XPost: talk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, alt.survival   
   From: klausschadenfreude-nospam@null.net   
      
   On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:14:00 +1000, de chucka    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 14/04/2017 10:12 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:57:50 +1000, de chucka    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 14/04/2017 9:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:37:58 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 13/04/2017 8:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:57:59 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 12/04/2017 8:30 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:01:38 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2017 11:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:16:08 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't explain how a permit would allow her to legally carry   
   a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> weapon through the TSA checkpoint, though.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't but if she had it she wouldn't have been charged.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, she would have. See the law I quoted above.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Did she will-fully and knowingly carry it in?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Does according to Georgian law and Arizona law   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Too bad. We're talking federal law here. You lose again.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Please State the law   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I already did that once for you. How many times do I need to do it?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Message-ID:    
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Why are you so fucking stupid?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> but that shows intent is needed, hey you've proved yourself wrong. WELL   
   >>>>> DONE rubes   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You need to read it again.   
   >>>   
   >>> Read it again still shows intent is needed, hey you've proved yourself   
   >>> wrong. WELL DONE rubes   
   >>   
   >> Since you are obviously unable to comprehend the King's English, let   
   >> me try to explain it to you.   
   >>   
   >> A person may not knowingly and willfully enter, in violation of   
   >> security requirements prescribed under section 44901, 44903(b) or (c),   
   >> or 44906 of this title, an aircraft or an airport area that serves an   
   >> air carrier or foreign air carrier.   
   >>   
   >> She knew she was armed.   
   >   
   >Wrong, she didn't know she was armed when she ENTERed, the TSA didn't   
   >know she was armed. When she realised she was she self reported.   
   >   
   >But hey you didn't even bother looking at the OP fully   
      
   I noticed you changed your lame story that she couldn't be charged if   
   she had her permit. At least I taught you that.   
      
   But yes, she can STILL be charged by being in that area with a gun. It   
   doesn't matter if she knew it or not.   
      
   It's only a matter of time before you figure this out, too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)