NJ Airport Worker Arrested for Obama Threat

[RamboLiberal]

Source: 1010WINS.com

NEW YORK (1010 WINS) -- A Newark Liberty International Airport employee has been charged in connection with an alleged threat against President Barack Obama.

John Brek, 55, of Linden, has been charged with making "terroristic threats" against President Obama, authorities said. Brek reportedly works for FJC security -- a subcontractor at the airport.

Obama is scheduled to make an appearance in Hackensack today to stump for Governor Jon Corzine.

A co-worker apparently alerted authorities to the alleged threat. Police found 43 guns during a search of Brek's home -- however authorities say all of the guns were properly licensed.

The exact nature of the threat is unclear at this point.


Read more: http://www.1010wins.com/Report--NJ-Airport-Worker-Arrested-For-Obama-Threa/5489960

---

He works for FJC Security, a subcontractor at the airport.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Properly licensed is irrelevent if they were to be commissioned to commit a crime.

[atreides1]

4. How do you prove that?

Unless the guns talk, or his co-worker heard him say he was going to use them, there is no way to prove that those weapons were going to be used in the commission of any crime.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. We don't have all the facts yet. There wouldn't be an arrest without

probable cause otherwise he'd have the authorities sued for false arrest.

[24601]

53. And we know the authorities NEVER arrest someone in error - or

perhaps we need to combine this thread with the one on Roberts and the Virginia Drunk Driving Tips. I'll bet the Secret Service investigates anonymous tips, and then makes an arrest if they believe their "stop & talk" leads to more substance. Shall we disallow these because a tip may have been anonymous?

[jasi2006]

174. How about terminating the subcontract ?

Contractors and sub-contractors working in public safety and security arena should be held accountable for their employees' actions and their own lack of security. Think Blackwater. Why should they continue to be awarded contracts? I think Blackwater already knows too much about our nation's security or non-security. Blackwater is untrustworthy and a security risk INMO.

[RamboLiberal]

6. Well he said something against Obama that had his coworker

alarmed. And the Secret Service is investigating. I'd rather the police and the Secret Service err on the side of caution when it comes to threats against the President. And I would've said the same if it had been Bush.

The 43 guns are a side issue at the moment.

[Cha]

27. Exactly. nt

[Winterblues]

8. Use the Bush* Doctrine so it doesn't matter if there is proof or not.

:shrug:

[TankLV]

184. Yeah - all normal people NEED at LEAST 43 guns!!!

Gun Nuts are fucking cowards all...

[Rage for Order]

25. One can only operate 2 guns at a time

Not much difference between 2 guns and 43 guns if someone chooses to go crazy and shoot people. It's easier to carry extra ammo than it is to carry extra guns.

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

47. You are correct. The "however" in the article is problematic.

Some guy threatens to kill the President. Police found 43 guns in his home. "However, all guns were properly licensed." The "however" makes it seem that the licenses neutralize BOTH the threat and the number of guns. They don't.

The writer could have said. "While all guns in his homne were properly licensed, police found 43. Or simply "Police found 43 guns in his home, all properly licensed.

Seems as though whoever wrote or edited the article had an agenda.

[rubberducky]

2. Why would anyone need 43 guns? How many guns can a person get

"properly licensed"?

[atreides1]

3. As long as he purchased them legally

He can get any number of guns licensed.

Unless NJ has laws limiting the number of guns one individual can purchase?

[damntexdem]

17. If a state doesn't have such a limit, it should.

Not that most states likely do.

[No Elephants]

40. Oh, Geebus. Can you imagine the response of the NRA and the nutters?

[hack89]

141. Why?

why do 43 or a 100 guns represent a greater threat then one?

[tabasco]

158. Because you can arm 43 or 100 people?

Just a thought.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

163. Goodbye, baseball!

[TankLV]

185. because that many is an ARSENAL!!!

the fucking COWARDLY GUN NUTS are so fucking AFRAID of their own shadows that they NEED their guns - sick and very sad...

[wordpix]

150. +1 The authorities just keep issuing licenses for as many guns a gun nut wants?

This is total insanity. :crazy: :nuke:

[hack89]

162. That's the problem with civil rights

the fewer government controls the better.

[Mopar151]

7. A very serious competitive shooter

And multi-season hunter, plus a few "collectibles" - maybe. Gun fetishist/trader - far more likely.

[damntexdem]

18. Or a terrorist preparing for attacks.

[Realityhack]

176. Um...

how many guns do you think a 'terrorist' would be using in an attack?

Collecting guns is like accumulating anything else. Over time the number can easily grow. Someone who enjoys kites may end up with quite a number as they tend not to sell those they have and buy a new one from time to time. They can only fly one at a time but they own 20 or 50 or whatever.
I am sure there are plenty of legitimate collectors, hunters, target shooters, etc. that after years of doing so end up with one or two dozen guns. 43 wouldn't be that huge a number for a collector.

[No Elephants]

41. Competitive shooting requires more than 40 guns? Who knew?

[Hoopla Phil]

164. There is way more than ONE type of competitive shooting. Do

a little research and you'd be very surprised. There are also lots of different kinds of hunting that require different firearms as well.

[truthisfreedom]

13. Hey wait a minute... 43 guns? bush* was the 43rd President? They'd better look for the 44th gun!

I think I'm onto something here!

[No Elephants]

45. Great observation, but Barack Obama is the 43rd person to be elected President. One President

(Grover Cleveland, I think) had terms that were not consecutive, so there have been 44 elected Presidencies, but only 43 elected Presidents. Wile you can end a President by shooting a gun at a President, you cannot shoot a gun at a Presidency.

So 43 guns is sufficient, at one per elected President. (I don't know if we had Presidents who replace Presidents who died in office, but who themselves never got elected, but I am guessing that we did, because the remarks about 43 and 44 Presidents are often qualified with the word "elected.")


Of course, that is not counting the passel of Presidents we elected before we elected George Washington, but that is a whole other story.


We would, however, have to assume this guy knew about the non-consecutive terms.

[24601]

52. The number of elected presidents is fewer - Andrew Johnson after

Lincoln's assassination, for example.

[No Elephants]

108. Thanks for the confirmation of my assumption and the example.

Sometimes, I am just too lazy or too short on time to pursue a posting point beyond a certain point, but I always appreciate it when someone give me good information. :toast:

Now, I'm off to say "to pursue a posting point beyond a certain point" fast twenty times. (I'm easily entertained.)

[Ter]

170. What about Ford?

He was never elected at all.

[apnu]

21. No kidding, not even the Terminator had 43 guns.

The guy is the very definition of a gun nut.

[hack89]

142. Civil rights don't have to be justified by need.

they don't need to be justified to authority at all - they simply exist and should be respected.

[Posteritatis]

182. People don't need to justify doing anything legal. (nt)

[Mari333]

9. is it just me, or are a lot of these guys older white men

tell me if Im wrong. One wonders why they are so threatened.

[safeinOhio]

10. Hey, 55 ain't old

when you are 60.:hi:

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Not compared to James W von Brunn,

the 88-year-old assassin who killed Stephen T. Johns at the Holocaust Memorial i Washington DC.

[ramapo]

20. That's my generation

I hate it that my generation is more FU'd then my parents'.

[No Elephants]

44. Do you mean "more f*cked," or "more f*cked up?"

Both may be true, but I was just wondering what you meant when you posted.

[woodsprite]

22. I've decided middle aged is whatever age I happen to be at the moment. n/t

[safeinOhio]

23. You know what age old is?

Depends.

[TankLV]

186. depends on what...?

[Cha]

29. Yeah, but you get the idea..

I'm 65 and I know 55 is younger to me but some people can be really old at that age.

[No Elephants]

43. Mari said"older," not "old." Sorry, but 55 is most definitely "older."

[damntexdem]

19. Hint: they'd do better to try Viagra.

;-)

[No Elephants]

42. Yes, BUT, since the Republicans got into bed with the NRA, it's become a Republican thang.

So, people of all ages and genders are into guns of all kinds now.

[lefty369]

181. brought up racist

one would assume

[dogfacedboy]

188. They can't deal with the reality that they aren't the "mainstream".

The delusion they have been living under that they are the "establishment" has been shattered, and their faces have been rubbed into it. Complete mental breakdown.
It sucks for some to find out that they are just another nobody.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. A man made threats against the President, clearly he had motive and intent.

Known motive and intent equals probable cause within the law. Where the police would tell you, a common citizen, that your neighbor with his 43 legal weapons was free to tell you he was going to blow you away, since he hadn't done anything yet, making such threats against the President are simply illegal, unless you are Anne Coulter or some other republican douche-bag.

He worked at the airport, which indicates that he had opportunity.

Finally, he had an arsenal of weapons, which indicates he had the means to act.

Further, working in security at the airport he would have had a privileged position and possible knowledge of how to get weapons on site. That makes him a threat.

The number of guns he chose to waste him money on is relevant because of the threat he made.

[RamboLiberal]

14. Running his mouth at the coffee cart

An official with knowledge of the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity says someone reported overhearing Breck making threatening comments at an airport coffee cart Wednesday morning. The official was not authorized to disclose details.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jN_1cMtpnhAb7DVK_y9M3w0dsuNQD9BFJQT80

If he's just a blowhard he'll be released like the rest of the blowhards. But with Obama coming in to that airport and he being in security I think it's justifiable for him to be questioned.

[truthisfreedom]

15. I have a feeling, based on that little article, that this will end as a non-story.

Coffee-cart mishear.

[No Elephants]

48. But should he be released? Threatening to kill the President of the United States is a crime.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html#

You are guilty of the crime if you intend to make the threat and do make it (as opposed to saying it in your sleep, or while drunk out of your mind, for example). The statute says nothing about being a blowhard being a defense.

So, maybe blowhards should not be released. On the other hand, does the law making a threat a crime violate the First Amendment?

I don't know the answers, but those are some of the right questions. For me, the most problematic thing would be having law enforcement deliberately enforcing the statute selectively.

[damntexdem]

16. A threat is bad enough, from an airport employee worse.

But a security contractor -- oh shit!

And all the guns properly licensed -- oh how law-abiding!

[hugo_from_TN]

24. Racist southern redneck!

Oh wait...

[Cha]

28. What does that even mean?

That there are racist stupid assholes everywhere?

You bet your sweet life.

[No Elephants]

49. The OP article says nothing about race and you were the first person on this thread to mention race.

Interesting.

[Cha]

26. Thank you to the co worker

who reported the "alleged threat."

[RamboLiberal]

30. According to a story I read it was a Continental Airlines Employee

A Continental Airlines employee reported overhearing John Brek make threatening comments at an airport coffee cart Tuesday afternoon.

The 55-year-old security guard was arrested several hours later, Port Authority spokesman John Kelly said. He denied making the threats, said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service.

A message left by The Associated Press at Brek's home Wednesday was not immediately returned. His father, John, told The Star-Ledger of Newark that his son has the guns because he's an avid hunter.

"We take every threat very seriously," Wiley said. "We don't have the luxury of ignoring even the allegation of a threat."

Brek is employed by Floral Park, N.Y.-based FJC Security Services Inc., which has a contract with the Port Authority. Its employees screen airport workers to ensure they have proper credentials, Kelly said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jN_1cMtpnhAb7DVK_y9M3w0dsuNQD9BFNDEO0

[DainBramaged]

144. OK, 43 guns and lives with his parents.......

how normal...............

[wordpix]

152. "how normal" and let's just keep giving this guy more licenses for more guns

because he's just a normal guy :crazy:

[LTR]

31. John Brek Arrested: Newark Security Guard Accused Of Making Terrorist Threats Against Obama

Source: Huffington Post

NEWARK, N.J. — A private security guard at Newark Liberty International Airport was arrested on charges of threatening Barack Obama the night before the president was to fly there.

A Continental Airlines employee reported overhearing John Brek make threatening comments at an airport coffee cart Tuesday afternoon.

The 55-year-old security guard was arrested several hours later, Port Authority spokesman John Kelly said. He denied making the threats, said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service.

Obama will be in New Jersey on Wednesday to campaign for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/john-breck-arrested-newar_n_328927.html

[Ikonoklast]

32. Good. Hold these idiots accountable for their speech.

It's not 'just a joke', or 'just my opinion', or anything except a crime.

[laconicsax]

33. Of course he denied it.

It's how cowards operate--they make grandiose statements and specific threats then deny everything when called on it.

[virgogal]

34. What an ***hole!

[Turbineguy]

35. Another victim

of Fox News

[Mrs. Overall]

36. I heard on the news on the radio earlier today that they confiscated over 40 firearms

at his home.

[wordpix]

154. father said, "...his son has the guns because he's an avid hunter. " You need 43 guns to hunt?

Yeah, right. Every hunter goes in the field carrying 43 guns. :sarcasm: :crazy:

[Hoopla Phil]

165. You may want to research that a little more. An avid shooter that

hunts and competes can easily acquire that amount and much more. Would you use the same rifle to hunt elk as rabbit? How about the reveres, would you use your .22 rabbit rifle to hunt elk? How about a shotgun for dove or quail? You actually need two different shotguns for those two. Oh, and don't forget the magnum shotgun for duck or turkey. And yes, you can (many do) use a handgun to hunt game with.

Then there are the many different types of competitions that involve firearms. IPSC, IDPA, silhouette, skeet/trap, big bore rifle, small bore rifle, three gun matches, and so on and on.

There are also guns for self defense too.

Oh, and lastly, the 2A has nothing to do with either hunting OR need.

[Kievan Rus]

37. Another wingnut off the deep end

[MajorChode]

38. Guns, nuts, religion

Each by itself is not a problem.

[proteus_lives]

46. Nuts is.

If you're nuts, you don't need the other two to do some serious damage.

[No Elephants]

50. Did the article say this guy threatened Obama because of religion?

[wordpix]

160. NRA member, repuke, front door adorned with "God Bless America," violent fantasies re: Obama

http://forums.roadfly.com/forums/politics-lounge/9377575-1.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/newark_guard_arrested_for_prez_threat_cqDLtRSynRa631SrSn93EM

snip: The suspect's father, also named John Brek, told the Newark Star-Ledger that his son kept the guns for hunting deer and rabbits.

He described his son as a Republican and National Rifle Association member but said the younger Brek rarely becomes agitated over politics.

But sources said that at some point in the past Brek talked "about cutting up body and taking the body parts to Pennsylvania to feed to animals."

[TankLV]

187. He likes animals! Stop picking on this average american with an arsenal of nearly 50 guns!!!

[Vidar]

39. Glad they arrested him.

[No Elephants]

51. How many reasons do we need to stop privatizing law enforcement and military functions?

If you run a building and want to hire private security guards or what used to known as "night watchmen" maybe that's fine. Ditto if you are having a private party and want to be sure no one crashes it and your drunk invitees don't get out of hand. But an airport is different from a private building that I can either enter or stay out of, as I please. If I need to take a commercial flight, I have to go to an airport.

The motives for privatizing public functions are usually said to be money, but it rarely works out to be any cheaper. Whatever costs the employer incurs are factored into the cost of the service, no matter who the employer is. And, if it is any cheaper, it's because someone is scrwing their workers.

If someone wants to screw workers who are supposedly guarding airports, let the "screw-ers" be subject to the election process.

[Grateful for Hope]

54. kick

[Purveyor]

55. Illegal Bullets Found In Home Of Man Who Allegedly Threatened Obama

Source: Newsday

http://www.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.1541764.1256245550!image/2363638683.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/2363638683.jpg
Photo credit: AP | John Brek appears on a closed circuit television for a video arraignment in Newark, N.J. on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009.


Fifty "cop killer" bullets and a stolen rifle were among the firearms arsenal confiscated from the home of the Newark Liberty International Airport security guard who allegedly threatened President Barack Obama, law enforcement authorities said.

John Brek, 55, a six-year employee of FJC Security Services in Floral Park, pleaded not guilty on three state felony charges and remained in jail Thursday on a $220,000 bail bond.

He was arrested Tuesday, the night before Obama was due to land in Newark to campaign for Gov. Jon Corzine. Brek told another airport worker "he cut a hole in the fence to be able to shoot the president, that he was just a short distance away," according to the complaint filed in court. Brek also "simulated holding a rifle in the direction of where the president would be, with the purpose to put in him imminent fear of death," the complaint said.

Port Authority and FJC officials Thursday afternoon did not respond to inquiries about the screening of guard applicants, training requirements or past incidents involving FJC security workers.

Port Authority spokesman John Kelly described Brek and other FJC guards as a second layer of security. "They do employee checkpoints," he said. "They do pre-credentialed, pre-vetted employees. They don't deal with the general public."

Read more: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/illegal-bullets-found-in-home-of-man-who-allegedly-threatened-obama-1.1541698

[MineralMan]

56. That sounds like a credible threat. Lock him up.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

90. Ask him what he listens to: guarantee it's Fox and Limbaugh,...GUARANTEE!!

What are his memberships? OHHH,...shouldn't the public know the associations and influences upon the this man who calculated to kill the president? I'd sure as hell like to know. I think the American people ought to know all influences on this man: it's a public safety issue!!!

[wordpix]

157. +1 Definitely should be asked who he gets his "news" from

Guaranteed to be Faux, Limpballs, insHannity, Mann Coulter and the rest of the wacko group

[TheWraith]

57. I call bullshit.

The bullets were ordinary hollow point rounds, which are perfectly legal in every state except New Jersey--and in fact they're required for hunting since they're considered more humane. Calling them "cop killer" bullets is pure scaremongering, akin to calling a couple rusted out trailers in Iraq "mobile biological weapons labs."

In fact, hollow points are even legal in New Jersey so long as--and this is the stupid part--you don't put them into a gun.

[Howardx]

60. so they are in fact illegal

since this was in NJ.

[Hoopla Phil]

66. Only if they were IN the gun. Not just in a box or laying about. I have not

seen a report that said where the bullets were. Only that the suspect had the charge of illegally bullets. I suspect that such a law challenged on a 2A stance would win.

[cstanleytech]

104. Well I wouldnt buy that defense for a minute but its interesting.

[No Elephants]

106. If the statute says having the bullets in the gun is a crime and the police say

they did not find any of those bullets in any of accused's guns, there is no crime. The only defense needed for the crime of having the bullets in the gun is that the bullets were not in any of his guns.

If your're interested, here is the statement of the NJ AG about the statute.

http://www.nj.gov/njsp/about/fire_hollow.html

The statute does indeed look like something that started as a ban on the bullets, but got very wateredd down as a result of lobbying.

[Hoopla Phil]

166. It would not be a defense if the bullets were not in the gun because there would be no crime.

[No Elephants]

105. So far, the only thing the SCOTUS has said about second amendment rights is that there is

a personal right, not confined to militias, thereby rendering several of the words in the Constitution null and void. Of course, that is a clear violation of every rule of interpretation of laws that has existed in our legal system for centuries. But, what does one expect from the Roberts Court? OMA (originalists, my ass).

Nonetheless, it's quite a stretch from a case holding that there is a personal right to concluding that a very narrow law against one particular type of bullet would violate a personal right to bear arms, especially in a case also involving a threat to the President of the United States, 43 "legal" guns and one stolen gun.

The SCOTUS has, however, fleshed out the nature of other rights in the Bill of Rights over the years. Not a one of them has been ruled to be an absolute right. Yet, for some reason, gun lovers think the Second Amendment alone is absolutely absolute, while all other rights are subject to the police powers of the State and a balancing of State interests with individual rights. I don't think even the disgraceful Roberts Court will go in that direction.

[No Elephants]

124. Too late to edit, but the weapon alleged to have been stolen is a rifle, not a gun.

[TheWraith]

155. They didn't render anything "null and void."

In fact, it's been the clear history of jurisprudence in this country that the second amendment DOES protect a personal right to arms, and it was EXPLICITLY STATED AS SUCH by some of the founding fathers. To say otherwise shows you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "A well regulated milita." "Well regulated," in the language of the time, meant properly trained and organized. Not "ban all guns in private ownership." Hell, the Pennsylvania constitution specifically lays out that in the preamble to their equivalent of the second amendment that the purpose of people having guns was both for defense of self and defense of the state.

"Yet, for some reason, gun lovers think the Second Amendment alone is absolutely absolute"

Actually, almost NOBODY thinks that except in strawman land. You're not going to find any rational person arguing against the bans on firearm possession by the mentally ill, people convicted of violent crimes, the need for background checks, etcetera.

[No Elephants]

171. Sorry, but we disagree. What "some of the founding fathers" say about any given subject is

not definitive as to what the Constitution means. For example, if you had asked any founding father if a public school could require a morning prayer or if a state had an absolute right to prohibit abortion, for just two examples, I am guess you would have received a unanimous yes on both questions. Yet, we now have a Constitutional right to be free of publicly required prayer and also a right to abortion under certain circumstances.

Just as an aside, when discussing Constitutional rights, you should probably distinguish between Founders, aka founding fathers, and Framers. But again, as stated and illustrated above, neither group, even if unanimous--which they seldom were--would have the final say today on our Constitutional rights.

The meaning of "well-regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with my point about the rules of interpreting legal documents. "Militia" is the key, not "well regulated."

"Well regulated militia" can still mean properly trained and organized. So what? As far as my point went, the Constitution could have said simply militia, or rag tag militia, or sorry militia, or whatever. The 2d amendment to the Consitution says, in effet, because a militia is important to us, we are going to allow gun ownership. One could just as easily argue that, whoever owns the guns, there is no Consitutional right to use them for any purpose other than a militia.

Even if their were no Constitution right to something, state legislatures could still allow it, so I am not saying there should be no private ownership and use of guns. Every right does not have to be a Constitutional right. Now, the Roberts Court has made one very limited ruling. Until it is fleshed out, we don't its extent. But the SCOTUS can be wrong, even according to the SCOTUS. It overrules its own decisions from time to time. And even if it doesn't, I can think it wrong, just as many people think the school prayer SCOTUS decisions and its abortion decisions are wrong.

As far as arguing for the right to be absolute, sorry, but some of the posts I have seen have argued exactly that--that "no law" means no law at all. And your limited exceptions would argue for a personal right to bear arms that, if not absolute, is broader than the right to free speech. There is absolutely no social policy that warrants imbalance.

[Hoopla Phil]

167. That is not "a very narrow law against one particular type of bullet" It is

a law banning a whole class of bullets (note the plural there) used for a variety of reasons. One reason for hollow points in rifle bullets is to achieve a physically longer bullet to achieve a better coefficient making for a more accurate bullet.

[TheWraith]

79. If he loaded them into a handgun, yes.

Then they'd be illegal under New Jersey law and he'd be subject to up to 5 years imprisonment per bullet, or 250 years just for the ammo. However, that doesn't excuse the extremely bad journalism and outright fearmongering displayed in this article.

If as somebody downthread said, they were hollowpoint rifle bullets, then I have no idea what NJ law is. But 50 is a pretty common size for a box of handgun ammunition.

It's worth noting that some police unions have complained about the hollowpoint ban in NJ because they too are required to avoid hollow points, which are the standard police round across the country due to their effectiveness. NJ actually prosecuted a police officer for using hollow point ammunition, which he bought himself, in his duty weapon.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

98. LOL, I see you know Camden.

I visited once, and I stayed with a state attorney.

She was armed the whole time.

[DainBramaged]

146. First, as always, thank you for your service

second, NJ is NOT a shithole, and I take offense to that. Born and raised here. Just because you disagree with our gun laws doesn't mean we are a shithole. YOUR state has as many if not more crappy communities as NJ does. But since this guy had 42 legal guns (one stolen for 43) I guess the law isn't that shitty that he can buy an arsenal.

Stay safe......I mean that.

[geckosfeet]

61. Are they (hollow points) illegal or not? Seems like a simple question.

Seems like the only law this guy broke was shooting his mouth off about shooting the president. Not sure about the stolen rifle but I would lock him up for planning to shoot the pres.

This seems to be the definitive document regarding hollow point possession in NJ. It says you can keep hollow points in your home so - unless he had them on his person - how can they charge him with possession?
Transportation and use of hollow point ammunition by sportsmen

From the NJ State police

NJ Gun laws(pdf document)

Office of AG

Hollow points are not specifically referenced in this document, but armor penetrating bullets are.
TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 54. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS>PDF document

"Body armor penetrating bullets" means bullet(s) designed for use in a handgun and whose core or
jacket, if the jacket is thicker than .025 of an inch, is of tungsten carbide or hard bronze or is made
of other material, which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale
and is capable of breaching or penetrating body armor.

d) No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of body armor penetrating
bullets except to a Federally-licensed collector of firearms and ammunition who possesses a
valid Collector of Curios and Relics License as defined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(13) or to the
Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, law enforcement agencies and
licensed firearms dealers.
1. Collectors will be limited to the purchase or acquisition of not more than three rounds
of each distinctive variation of cartridges. Distinctive variation includes a different head
stamp, composition, design or color.
2. The seller shall record all sales of such ammunition including the name of the
purchaser, the agency represented, the authorizing chief of police or other authorized law
enforcement officer, or the highest ranking authorized military officer, the date, time and
amount of ammunition. If the sale or disposition was to a law enforcement agency, the
record shall also include the written authorization of the chief of police or highest
ranking official of the agency.
3. All of the above information shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of the State
Police within 48 hours of the sale or disposition.

[No Elephants]

123. The only law he seems to have broken was threatening the President

Why would you conclude only one law, after mentioning a stolen rifle? And why assume he broke no law as to the bullets? And why even go there, given that he was arrested for threatening to kill the President?

BTW, unlike you, I don't know that he actually threatened to kill the President. Allegedly (emphasis on allegedly), he talked about some plan he had to a co-worker. Whether that qualifies as a "threat" to kill the President or not, I have no idea. I do know that laws in derogation of the First Amendment have to be construed narrowly.

As to the allegedly stolen rifle, the article linked in the OP says:

"Brek knew the rifle was stolen when he acquired it, the complaint alleged."

Besides, so far, all the info we have seems to have come from the police. So, it makes sense if you believe the police as all facts, or doubt them as to all. Picking and choosing, however, seems odd.



You conclude his guilt on a threat/First Amendment issue without seeming to consider how the wording of the statute lines up with his alleged conversation, give him the benefit of the doubt on possession of a stolen rifle, despite what a sworn complaint alleged on that score, and conclusively determine his innocence as to the bullets, without knowing all the facts as to the location of the bullets.

Do I discern some kind of bias?

[geckosfeet]

125. Not enough facts. Was he carrying the bullets? If so he was in violation of the law.

I concede that he was in possession of a stolen firearm. Did he know it? That is probably irrelevant, he was in possession.

Did he threaten the president? In his case I would take the threats seriously.

Charges:
* Third Degree making terroristic threats;
* Third Degree receiving stolen property;
* Fourth Degree possession of prohibited devices – hollow point bullets.

Newark security guard John Brek arraigned on 3 charges for threats against President Obama

edited to add charges and link

[RC]

62. I thought cop-killers were teflon coated, designed to pierce Kevlar.

[Hoopla Phil]

65. Correct. Although I've never seen one report of a cop being killed by one.

[No Elephants]

103. Which reports you have or have not seen is not a measure of anything.

[Hoopla Phil]

130. Sure it is. There has never been a cop killed by "cop killer bullets" that

I have ever seen anyone point to. The name is a misnomer, invented to extract an emotional response from the uninformed.

[TheWraith]

74. A Teflon coating does not make bullets penetrate body armor. That's a myth.

What makes bullets capable of piercing body armor is A) sufficient velocity, and B) a hardened jacket and/or core, such as tungsten or forged steel. One company, called KTW, made a series of hardened, armor-piercing bullets for sale to police agencies which were coated with Teflon to reduce the wear on the barrel--firing hardened bullets is very rough on a gun, and can shorten the useful life of the barrel. However, these rounds were never available for sale to the public. But by that time the myth of "Teflon-coated" bullets had already been created in the media.

[No Elephants]

107. Googling will get you lots of information that says the opposite of what you are saying about

penetration, whether one googles hollow point bullets or teflon coated bullets.

[Hoopla Phil]

136. That does not make it reality though. It however indicative of all the mis-

information that is out there on this subject. The teflon coating does the same job of a copper jacket around a penetrator. It protects the barrel of the firearm from being damaged by the very hard penetrator.

[TheWraith]

148. Google will also tell you the Twin Towers were brought down by thermite, not airplanes.

Google has a lot of stuff in it that is simply wrong. This is one example.

Penetration and expansion are opposite qualities in a bullet. "Full metal jacket" rounds are designed to penetrate as much and as far as possible. Hollow point bullets are designed to penetrate as LITTLE as possible. That's why they're the standard load for police officers, defensive pistol loads, and hunting--because they hit the target and flatten out, giving a cleaner chance of a "take down" and not endangering somebody by penetrating too far and maybe going out the other side.

And the teflon thing is simply total, unscientific bullshit.

[SkyDaddy7]

63. My mistake wrong case of right wing nut job...

I will look into what type of bullets he actually had...They could have been Teflon tipped "ballistic tipped" bullets. However, those are high powered rifle rounds and all high powered rifle rounds will pass straight through a vest whether they are Teflon Tipped or not. Vest are for stopping hand gun rounds and light rifles. Unless there is some new vest out there I am not aware of...If so then why are our troops wearing bulky flak jackets? There is not.

Vest are for handguns not high powered rifles. So, calling Teflon tipped bullets "cop killers" is very misleading. The press looking to sensationalize!

NO, I am not a freeper so please don't call me one. Look at my screenname if you have the slightest doubt. Just keepin it real!

[TheWraith]

77. Vests can be effective against rifles too.

Body armor comes in several classes. The type used by most big city police is level 3A soft armor. That means it'll stop handgun and shotgun projectiles, but not rifle bullets. The most effective available is level 5 with trauma plates, which will stop anything up to and including a 30-06 round. (Which for those following at home, is three times more powerful than most modern military rounds such as 5.56 and 7.62x39.)

As far as I'm aware, all current ballistic tip brands are tipped with ordinary plastic, not teflon, not that it matters.

Also, even a level 5 vest with trauma plates will NOT stop something more powerful than 30-06, such as .338 Lapua or .50 BMG. However these are exceedingly rare and the rifles are... shall we say "fairly obvious" since the typical .50 BMG rifle is almost five feet long.

[SkyDaddy7]

87. Thanks!

I was not aware they had vest that could actually stop a 30-06 round! That is almost hard to imagine! Are they bulky? The level 5 vest w/trauma plates?

I was told the flak jackets the troops wear wont stop an AK round...Is this true? If so, that is insane that we have such vest and the troops do not have them. Of course, the bulky question does play a major role as many of the troops pull the ceramic plates out of their flak jackets due to the way they rub them raw in some spots.

Your knowledge is greatly appreaciated!

BTW-Those were Winchester Black Talon hollow points...What other .44 hollow point did Winchester make that was labeled Cop Killers?

[TheWraith]

93. I haven't seen one personally, but I've heard they are.

The level V stuff isn't available to the public, and they generally don't like disclosing the specs, but I've heard numbers on the order of 30 pounds. I think that theoretically, level IV body armor is also rated to stop a standard standard 150 grain FMJ 30-06, but level V is supposed to represent better protection against steel core rounds, which represent a lot of ammo that came out of military surplus and the Warsaw Pact. The thing they're most worried about over in Iraq for the CIA agents and visiting dignitaries is 7.62x54R sniper rifles.

I'm afraid I don't know what other Winchester hollow point you're thinking of. But then, handgun ammo isn't really my specialty.

[baldguy]

73. The Essex County prosecutor's office seems to have a different opinion.

And here I thought a responsible gun enthusiast would be respectful of the law.

[Blandocyte]

82. Illegal. Excellent.

There should be outright bans on all this shit-- lead round nose, semi-jacketed, whatever. Ban the shit.

[TheWraith]

86. And your good reason for violating the constitution is...?

It's always informative to see who considers shredding the bill of rights to be okay when it's for a cause they like. Warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration? EVIL! Advocating that Obama have Glenn Beck arrested for treason? COOL!

[No Elephants]

109. The extent of the Constitutional right to bear arms is far from settled. Please see Reply 105.

[No Elephants]

102. I call bullshit on your bullshit call.

First, exactly what are you calling bullshit on? So far, he is charged with threatening to kill the President, which is its own crime, regardless of his gun and/or bullet situation.

Second, he and his bullets were in New Jersey, where, even according to you, the bullets ARE illegal in certain circumstances. Who cares if they were legal and/or required in other states? That's irrelevant.

Third, the article linked in the OP says the bullets are legal in SOME other states, not in all other states.

"Officers found 50 rounds of 44-caliber, 240 grain-jacketed Remington hollow point bullets, illegal in some states, including New Jersey, because they can pierce cops' bullet-resistant armor, said Paul Loriquet, spokesman for the Essex County prosecutor's office."

This 2008 article states that the Boston City Council was considering a ban, so states may not be the only issue.

http://www.baystatebanner.com/local14-2008-11-20

Further, the law seems to be in flux, going in the direction of banning them. This sounds like a situation in which law is playing catch up with technology.

"Under the proposed ban, only police instructors and licensed firearm collectors would be permitted to own the bullets, which are already banned in 16 states."

Fourth, there is, of course, the issue of the stolen gun and why someone with 43 guns that seem to have been properly acquired and licensed also needs a stolen one.

As far as the law's being crazy, more than likely, that is the result of some compromise with one or more gun lobbies.

[Hoopla Phil]

137. I call bullshit on you calling bullshit on his bullshit call.

First and only reason needed.

"exactly what are you calling bullshit on?"

If you do not know than you cannot call bullshit. LOL

[TheWraith]

151. What am I calling bullshit on? Bad science, for one thing.

Hollow point bullets are not capable of penetrating body armor. In fact they're the polar opposite of bullets that can penetrate armor. Hollow point bullets are designed to be soft; armor piercing bullets are designed to be very hard. Hollow points are illegal in New Jersey because state lawmakers are apparently stupid, and believe anything that they're told.

Second, they are not illegal in 16 states. In fact, they are ONLY illegal in New Jersey. Period. And the law is not playing "catch up" with technology, hollow point bullets have been around for 150 years. In fact hollow points are REQUIRED BY LAW for hunting in most states.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. Have they determined his freerepublic handle yet?

[TheCowsCameHome]

59. Has RimJob scrubbed the Freep site yet?

[Dirigo]

64. Dick Cheney Voted Against Outlawing Cop Killer Bullets

Then congresscritter Dick Cheney voted against the safety and welfare of police officers and voted against outlawing "Cop Killer Bullets" and had the audacity to face the police for their support in his Bush/Cheney election gig. Conservatives apparantly Hate Cops!

[Hoopla Phil]

68. So, can you name one cop killed by these so called cop killer bullets?

Outside "Lethal Weapon III" of course.

[paulsby]

78. i've been a cop 20 yrs

and i have never heard of a guy using "cop killer" bullets, let alone anyone being shot by one

i've been shot at, many of my friends have been shot. i have never seen nor heard of a cop killer bullet in the real world i live in.

iow, they aren't in any sort of common use

[No Elephants]

111. Why is that relevant to this thread?

[Hoopla Phil]

131. Because it was a separate thread that the mods combined with this one.

To that thread it is relevant. Otherwise why would you ask something like that giving relevance to an otherwise irrelevant thread? The mere fact that someone questions relevance in and of itself raises the point to relevance.

Should it become so convoluted to question relevance of a point then the point is elevated to the point of relevance simply being pointed out as to being irrelevant in the first point. Bottom line

Main Entry: rel·e·vance
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1733

1 a : relation to the matter at hand b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence <giving relevance to college courses>
2 : the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevance


So using definition 2 I claim as the user 1) of my keyboard, computer, monitor, and all other items included to make internet contact with D.U. and 2) as A user of this wonderful forum provided to us by the great folks at D.U. my post has relevance.

Have a nice day.

[No Elephants]

110. Since lobbyists were then what they are now, it's a toss up.

Either the gun lovers looked like more votes than the "law and order" voters or the contributed more.

Then again, we know Dick loves him some ammo, even if only to shoot up the face of his hunting companion.

[onehandle]

67. ...and dozens of guns. A perfectly normal thing to some people. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

69. Yes it is. If you are into the shooting sports it is very easy

to acquire several dozen.

[onehandle]

70. Ask ten people on the street if owning 43 guns is normal.

Nine will look shocked and say no.

[The Court Jester]

72. Ask ten people on the street.......

If they support the entire bill of rights including the 2nd Amendment, and of those that even know what you are talking about, the vast majority would say, "YES!!"

[Hoopla Phil]

95. delete: wrong place.

[No Elephants]

112. In order to say INTELLIGENTLY that you support the Second Amendment, you would first have to

know what the SCOTUS has defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment to be. We don't know that yet. And please see Reply 105.

[TheWraith]

149. Yes we do. See DC vs. Heller.

SCOTUS has ruled that firearms bans are unconstitutional.

[Hoopla Phil]

94. Ask 10 people at my local gun club and all 10 will say yes. Your point is moot.

[No Elephants]

113. Who says members of gun clubs are typical of the population as a whole? Or even sane

when it comes to the issue of guns?

[Hoopla Phil]

132. I do. And my statement is just as valid as the previous person that

brought up the idea to ask 10 people off the street about guns. Why do you question a persons sanity just for owning a legal thing? A constitutionally protected thing at that.

[Hoopla Phil]

97. Asking 10 people on the street will do little. My post was to give an

example of those "into the shooting sports". Your "confidence factor" is VERY limited if you do not correct for such things.

[boppers]

99. Ask ten Klansmen about what rights black people should have?

Intentionally skewing data, by asking a specific group, removes the whole point of "10 people on the street", which is to sample the general public, rather than a targeted subset of the public.

[Hoopla Phil]

134. So ask 10 people on the street about banning di hydrogen monoxide. Oh wait

Penn and Tell did that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

The point is that if you go and ask uneducated (dare I say ignorant) people a question that they have no knowledge of (is that repetitive?) then you will get uneducated ignorant answers.

So the question is, Do you want informed answers? If so, go to where the informed people are.

[boppers]

139. DHMO sucks. It's a chemical weapon! ;)

I understand your point about getting informed answers, so maybe a compromise point would be to "ask 10 professionals, who carry weapons as part of their work, if owning 43 is unusual or excessive".

[No Elephants]

115. Actually, most law is based upon the hypothetical "reasonable person," and/or

community standards. So "person in the street" is a lot closer to the appropriate standard than the average gun enthusiast.

[Hoopla Phil]

135. Except when law is based on facts or when "reasonable" becomes capricious or

arbitrary. Which is what you get when asking uninformed people about a subject. If you want an informed answer, ask informed people.

[Posteritatis]

183. Yes, because public opinion is the real determinant of what should be allowed

Ask ten people on the street if being gay is normal and you'll get a lot of objections on most streets too. Let's outlaw that as well - the street has spoken!

[No Elephants]

114. "Easy to acquire" is not the same as "normal."

[Sirveri]

71. What if he's a collector, and otherwise didn't do anything wrong.

I personally enjoy firearms and I'd never hurt anyone with them, barring a home invasion or similar incident. So because of this nut job I'm somehow suppossed to give up my rights? A freind of mine does own at least a dozen guns, with over 1000 rounds of ammo for each. He's probably not going to hurt anyone else either.

[digidigido]

76. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???? HE THREATENED THE POTUS

[TheWraith]

84. Which is why he's going to prison.

And rightly so. But the fact that the media wants to indulge in fearmongering and ignore actual facts isn't any more acceptable now than it would be if, say, we were talking about the "Reefer Madness" myths about marijuana turning people into raving psychopaths. It's crap, and beating up on all gun owners because one of their own turned out to be a crazy asshole is no more appropriate than beating up on everybody who used an illegal drug.

This guy doesn't worry me. The ones that do are the ones who are competant enough not to give advance warning.

[No Elephants]

116. Who the hell said he is going to prison? He has not even been tried yet, let alone sentenced.

As far as giving warning, sorry, that just does not hold true. People used to say the same thing about committing suicide--that people who said they were going to do so never actually did. That has been disproven.

If someone is nutty enough to want to assassinate a President, he or she may just be nutty enough not to have perfect filters on his or her speech.

[newspeak]

179. I'm with you!!!

He threatened the President-and, unlike, the guy who just jokingly referred to the "burning Bush" at the gym and wound up in prison--this guy will probably be released after being interviewed, like the others. What matters if he has guns? He publicly threatened the President--he could have used explosives, a knife or other weapon. I agree with Michael Moore, the difference between Canada and the US (because Canada has guns), is FEAR, and apparently ignorance and hate. Our MSM feeds it to us daily--and look at those right wing wackos--they just eat it up.

I was raised with guns. I was shooting a gun by the time I was four. But, I don't live and breathe guns-and, my step-father, who loved his guns, was also an abusive, cowardly asshole. But, not everyone that owns guns are fear driven wackos, just some.;-)

[Divine Discontent]

96. your comment seems to be for a different thread

as, yes, this guy had a lot of guns (I know hundreds of people pretty well, 1 of them has more than 1 gun, maybe 20 have a gun, including me), but this guy threatened the CIC of our armed forces, and our president! lets keep on the right channel here, and I'm not arguing, just saying, I don't see how this is saying that guns are going to be taken away. My friend that has bunches of guns acts the same way and I have to keep telling him to relax, it hasn't happened since they kept saying it since Dukakis, and it isn't happening now.

[Sirveri]

127. I kinda went off on a wild tangent.

Just something I was kicking around my head from the other day. I pretty much agree with you, I'm just irritated at CA gun laws, which basically prevent me from collecting stuff I'd like to collect.

[Divine Discontent]

138. ah! I see. CA gun laws. ok, thanks.

[No Elephants]

117. What? Didn't OTHERWISE do anything wrong? Do we all get one free crime, or only

gun lovers?

So far, this guy is charged with threatening to kill the President, which definitely is a federal crime, possession of a stolen gun, which is probably a crime under NJ law, and possession of a kind of bullet that is illegal to have in guns, under NJ. So, depending upon the location of the bullets, we have either two or three crimes at minimum.

As far as your friend "probably" not hurting anyone, what does that have to do with this thread? This thread is not about owning guns or owning ammunition.

And how on earth does arresting this guy take away any of your rights to do anything?

[baldguy]

75. Dozens that were unregistered - and one that he knew was stolen.

Perfectly normal.

[TheWraith]

80. Actually the cops said all of them were registered. nt

[Blandocyte]

83. Eff that. Ban 'em all.

[TheWraith]

85. The US constitution disagrees with you. nt

[musicblind]

101. and as history has shown

sometimes the constitution, and sometimes the constitutions amendments are not always correct.

I'm not speaking out against all guns in this particular post. But someone on the other side of the fence could argue that he has a human right to live safely in his own country.

[No Elephants]

120. And sometimes, the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect, especially in recent

times, when votes go almost invariably along party lines, the now retired Justice Souter being a notable exception on most issues and the retired Justice O'Connor being a notable exception on some issues (and Justice Sotomayor not having a track record yet) All the 5-4 decisions are extremely telling. And Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito never seem to have met an extreme PNAC or con position they didn't love, to the point of being deceptive in their respective confirmation hearings.

Please see also, Reply 105.

[Pavulon]

128. Like the booze ban. finish up the drug ban before you start a new one.

i mean you are oh so close to banning weed and coke. It has been ages since I have seen anyone smoke dope or do a line..

[TheWraith]

153. And some people think life would be so much safer without the danger of freedom of speech.

After all, that would mean no more hate speech, no more anti-gay rhetoric, no more subtle incitements to violence, right? Only it's ILLEGAL. Look, you're free to go ahead and start trying to cut out pieces of the constitution in order to make people "more safe" if you want to try. You know, just like Bush and Cheney did.

[No Elephants]

118. Please see Reply 105.

[Dogmudgeon]

89. "Fifty (RKBA expletive deleted) bullets and a stolen rifle ..."

Stolen rifles are not customarily registered by the thief or the recipient, although in some jurisdictions, rifles need not be registered.

--d!

[TheWraith]

91. Shrug. All I know is the original reports cited the police that all the weapons were registered.

Maybe the stolen one was hidden.

[No Elephants]

121. The article linked in the OP (now Reply #55) says that they found a stolen gun AND that Brek knew

when he acquired it that it had been stolen.

"Brek knew the rifle was stolen when he acquired it, the complaint alleged."

[Hoopla Phil]

168. Of course they ALLEGED that he knew about it. If he bought it without knowing it it would not

be a crime. If he has gone through all the trouble of registering his handguns as the N.J. law requires I find it very difficult to believe that he would knowingly accept a stolen gun.

[No Elephants]

119. Is that bc you've been posting on the thread without reading the article linked in the OP (now Reply

55, since the thread was combined with an older one), or because you believe the police when they claim most guns were properly registered, but not when they claim he not only possessed a stolen gun, but knew it was stolen when he acquired it?

"Brek knew the rifle was stolen when he acquired it, the complaint alleged."

[tomm2thumbs]

81. I hear there are some open stalls at Gitmo soon -

maybe he and Cheney can be cellmates

[Dogmudgeon]

88. COP-KILLERS! That's fear-mongering at its WORST!

It's all the fault of the GUN-GRABBERS!

--d!

[No Elephants]

122. LOL, hyperbolic much? That is far from fear mongering at its worst. At most,

it is mildly sensationalized journalism, but that is a very common way to refer to that type of bullet. And, I believe the article placed the term in quotes, indicating exactly that.

[Pavulon]

129. Because they are just really stupid.

I could take the time to list cartridges, handgun cartridges, that are legal in NJ and will defeat type 3 body armor. Regular FMJ ammo.. Now a rifle can do that just with kinetic energy or by aiming for a persons head.

If the guy broke the law in regards to the potus, sentence him. The whole gun angle is just to stir up the plebes.

[Dogmudgeon]

147. I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ...

... me be misunderstood.

Hypobolic, perhaps.

Note the capitalized words:

COP-KILLERS! That's fear-mongering at its WORST!

It's all the fault of the GUN-GRABBERS!

It's a very subtle paragraph-based hediadys. (Or a bicolon, if you will.)

It's like saying, "You (the gun fan) are just as crazy as the other (anti-gun) guy!"

I'm not usually understood around these parts. I strongly support gun RIGHTS, but I think most RKBAers are absolutely psycho. We at DU have lucked out, getting some of the least psycho gun fans, but there is still plenty of emotion to spread around.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to lampoon either side without bunking out on Procrustes' Bed. Alas, the culpa is entirely mea.

--d!

[Hoopla Phil]

169. It's not hyperbole when it's true.

The misnomer "cop-killer bullets" came about to describe armor piercing handgun bullets that anti's did not want us mere civilians to have. In this article the misnomer is now (and incorrectly) being applied to hollow point bullets. Bullets that do the exact opposite of the bullets that the misnomer was coined to describe.

[alp227]

100. Threats against the President coming from an airport security guard?

In the post 9/11 world, that would be un-American, wouldn't it? I hope this horrid man gets his time in the big house and faces REAL threats from co-inmates, maybe some liberal ones too. :9

[DainBramaged]

145. Fifty "cop killer" bullets and a stolen rifle

I guess he'll be put in general population now................

[wordpix]

156. the employer, FJC Security, sounds like an arm of KBR/Halliburton

snip: The firm has made headlines with several incidents in recent years, most notably with one of its largest clients, the Port Authority. In the most recent case, two FJC guards were fired last month after being caught dozing in guard booths at the George Washington Bridge.

FJC was hired in 2003 by the authority to help patrol many of its facilities. A year later, a man killed himself with a shotgun at the Ground Zero pit, where FJC guards were on gate duty. The Port Authority launched an investigation into the firm. Kelly could not supply details of the probe's outcome by press time.

[No Elephants]

126. Amazing what garbage oozes out of the woodwork on any thread mentioning weapons.

It would have made sense if this thread had turned out to be about whether or not this man was guilty of threatening to kill the President, meaning whether his talking to a co-worker about shooting the President through a hole in the fence were actually a "threat" within the meaning of the applicable federal statute. The thread ccould also have legitimately been about whether a statute crimninalizing speech and nothing more is valid under the First Amendment. Or about the adequacy of the screening procedures (when hiring) of the accused's employer. All of that would have been

Yet, the thread got to be about an alleged Constitution right to bear arms, even though neither of the two articles mentions any challenge to this guy's stockpiling of rifles and guns that are properly registered and he has not been charged with anything but the threat. The laws discussed by everyone but me were the laws about weapons and ammo and their nuances, not the wording of the law criminalizing threats against the President. Not to mention seeing posters that you never see on any other kind of the thread.

The focus, or lack thereof, is absa frickin' lootely bizarre, IMO, as is the obsessiveness.

Not to mention the lack of support for the legal claims.

That's why I usually stay away from gun threads. However, as stated, based on the two OP's, there was no sane way to assume that the focus of this thread would be the alleged right to bear arms, rather than the issues actually presented by the two articles. Next time, if I see any mention of a weapon at all, even in armed robbery or murder, I'll assume the thread is about the alleged right to bear arms and enter the thread expecting poor quality posts.

[Pavulon]

133. Amazing how the DA and some posters cant walk and chew gum

if the guy threatened the president with a weapon or made a threat and had the ability to act it out great, convict him. If he had stolen weapons convict that of him too.
Now if he had lots of guns and that is listed as an aggravating factor then people will look at it again and ask why. If they use scary "cop killer" language about a round that will not defeat body armor to stir up the plebes then people may call that out.

When people point out that JHP rounds are illegal in a state with a major crime problem and that they are referred to as "cop killer" it becomes funny. Not tungsten core penetrator rounds, just PISTOL ammo made of copper and lead.

This is the internet, no thread or post ever stays on topic. If it did I would be scared.

[No Elephants]

172. Again, you've missed the point. I never said nor implied that every message board thread should

stay exactly on topic. That is entirely different from having almost every thread in which a gun is even mentioned made into a Constitutional rights thread (by either side, for that matter,but only one side seems to do that fairly consistently).

And, you never addressed the issue of posters (or screen names) who seem to show up to post here only on one topic, which was very relevant to my prior post as a whole

So, no, I am not among those who have trouble chewing gum while walking (or reading for comprehension, or treating a post fairly or dealing with all issues in a post).

[Hoopla Phil]

140. Regarding your "an alleged Constitution right to bear arms" it is in fact

an AFFIRMED Constitutional right. I point you to the recent Heller decision for your information. It is also worth pointing out that, while the technical aspects of the D.C. ban were not agreed upon by all judges, all judges did in fact agree that the right to keep and bear was an individual right.

It (the Heller decision) is full of legal basis along with historical references to put intent and definitions in context.

[No Elephants]

173. Thanks, but posts of mine on this thread had already referred to that

Supreme Court decision, so there is no need to point it out to me. My use of "alleged" in the post to which you replied indicates that (a) we don't know the parameters of that decision and (b) if the import of the decision is anywhere near as broa as some of you claim, then I heartily disagree with it.

As to SCOTUS Justices being outright wrong on some issues, however, please see Reply 171.

[Hoopla Phil]

178. By definition it is not an alleged right. It is an affirmed right.

Again I point you to the Heller decision where ALL the judges agreed that the 2A is an individual right. That is a fact.

[Realityhack]

177. To be fair Post #55 links to an article aledging illigal weapons.

as well as illegal ammunition.

[friendly_iconoclast]

180. Amazing the number of self-appointed mods and experts on the Consttution

this thread attracted

[DainBramaged]

143. 43 guns, was he expecting an invasion? oh wait, two hands, two guns...

I have a bunch of computers, but I don't need 43.....

[lonestarnot]

159. Good.

[wordpix]

161. freepers are going nuts over this

[No Elephants]

175. I never go to FREEP. Still, I knew that, simply from reading this thread.