Poll: Acceptable illegal gun use?

[SeeIn2D]

Just had an weird thought today and wanted some opinions on it. Lets say someone takes a gun and makes like threats and fires some shots in like an airport or something where having any sort of weapon is absolutely illegal. Now lets say another guy comes in an uses his own illegal weapon to apprehend the other guy. Should this guy be charged or not?

 

[emeraldrafael]

Of course he should. Thats an endangerment of people's lives. Plus it says no. Thats like asking if a guy speeding should be charged becase he was speeding to stop another driver (who was speeding and holding someone hostage ors omething). Let the police and airport security handle it. Thats why we have Air marshals.

 

[shadowslayer81]

I think the police would turn a half-blind eye.
They would track him, but I don't think they would send him to jail.

 

[AvsJoe]

Yes. Then, after determining why guy 2 had an illegal weapon in the first place and for what purpose he was going to use it, the judge should give him a lighter sentence, maybe choosing community service and/or a fine in lieu of jail time.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Yes.

Though, as said above, usually the charges will be lowered due the the fellows actions. But we can't have people running about airports with weapons.

 

[Scabadus]

For the specific example of the airport, both people are likely to be shot by security WAY beyond the ability to stand accused at a trial.

As a less annoying answer, yes he should definatly be charged. He had a gun where he wasn't meant to, regardless of intent that isn't allowed. Areas (in America) where guns are outright banned are normally well protected by police, security or other forces. Random citizens don't need to apprehend any troublemakers.

 

[Saelune]

Well, he should perhaps have the gun taken away and have him be informed that owning it is illegal and all that. I dont think he should be fined or put in jail though, assuming no innocents get harmed by him.

 

[Sikratua]

Just had an weird thought today and wanted some opinions on it. Lets say someone takes a gun and makes like threats and fires some shots in like an airport or something where having any sort of weapon is absolutely illegal. Now lets say another guy comes in an uses his own illegal weapon to apprehend the other guy. Should this guy be charged or not?

You mean, should the second guy have charges filed against him for having an illegal firearm in a place where any firearm is illegal? Absolutely. Should that person's actions be taken into account at sentencing? Absolutely.

 

[Gaiseric]

Unless the second guy got the illegal gun from the first's partner in a fight then yes he should be charged. Given a reduced sentence and maybe treated more leniently.

edit: for some reason I keep thinking of Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I believe so.

It was just one idiot with one gun, I'm fairly certain Airport Security could've handled it without Mr. Vigilante attempting a "Justice Cap" as I feel like calling it for some reason.
Plus he shouldn't have had the Gun handy in the first place, and seeing as it's quite unlikely Guy #2 foresaw the event happening, the reasoning behind him bringing the gun is worrisome and brings various questions to mind.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Ladette]

If the second guy brought a gun into the airport then he absolutelty should be punished. Why did he bring the gun in the first place? It's not like he predicted that some random stranger would pull a gun that day.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm in a 30.06 area. But NOT prosecuted for defending himself and those around him.

30.06 law applies to Texas. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.06.00.html

 

[AdamRBi]

At an Airport or other place where Guns are strictly illegal, yeah he should be charged. Charged, but not without some leniency. Though It'd be wise to investigate why he had the gun there in the first place and the vigilante would surely end up serving some other felony (such as sneaking a firearm past security).

Now in a public place or outside it may be a different story. Cops would have to question the vigilante and check for gun permits and do background checks and everything, but in this senario if the vigilante had broken some law with the use and possession of the gun penalties should be issued (To set an example for anyone who'd think it'd be cool or heroic to carry a loaded gun with them) but with some leniency.

 

[Spade Lead]

Just had an weird thought today and wanted some opinions on it. Lets say someone takes a gun and makes like threats and fires some shots in like an airport or something where having any sort of weapon is absolutely illegal. Now lets say another guy comes in an uses his own illegal weapon to apprehend the other guy. Should this guy be charged or not?

Sorry. I love guns as much as the next guy, but two wrongs don't make a right. There is a reason it is illegal to carry a gun into an airport or bank, or anything like that. Breaking that law just because you want to stop other people from breaking the law is not a viable excuse.

I have to disagree with the speeding metaphors, as there ARE exceptions when the police will let you speed. Delivering your pregnant wife to the hospital is one of them...

 

[StormShaun]

If this was something like Fallout 3 or the Zombie apocolypse or the end of the world, I say no but if he had good intentions and morals I would say no, if he was bad, yes.

 

[Rayken15]

He should be charged, but he should have a lighter punishment.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

Prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm in a 30.06 area. But NOT prosecuted for defending himself and those around him.

30.06 law applies to Texas. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.06.00.html

Can the post 9/11 appointed Homeland Security override any state laws?

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes, he was most likely carrying a concealed weapon. Maybe the fact he helped people will make the judge give him a lighter sentence but he still had a gun.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm in a 30.06 area. But NOT prosecuted for defending himself and those around him.

30.06 law applies to Texas. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.06.00.html

Can the post 9/11 appointed Homeland Security override any state laws?

I might have been unclear. 30.06 areas in Texas are places where guns are prohibited. Like schools, and stuff. Additionally, private business owners can post 30.06 warnings outside of their business, making it illegal to conceal carry firearms into their business.

Federally owned property falls under federal laws, like post offices. Generally, federal law overrides local laws, but it depends on how the law are worded; and if they state police even enforce the law.

Example: If California passes their proposition 19, then state and municipal police officers will not be able to bust you for smoking or possessing weed. However, the DEA has said they WILL enforce the federal law which bans possession of Schedule 1 narcotics and drugs. So, when put into action, if you are a California resident walking down the street smoking weed; you won't be arrested by your city or state cops. But if you were so unlucky as for a DEA or FBI agent to see you, they could arrest you and have you tried in a federal court.

But to answer your question about the Department of Homeland Security, they only enforce the laws which congress has passed, they can't make up their new laws. So, yes, in a way they do override state jurisdictions.

 

[Wintermoot]

no since he prevented people getting killed/injured.
then again this is pretty unlikely (I once saw the dutch version of the MP (Koninlijke marechaussee) has a station near the airport)
pretty much meaning the first guy with the gun is screwed.
PS
I still think he would be charged since the Dutch government HATES it when you enforce the law on your own (even justified self defense with your bare hands or if a burglar breaks a arm/leg while in your home and happens by tripping over something)