David Huckabee, a son of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, was arrested at an Arkansas airport Thursday after a federal X-ray technician detected a loaded Glock pistol in his carry-on luggage.
When asked if he thought this incident might hurt his father’s presidential chances, Huckabee responded, “It shouldn’t.” Hmm. Was his usage intended to be imperative or indicative?
Whatever.
Nugent said David Huckabee had a .40-caliber Glock pistol in his black carry-on bag. Eight live rounds were in the gun – none in the chamber – and a nine-round clip was also in the bag. The weapon and ammunition were detained by Little Rock police while David Huckabee’s gun permit was seized and given to the Arkansas State Police.
Mike Huckabee said his son grabbed the bag on the way to the airport and didn’t realize the gun was inside.
“It’s one of those stupid things,” Mike Huckabee said. “He knows better.”
Yeah… so, here’s a guy, so well trained that he has a license to carry a concealed weapon, and he just leaves bags stuffed with loaded guns lying about the house, willy-nilly. And you wonder why I’m left feeling just a tad nervous by the dystopian dream of a heavily armed society?
So, since Mike’s son is a fuckwad, the rest of us can’t exercise our Constitutional right? Not even Darcy Burner? (who has a concealed permit)
Ross Perot’s son did a similar thing back in May 1993 at Sea-Tac Airport. Everyone is entitled to his day in court. Perot’s son was tried by a local jury, and was acquitted, based on not knowing about the gun:
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....=perot+gun
Will, did I mention anything about gun control?
From the cited article:
I’m just saying that the idea that we’d all be safer if we’d all go out and arm ourselves, is nuts. The world is filled with stupid fuckwads. Anybody who has ever driven a car knows what I’m talking about.
If we were all armed there would be thousands of David Huckabees leaving loaded Glocks lying around. The thought of it just doesn’t make me feel safe.
“David Allen, his Seattle attorney, said Perot had put the gun in a bag in Dallas, along with a cellular phone and some other items, intending to take it home from his office.
On the first leg of his trip, Perot flew aboard a private plane. From Philadelphia to Seattle, he traveled on a commercial flight, but the gun passed through security undetected.”
Probably a good thing for him too, because the penalties for carrying a concealed weapon might be much more severe in Pennsylvania — it is only a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor here. Also, remember until a few years ago, private contractors hired by the airlines did the screening, and even the local airports could not really control this screening process because of federal law.
Didn’t Sen Jim Webb, DEMOCRAT, VA, give his aid a weapon to smuggle into Congress? Gee, I guess this post will last about 3 minutes.
BOY SCOUTS KILL DOG!
ACTION NEEDED: DEMAND INVESTIGATION
(Miller County, Arkansas) Two boy scout counselors, 17 year old Clayton Frady and 18 year old David Huckabee, the son of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death.
Camp officials, who did not report the crime to law enforcement officials, have admitted that the act did occur and have fired the boys from their positions. However, no charges have been filed against the young men.
Arkansas State Police conducted a perfunctory investigation, but did not attempt to locate witnesses to the crime.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Corntact: Mr. Tim Williamson, Prosecuting Attorney, 18th Judicial District, West, P.O. Drawer 109, Mena, AR 71953; Fax: (501) 394-6173
Please contact the prosecutor; request that the case be investigated thoroughly and that animal cruelty charges be filed against Frady and Huckabee. Cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor in Arkansas and if convicted, Huckabee and Frady could be sentenced to one year in jail and fined $1,000.00.
Also Contact: Chief Scout Executive Jere Ratcliffe, Boy Scouts of America National Office, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, TX 75015-2079; Phone: (972) 580-2000; Fax: (972) 580-2502
Demand that the Boy Scouts’ National Office conduct an internal investigation of the killing.
http://www.utopiarescue.com/ol.....orture.htm
If we assume that young Huckabee is an otherwise law abiding and safe person (his gun would not fall into kid’s hands, etc.) then yes, we are all safer, incrementally. Unless you can tell us factually why we are less safe, I’ll have to write this one off to the fact that you are brainwashed.
“And you wonder why I’m left feeling just a tad nervous, bla bla” Get some perspective Goldy. Violent crime rates, bullet deaths, whatever are all down compared to the 1970’s and 1980’s, even though there are more guns around now. What’s your problem?
David Huckabee would make a DOG-GONE excellent addition to Frank Blethen’s staff at the Seattle Times.
I support gun rights, and fervently believe every liberal should be armed (and an expert shot), but wingnuts are so fucking stupid about everything else I’m nervous about the idea of letting THEM have guns.
I think we should pass a law requiring all Republicans to surrender their firearms. It’s for their own good.
“U.S. officer accused of aiding enemy
“By Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan
“The Washington Post
“BAGHDAD, Iraq — A senior U.S. Army officer who led a military-police unit guarding prisoners in Iraq has been charged with ‘aiding the enemy’ for allowing detainees to use a cellphone, having a relationship with a detainee’s daughter and other offenses, according to a U.S. military statement.
“Lt. Col. William H. Steele, an active Army reservist, … had an intimate relationship with an Iraqi woman whose father is a former Baath party official held at Camp Cropper, according to a U.S. military official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“Steele allowed both the woman and her father to use an unmonitored cellphone and was ‘sloppy’ with sensitive documents, said the official, who described Steele as a former police officer. There appeared to be no evidence … hat the father was passing U.S. military secrets to insurgents …, the official said. …
“The accusation of aiding the enemy is grave and relatively rare, and can carry … the death penalty upon conviction. … The other charges against Steele, which span a period from October 2005 to February of this year, include having an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with a female interpreter, ‘wrongfully and knowingly’ storing classified information in his living quarters, failing to obey orders and keeping pornography, according to a statement by the military.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/32fubf
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Hmmm … death penalty. They’re gonna kill this guy for looking at dirty pictures and having an affair. Typical. The Bushies are notorious for overcharging — remember Jose Padilla? They accused him of plotting to nuke the U.S., but eventually will plea-bargain that down to jaywalking or some other misdemeanor.
Not that jaywalking isn’t a big deal; it is. Republicans will throw you in Supermax for 50 years for cutting across a lawn or a gas drive-off. (But if a Republican commits treason, he gets the GOP’s best defense lawyers and a House ethics chairman who sees, hears, and speaks of no evil — even when evil is right under his nose. Yeah, that’s YOU I’m talking about, Doc Hastings.)
So they’re gonna executing this guy for fucking an Iraqi woman. When you get right down to it, that’s what the charges boil down to. What the hell do Republicans have against sex, anyway? Probably jealousy.
I say, bust him back to private, and reassign him to KP.
A Lt.Col. is not a “senior” officer. When I was in the Army, the majors and LTC’s in my outfit often referred to the officers above them as “sheepherders.” Clearly, they considered themselves “sheep” — i.e., people who were given no autonomy and weren’t allowed to think for themselves. Unless things have changed since 1969, a Lt.Col. is nothing more than a flunky who outranked me — which isn’t saying much.
Two cops who shot a 92-year-old woman in a drug raid gone awry copped manslaughter pleas yesterday. They face up to 10 years. She got three cops before they got her.
What the hell is a 92-year-old in a rocking chair doing with a loaded gun, anyway? She knew how to use it, too. I’m sure glad I didn’t wander into HER garden.
If you want to play with guns, join the army.
Otherwise, repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Hey #13 Proud,
Why don’t you put a sign in your front yard saying that it is a gun free zone and you have no firearms in the house.
Personally I do not want to put the defense of myself in the hands of the same government that has secret prisons in other countrries and Gitmo. I will not surrender my rights to that same government either.
Well, so much for the “I didn’t know defense.”
“I removed the bag and asked Mr. Huckabee if he knew what he had in the bag,” Little Rock police officer Arthur Nugent wrote in a report after being summoned to a security checkpoint. “He replied he did now.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....2761.shtml
I have accidentally had banned things in my bag for flights as I am sure many people had. Heck, I had a knife pulled out of my luggage that I had no idea was there. These things happen and the TSA folks were professional and courteous about the whole thing.
But this over-privileged man-child knew it was in there and tried to go anyway. Maybe he felt entitled. Who knows…. In any case, the guy should have his license to carry revoked and be put on suspension at the least.
One of these days the idiots that report this stuff will figure out the difference between a magazine and a clip.
“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.”
My reading of the second amendment, along with a little study of the history surrounding it leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the “well regulated Militia” referred to here is the entire body of armed citizenry, and that the founding fathers fully intended for all citizens to be able to keep any weaponry that was available to the federal army. Indeed, one of the purposes of the amendment was to make sure that the militia would always be stronger than the forces available to the central government.
Yes, at this point that becomes more than just a bit absurd, but that is the history and intent of the amendment, so the argument that the “well regulated Militia” phrase allows government to violate the “shall not be infringed” part of that amendment requires ignoring the expressed intent of the writers of the amendment.
No, I don’t want my neighbors having a howitzer in the back yard, and I think that the homeowners association would have unhappy things to say about tanks tearing up the streets, but an honest reading of the Second Amendment clearly allows that.
Since the chances of any sort of rational, nation-wide discussion on this topic are almost nil, and any change to the Second Amendment would require that sort of discussion, we’re probably stuck with the current situation, where we have laws that are clearly unconstitutional, but out of an instinct for self-preservation and even perhaps a bit of rationality, the courts have decided that they will simply refuse to see that, and strident advocates on both sides will continue to stoke the fires.
But it worries me, as one of the great steps forward made by the founding fathers in our Constitution was to make us a nation ruled by laws, rather than by men. In this situation, we continue to rely on people being rational and reasonable, when we have seen that so often, they are neither.
Gun control requires a steady hand, breathing control and good trigger technique.
Hey Roger,
There’s a pretty interesting post over at Stefan’s blob entitled “Balterdash.” Check the first three or four comments out and let me know what you think.
not only young Huckabee…but also Jim Webb will have a gun…but that’s a whole different story, right ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02102.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....0478.shtml
@17
Lets be realistic. What do you think would have happened if, say, President Adams proposed to confiscate the guns of the early citizens?
Remember the era. Consider WWJD (what would Jefferson do.)
It seems to me there is a more “American” solution. RESPOSIBILITY. We beed strenuous laws that:
1. Make sellers accountable for any inappropriate sales .. e.g. to underage kids, felons, etc. The penalty? All costs resulting from misuse of the “tool” and confiscation of the business.
2. Make owners responsible. Guns should be carefully stored. If I leave a gun, say in a bag and I do not realize it is there …the penalty should be onerous. E.g. revoke rights of gun pwnership for 1 year?
3. Make possession of “tools” w/o serial numbers a crime.
4. If we can not outlaw people killing weapons (assualt weapons, dumm-dumm bullets), then we should require expensive and strict regulations. E.g. storage in locked cabinet with number only known to registered users, trigger locks when not in use, special cap to be worn when carrying such a “tool.” Liscence plates of cars used to transport “tools” should require a special tag.
Goldy
What happened to the gun? If they catch me with my 1″ pocket knife, the knife is confiscated. Want to be the gun is back in his possession?
Does anyone take the idea of an armed populace seriously? If so, it is time for a writer (you? Margaret Attwood? Jon Raban?) to write a novel or screen play about such a world.
The scenarioes are fascinating:
Imagine WATTS with lotsa guns!
Or howsa about you or I dressing up as Chassids and taking a drive through rural Alabama?
Am I allowed to bring my “tool” to the polling places? to hockey games?
Would we require football players ot leave their “tools” in their lockers?
Imagine the wunnaful New Year’s celebrations!
@13
You can’t repeal inherent rights.
I have a right to defend myself and my family. Courts have held the police are NOT responsible if they fail to protect me.
The Bill of Rights lists those things the government is NOT allowed to do vis-a-vis the people. (That somehow, #2 on that list would be a group right is wishful thinking by scared little minds.)
Delbert
“Nothing says ‘leave my house now’, like the sound of the slide racking a shell into the chamber of my shotgun.”
Richard @5,
Funny. Or maybe not. Either way it just ads to the portrait of David Huckabee as a responsible gun owner.
Can you imagine if this had been the son of a Dem contender for President? Faux News would run 24/7 with it – asswipes like Dickless Pope would cite cases that went the other way, and the whole right wing assembly would make it the only thing talked about on radio. When a Publican does this, they try to bury it. Hypocrites as usual.
Nindid says:
I think Huckabee’s response implies didn’t know he was carrying a gun (no excuse IMO), but he did once the officer informed him. See my emphasis above.
You do know the difference between the words “now” and “know”, right?
Uh, no.
Even Faux News hasn’t managed to drum up that much hypocrisy. We had a similar case, where the aide of Senator Webb was found carrying a gun under similar circumstances.
Faux News made some noises that boiled down to “this is no big deal, but if it were a Republican, then those evil Democrats would never let it go.”
Let’s not prove them right. It was not a big deal. The son should get a slap on the wrist, lose his CCW for a while and the gun should be confiscated. End story, roll credits.
test
“My reading of the second amendment, along with a little study of the history surrounding it leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the “well regulated Militia” referred to here is the entire body of armed citizenry, and that the founding fathers fully intended for all citizens to be able to keep any weaponry that was available to the federal army.” John Barelli @ 17
John,
Your reading of the amendment is plausible. On the other hand, the courts have long recognized implied exceptions to the liberties identified in the Bill of Rights. That the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provision does not protect yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, or slander, or threats against the president is taken for granted. That law enforcement can invade a home without a warrant in the event of exigent circumstances is uncontroversial. To view the amorphous 2d Amendment as having no exceptions is going too far, from my perspective. The Founding Fathers did not envision the military as having rocket launchers. Should the 2d Amendment nonetheless be interpreted to expand its scope so that all evolution of weaponry technology gives rise to the citizenry’s right to own such weaponry? I, for one, won’t go that far.
Proud Leftist:
From a practical perspective, I agree wholeheartedly. From a strict reading of the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed” is pretty strong language.
Of course, the founding fathers didn’t have rocket launchers, chemical weapons or even high explosives to contend with, and really didn’t have any way of knowing that they were coming. But their intent was clearly that the citizenry be able to outgun the federal army.
This gives us the current situation, where, simply as a matter of self-preservation, we must ignore both the original intent and the clear language of the amendment. We must rely on judges to exercise good judgement, rather than simply read and follow the written law.
That is what bothers me most. Again, I consider the establishment of a country based on rule of law, rather than rule of men, to be the greatest single accomplishment of the founding fathers.
But in this case, we must fall back on the rule of men, in this case judges that must devise some truly tortured reasoning to allow any sort of regulation.
This leaves something that I consider a fundamental right (the right to protect my family, self and home) at the whim of judicial fiat. I don’t like it, but I also see no better practical alternative.
I’ve decided to stop using the term “mainstream media” when referring to news organizations like CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. I will use the term “traditional media” to describe these organizations.
From the Wa State Constitution:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Seattlejew,
Read up on the state gun laws. Your answers are there.
I think he should be treated the same way as Jim Webb’s assistant. I’m sure you poontang Moonbat!s remember Virginia Sen. Jim Webb claimed he did not give aide Phillip Thompson the gun that led to his arrest in US Senate office building, didn’t ya?
Did you notice Webb never said whether it was his gun or not? At least Huckabee admitted it was his gun!
Truth – not found in a political Moonbat!
BTW, I am sure this Webb incident happening the last week of March 2007 was already forgotten by the lack of memory Moonbat!s populating this board!
John Barelli @ 31 “But in this case, we must fall back on the rule of men, in this case judges that must devise some truly tortured reasoning to allow any sort of regulation.”
John,
While, again, your position is plausible, I must again respectfully disagree. The rule of law, of course, does not exist in a vacuum; it is not some Platonic ideal that exists apart from humankind. The rule of law necessarily, of course, involves human interaction. Respect for the rule of law persists not because of some inherent purity in a written code, but because citizens have at least some perception that a legal system relies on something more than simple whimsy and capriciousness. The conservative notion of constitutional literalism is as evasive a concept as biblical literalism. Just as Scripture does not specifically address many moral questions we confront on a daily basis so we must rely upon context and inference to answer such questions, the Constitution provides but a framework for addressing legal questions. By no means did the Founding Fathers anticipate that the Constitution could or should provide a clear and direct answer to all political or governmental uncertainties. Since Marbury v. Madison (1804), our nation has adhered to the notion that the judiciary is the final arbiter of what the law means and demands. So, letting judges decide such questions as how broad the scope of the 2d Amendment might be hardly sends us into a realm of whimsy and disrespect for the rule of law.
I’m not against guns, I just don’t see how an armed citizenry equals a, “… well regulated militia.”
Muzzle loading long rifles were the standard rifle of the times (when the Constitution was composed. My reading is that the founders encouraged citizens to own rifles so that if the country needed defending, they could call up a large, armed citizenry — after which the “regulating” would commence.
A strict constructionist would only allow for Kentucky long rifles for citizen ownership.
Hint: They are hard to hide in a backpack. Additionally, if someone walks into a bank with a baseball cap on and a long rifle, it’s a sure tip off that they are up to no good.
Proud Leftist:
I think that we’re agreeing on the practical level, and it’s mostly my wistful dream of some sort of pure society ruled by clear, easily understood laws that is the basis for my objection.
In real life, few things are pure, and almost nothing is both clear and easily understood.
Regardless of my reading of the Second Amendment, I’m not willing to advocate personal ownership of ballistic missiles, and I would object if my neighbor put a machine gun nest in his front yard.
Reading the reasoning used by the founding fathers when writing the Second Amendment, I do see it as clear that their intent was that the armed citizenry be stronger and at least as well armed as the federal army.
The founding fathers disliked and distrusted the whole concept of a standing army, and wanted to make sure that the citizenry would always be able to rise up and, in essence, whip it’s ass. They felt that this would ensure that the central government never tried to infringe on the personal liberties of the citizens.
Nice idea, good thought, no longer practical.
Too bad, though. It really is a nice idea.
John @ 40,
I agree with you on this point. What the 2nd Amendment aims to uphold is the right of insurgency, not some individualistic right to bear as many arms as a home might hold. On a practical level, the odds of the American people holding their own against our government in a military uprising are slim (though the Bush Administration’s entanglements in foreign affairs are increasing those odds). So, though I fervently believe in the right of insurrection, I have little truck with the NRA. I just don’t think that organization understands the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, as an outdoorsman, I sure as hell am not inclined to want to take anyone’s basic firearms away. Incongruous position? Perhaps.