XPost: talk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 4/15/2017 7:04 PM, max headroom wrote:   
   > upchucker wrote:   
   >> On 16/04/2017 10:25 AM, max headroom wrote:   
   >>> upchucker wrote:   
   >>>> On 16/04/2017 8:56 AM, max headroom wrote:   
   >>>>> upchucker wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 16/04/2017 6:18 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>> I saw it at first light.  I am the one who has been stating   
   >>>>>>> that carrying a gun in your purse without a CCW permit is   
   >>>>>>> a state crime, not a federal one.  Being in the restricted   
   >>>>>>> area of the airport carrying a loaded firearm is a federal   
    >>>>>>> crime, not a state one.   
   >   
   >>>>>> and she didn't commit one   
   >   
   >>>>> Was she NOT in a secure area of an airport with a loaded gun?   
   >>>>> Cite your source for this revelation.   
   >   
   >>>> Did she knowingly and wilfully have it on her?...   
   >   
   >>> Irrelevant. Was she NOT in a secure area of an airport with   
    >>> a loaded gun?   
   >   
   >> So? No intent no crime   
    >>   
   > Really? Is that how it works in Oz?   
   > If you don't know you're drunk, you can drive?   
   > If you can't read the road signs, you can ignore them?   
   > If she looks old enough, she's fair game?   
   >   
   All y'all, read up on mens rea, a latin phrase referring to mental   
   culpability.  It varies from crime to crime.  Some crimes require actual   
   intent, others require knowledge but not necessarily intent, or "should   
   have known", or gross negligence, etc.  You have to look at the specific   
   statute to determine the mens rea for that particular crime.  Then you   
   have to look at the perpetrator's specific acts and mental state to   
   determine whether the perp acted with the requisite degree of   
   culpability for that particular crime.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)