her car when she was kidnapped by police and thrown into Rikers 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 childrens 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 shes 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 youd like to call Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and peacefully express to him that this woman has been through enough and doesnt deserve to be locked in a cage for protecting herself and her children, you can so at this number: 718-590-2000. Also, if youd 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.
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...
Figures you'd be praising the State for violating her Second Amendment rights.
Nope - not surprised one iota.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
WHY are you celebrating a UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
BTW,I figured this had to be a white woman,or the NYPD wouldn't have the stones to go after her.
Sure enough....... BTW,here asshat husband is the one who dropped the dime on her to report her for having a weapon. He did this AFTER she brought the kids up from Texas to NYC to visit with him. I wonder how many NYPD cops he's related to?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Under the Firearms Owners Protection act, or FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered. 1
You being the expert on all of this, perhaps you can help me understand what the meaning of: not withstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm
I am having a little trouble with the not withstanding part.
Also, the article said she had the handgun in her glovebox.
Oops!
What does this mean:
if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
I am having a little trouble understanding: the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
What does it mean other than the glove compartment
Kind of tough to protect herself when the gun is locked away in the trunk, don't you think? Of course, you cheer the State once again for their gun-grabbing policies and their making a law-abiding citizen a felon for not begging permission.
This woman was a threat to NO ONE except any bad guys who intended to do her harm.
Maybe you think women should be defenseless and count on the gooberment to protect them - I don't know.
But it sure seems that way.
This goes back to what I said on another thread to you - TPTB don't give a rat's ass whether you live or die.
She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her
What a sad commentary on your Air Force career that you would refuse to allow a fellow Officer her Second Amendment rights.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
Federal and New York State laws prohibited her from having the weapon in her glove compartment she violated both of those laws by having it there.
Really,WHAT "Federal Laws" would those be?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Kind of tough to protect herself when the gun is locked away in the trunk, don't you think?
Truth to tell,it might as well be in the trunk as in the glove compartment. If you have enough time to put your car in park,remove your keys from the ignition switch,and then unlock the glove compartment and pull your guy out,you had enough time to drive away.
"Glove Compartment Carry" is for convenience,not self-defense.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
This woman was a threat to NO ONE except any bad guys who intended to do her harm.
I believe that could be true. But I didnt read anywhere in the Federal or State laws that the cops could decide she was a threat to no olne, hand her the weapon back for her to return it to the glove compartment .and then the cops just pat her on the ass and say run along sweetie.
Perhaps it was there and I missed it .did you see it?
Maybe you think women should be defenseless and count on the gooberment to protect them - I don't know.
No, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with her situation.
Her situation was that she violated both Federal and State laws and she was arrested for doing that.
People have the right to choose to violate the Federal and State laws .but unfortunately for them, they do not have the right not to suffer the consequences.
It shouldnt seem anyway to you except to understand I am for law and order. I am not an anarchist who wants no law and order or government and I am not a libertarian wants to selectively choose which laws to obey and which not to.
The traitors who enacted this unconstitutional piece of legislation should have rocks thrown at them. People who cheer their traitor pretend legislation should also have rocks thrown at them.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
This line you have posted here introduces a recitation of certain acts of Parliament regarded as unconstitutional exercises of authority by the Americans.
It doesnt pertain in any way to me because I of course was not in the English Parliament when this great Nation was founded.
You would have hated the founders.
Nope, I hate no one and I would definitely never have hated the Founders.
But I really do fail to understand ignorant people who have an attitude to feel they are entitled and have the absolute authority to selectively choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they will disobey.
I have never seen any evidence that our Founding Fathers had that attitude. Ergo, I would have no reason to have hated them.
The Founding Fathers had legal principles .they placed belief in God and acceptance of natural moral law (derived from reason and corroborated in Judeo- Christian revelation) as the foundation of the American system.
I admire the legal principles" of our Founding Fathers and I am okay with those are you too?
I am going to post something to you that may flat knock you on your ass with you attitude if you have never read it before.
It is one of the principles written by our Founding Fathers.
I trust that you will not go into shock as you read this:
Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.
That was actually written by John Locke.
I trust I didnt shock you too much. Actually, check that .I hope the Hell that I did!
Stone, I fear it is as GI stated about you in a different way .that you have been reading The Free Thought Project too much and listening to Deckard spouting his cop-hating manta too long while ignoring the overtures introducing you to things of substantial reality. Those being common sense and good judgment.
Oh yea, stone, you really have
But, BRO, I have faith that it is only a temporary thing because I like you.
Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.
What happens when derelicts are in government office creating laws or performing duties based on "laws" that are antithetical to the established US Constitution? What you say. revert to laws subordinated by these same untrustworthy "leaders" that have established your own government pension?
Yes they were. You either lie or are very ignorant.
So you only say, and with no supporting factual evidence being presented by you .that is merely your personal opinion to which you are entitled.
As for me, I had rather deal with facts and not personal opinions.
So, I can show you factually where she violated the Federal law and she was arrested for doing that.
Then I will kindly ask that you please show me factually where her Second Amendment rights were violated?
If you can factually do that without injecting any personal opinions, then I will duly accept your thesis and sincerely apologize for ever doubting you.
Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are the one who is very ignorant.
It [this Constitution] [and]] .[shall be] the supreme law of the land.
Yes, that is from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. But you entirely left out 30 important words between It and the supreme law of the land.
I am going to ask you a sincere question. I am not trying to trick you or to set you up. I sincerely seek an answer fully realizing the answer you give will be only your opinion.
First, we need to establish an accepted definition of the function word and.
I looked this definition up on Merriam-Webster and it sounds good to me. If it also sounds good to you, then we will use this common definition.
And | Definition of And by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and Definition of and. 1 used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function.
The word same is used a number of times within that definition.
What that all tells me is that everything before the word and is within the same class or type and has joined elements of the same grammatical rank or functions as everything after the word and. To simplify it, both sides of anything connected by and are of equal standing, value and importance.
Are we in agreement so far? I assume we are and I will proceed.
I will now print a portion of Article VI
Article VI
/ ./
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [ .] under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Boldness Added].
/. /
Okay, here comes the tricky part and I am warning you ahead of time. I am not setting you up. I sincerely do not know the answer to the question I am about to ask. I only have an opinion in this case as will you also only have an opinion.
Assuming both sides of the function word and are completely EQUAL in standing of importance and compliance, again as I believe we should have by now agreed on .then [wait for it] are not the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [ .] under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land just as much as the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land?
So, again are the laws of the United States which were made in pursuance thereof [the Constitution] just as equally the supreme law of the land as is the Constitution up until such time as they may be judged to be unconstitutional?
The traitors who enacted this unconstitutional piece of legislation should have rocks thrown at them. People who cheer their traitor pretend legislation should also have rocks thrown at them.
Come on .stop with that shit. No one should have rocks thrown at them. Stay civil .please.
I really knew that. I was just joshing with you, killing time. I like to have fun Had a great Thanksgiving. Hope you had a nice one also. Ill catch you tomorrow. Good night
The Firearms Owners Protection Act, or FOPA. 18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms | US Law
Really? When did that replace the 2nd Amendment?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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 didnt 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. Im not your huckleberry.
Duh Duh It seems that you really dont know what constitutional law is, imbecile! So, here .please permit me to help you better understand by providing you with the Definition of Constitutional Law.
Here we go
Constitutional law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits. [Boldness and Underlining have been added for the learning impaired who have neurologically-based processing problems].
Transporting a firearm? That was what she was doing. Right? Of course it was.
We all know you get wood at the thought of having a strong and domineering master,but this ain't your wet dream come true because in order to TRANSPORT a firearm you have to POSSESS a firearm.
In case you missed it,the 2nd Amendment is about our right to POSSESS.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings,
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to.
Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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, dont you? Of course you do .especially ones that you expect to greatly benefit from.
Okay, heres the deal: I will think about your question while performing the caregiver duties and answer it when I am finished.
Thats 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.
Thats 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 havent 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 dont 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 lets 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 dont believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You wont 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 cant we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people .of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Dont 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 dont 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?
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
Nah, I am not full of shit. I am just smarter than you are and since you cant come up with an intelligent rebuttal to prove the statement wrong .then all you have left is the low-intelligence ability to fling an insulting remark.
Oh, by the way .that is not my statement about how constitutional law developed .it came from the internet where constitutional lawyers and learned constitutional scholars presented information. I can take time to go look up the source, but with your abject closed biased mind .it would do no good to give a citation.
However, if you so strongly disagree with the statement, then perhaps you should take some time to look into it and if the statement is wrong .then enlighten us all and show us how constitutional law really developed.
Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to.
Duh, DUH .of course it does. But we were not in anyway discussing that .or at least I never was, I was discussing constitutional law and the origin thereof.
But since you brought it up, our constitutional right to own and possess firearms originated with the founding fathers. Want to know how the Founding Fathers dealt with the right to bear arms? Then you should read Post #37. Adult Warning: You may be shocked!
Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right.
Yep, and its your constitutional right to remain completely ignorant .but the reason why you want to exercise that constitutional right is something only you can understand.
The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws .
Those were MINIMUM requirements, numbskull! They specified what weapons the Militia was required to have, not what they could keep and bear when off duty. .
#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 dont believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You wont 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 cant we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people .of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Dont 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 dont 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?