Grandma busted for trying to carry handgun into Magic Kingdom

yeah I put it in a baby seat and kicked some puppies while I was at it.

They can only make estimates from radar. They still need someone to report ground truths. Take Sandusky, for example - It's about 60 miles from the WSR-88D in Cleveland, and a 0.5 tilt from the radar places the beam about 3000 feet in the air over Sandusky. They can't get a real good idea of what is actually going on at ground level. They can get a estimate that possibly a tornado is there, but there's no way the forecasters in Cleveland can actually know that one is there.

Let's that that one further. On 8/24/07 a EF-3 Tornado touched down in the City of Potterville in Eaton County, MI. It destroyed homes. I was running the Skywarn net, and took reports from 2 spotters of house debris falling from the sky. The national weather service issued a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for Ingham County, however, I called the 911 center in Lansing and told them that there was a confirmed tornado on the ground, and that house debris was falling in the city of Potterville. The sirens sounded in the City of Lansing 3 minutes before the tornado touched down again just outside of the city limits and put a path of destruction through the south end of the city. The national weather service issued a tornado warning for Ingham County a full 3-5 minutes after the tornado touched back down, and a full 6-8 minutes after sirens had warned residents of the danger they were in. Without those spotter reports in Potterville, the sirens in Lansing would have never have sounded, and someone may have actually gotten hurt or killed. But hey, we're just a bunch of crazies with a communication method that actually works.

Amateur radio was the only form of communication for quite a while in the gulf coast after Katrina. Maybe you should read up on it more before you just throw out ignorant statements.

And, for the record, I have never taken a gun into an amusement park. There's no reason to be armed in one. I'm not going to question whether or not the lady made an honest mistake, but it's very possible she did.

And I guess, Jeff, if being prepared for a disaster of any sort is 'being prepared for the apocalypse' then I guess that is what I am preparing for. The City of Lansing emergency management and Ingham County Sheriffs department loves us and the services we can provide. Using amateur television we can send back live video from around the area. Recently they used us in conjunction with sharpshooters for the state capitol tree lighting ceremony for situational awareness. Billions upon billions of dollars worth of government grants still can't get them reliable cameras on top of buildings downtown. Go figure.

I'm coming out of lurking to address some of the above statements. I'm giving the opinion from the other side of the fence. I'm a cop and I'll vent a little on the whole carrying of firearms by civilians. Ownership of firearms and the RIGHT to protect yourself and others from harm is one of the things that the founders of this country saw as vital to a free society.

Before I became a police officer, my reason for carrying a firearm was because a cop is to heavy. As a cop I or my bretheren CANNOT be everywhere I'm sad to say. The above notion that a civilian legally carrying a gun for protection is automatically crazy or unbalanced is lunacy and shows that that a person of that opinion is obviously ignorant and has done NO research on the subject. I put it to any person that feels this way to actually take a look at the facts ( and not those put out by the brady bunch). They will show that EVERYWHERE that law abiding persons have been permitted to carry a firearm crime has drastically reduced.

In the case of the lady who "forgot" she had a weapon I find that unexcusable and irresponsible. Please do not base your opinion of armed citizens on her. I challenge any of the nay sayers to point out where a citizen with a permit to carry has gone crazy and shot someone, please I dare ya to actually find one. I do feel that amusement parks are an innapropriate place to carry given the potential to loose said firearm. Just the other day if not yesterday a armed citizen stopped a gunman from killing people inside a church. Was she crazy or maybe unstable as I must be? I will also put this to the person that doesn't see a need for civilian ownership of weapons put a sign in front of your house a nice big readable one that says " proud supporter of gun control this is a gun free home" or heck wear a shirt that portrays a similar message. I am firm in my belief that society is PROVEN to be safer when the bad guys don't know who may have the means to defend themselves.

NOT TO MENTION all persons with a license to carry a firearm have had a complete criminal history check performed as well as passed an FBI backround check. Most states require them to qualify and demonstrate a ability to properly use their firearm. What do I know about YOU or what do you know about the guy next to you in line? When I stop someone that has a CCW license I know that 99 times outta 100 they are a person I have nothing to worry about.

RANT OFF

Here's some statistics too - The crime rate among concealed weapon permit holders is typically lower than that among Law Enforcement officials

From http://michael-lucas.org/ccw.aspx:

"Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the adult population. Florida reports 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small; North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers. Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI. Similarly, of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm."

But what's the purpose. That's the question you guys never answer other than "to defend yourself" or "because our forefathers thought it was a good idea." Who are you defending yourself against? Guns aren't for protection, they're for killing people. Killing someone else before they kill you is not protection the way I see it.

And our forefathers also allowed us the ability to adapt and change the constitution because they couldn't predict the future. Think about that.

As for the amateur radio people, meteorologists I know are generally annoyed by them and discount their significance. In post-Katrina New Orleans, amateur radio was hardly the only means of communication. Military forces were able to communicate as they would in any other case, and temporary cellular transmitters were deployed around the city. Local law enforcement couldn't keep their gear up because the state troopers wouldn't let them. Hams weren't allowed in either. That's human failure, not technological. I'm not ignorant, I read up on it.

Well the meteorologists here apparently don't. Rob Dale who works for WLNS TV 6 has his amateur radio license, and is one of the 2 spotters I referenced above. We use Jabber to talk to the weather service, and Rob's co-worker who was on the air David Young at WLNS was sure reading everything right out of that chat room verbatim and putting it right on the air as fast as I could type it.

Both the NWS in Detroit and the NWS in Grand Rapids have more than one meteorologist that holds an Amateur Radio license. The NWS in GRR has their own callsign as a matter of fact - WX8GRR. This is the normal method for many weather service offices throughout the US, including Twin Cities/Chanhanssen, MN, Tulsa, OK, Morristown, TN, Springfield, MO, Northern Indiana, Chicago, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Gaylord, MI and I'm sure many other NWS WFO's around the US.

That plus Mike Heathfield from the NWS in GRR came and spoke to us about a month ago and couldn't thank us enough for our reports. I guess we're just worthless annoying people to some no-name meteorologists that you know.

Your information about post-Katrina efforts is just plain wrong. The HWN (Hurricane watch net) was setup before Katrina ever made landfall. The Louisiana ARES group assisted with Katrina efforts. You can read up more about it at http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/30/1/?nc=1

If you really think the constitution needs to be changed, then by all means change it to not include the 2nd amendment. I can't actually see that ever passing in my life time.

The single event that made my mind up about getting my conceal weapons permit is when I was delivering newspapers about 3 years ago now. I had a motor route. It was a Sunday morning, and I had taken half my load. I was loading up the second half of my load which was sitting under a overhang at a local church, which was next to I-96. A kid, probably about my age or younger, approached me telling me his car was broke down. He thought it just needed a jump (turns out the alternator was dead) so I agreed to go out and help him. We drove out to where he was stranded on the freeway and I started helping him jump his vehicle to get it started. Turns out he had 3 big guys with him. If they had wanted to, they could have killed me, left me by the side of the road and stolen my truck and there wasn't anything I could do to change that. Turns out everything was fine, and I ended up helping them all to a gas station and let them use my cell phone, but it could have easily gone another way. Sure I could have chosen to not help them, but I also believe in helping people out in need. Was it the smartest thing to do? In hindsight, it wasn't. If they had been left alone, though, they would have had to walk approximately 2-3 miles to find anyone else who might have helped them out.

I prefer to be prepared in situations like that.

There was a story that came out of Cleveland about 6 months ago from a CCW Holder who rightfully defended himself against a young thug that pulled a gun on him. I can't find a link about it right now, but it was a justifyable reason for the guy to defend himself. He was minding his own business, and a 15 year old thug came up and pointed a gun at him and tried to rob him at gunpoint. Instead of surrendering, he pulled out his gun, and dropped the thug.

"Dropped the thug?" Comments like that aren't helping sway people's opinions.

How did you want me to sugar coat it? The kid was a thug. Anyone who would rob someone at gunpoint is a thug in my book.

Jeff, are you actually going to sit here and tell me truthfully that you would rather let someone kill you or kill/rape your significant other rather than you killing them or otherwise defending YOUR or your loved ones life??? If guns are not for protection perhaps the police should be disarmed? Are we not armed for your protection and our own? And if so why should the citizenry not be able to protect themselves as I do myself? Like I stated before the police CANNOT be everywhere at once!!! Yes guns are meant to kill but they do have other uses, it is a TOOL such as a knife or a baseball bat the use of which is dependent upon the user.

Use of lethal force (shooting an attacker) is only acceptable if your life or someone else's is in grave danger. Its obvious some people here have had no exposure to weapons outside the media which is often greatly exaggerated and terribly inaccurate. I strongly advise all persons described above to expand themselves by being educated on both sides of the issue and THEN forming their opinions about this topic. Heck if your in north east ohio I would be HAPPY to share my time to help educate people in a safe and comfortable manner. Most people with firearms are responsible, safe and law abiding, like any group we have our bad apples and they are shunned quickly.

I thought about your comment on the forefathers, do you propose that the freedom of speech is also subject to "change" as well as your right to not incriminate yourself. Are you proposing we give up our inalienable rights???

It wasn't the word "thug" that bothered me.

If you want to respond to violence with violence, I guess that's your choice, and today the law allows that. But I choose not to live in a constant state of fear or expectation that I might have to "drop a thug" at some point. If someone is going to kill me then they're going to kill me. I'm more likely to be hit by a bus though, and I'm at peace with that.

The fundamental flaw in pro-gun arguments is that guns are rightfully carried by "law abiding and responsible citizens" or whatever, to protect themselves from those who are not. Well what if no one other than the police have guns? Why do you guys ignore that every other civilized industrialized nation in the world has more serious gun restrictions and lower rates of gun crime? Last time the UN compiled the stats, we were something like eighth in terms of gun murders per capita, and there were almost as many guns as there were Americans. I'm not naive enough to believe that dozens of other socioeconomic factors don't play into that, but can't you make some connection there?

I just don't get this wild west attitude. It's pretty likely that you, me, most of us, will die of cancer before we die of someone pulling a gun on us.

As for the whole "rights" issue, this is not free speech we're talking about. You aren't born with a gun in your hand. "Inalienable rights" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the happiness part implies property ownership according to most scholars). They're about the natural born things you're entitled to and these statements were made primarily with regards to the abolition of slavery and the placement of all citizens in the societal contract we accept. Gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

I carry a gun when I read CoasterBuzz. :)

There are numerous countries were civilian ownership of firearms is prohibited or severely restricted. Take great britan were even the police are not usually armed. NO ONE is legally able to have handguns there NOBODY except the government not even the olympic pistol team. Yet somehow there is significant amount of gun crime. But they're illegal??? Criminals DO NOT care about breaking laws regarding firearm ownership. Those "gun free zone" signs did a hell of a lot of good at that mall. That shooting could have been stopped and many lives saved by an armed citizen, but that didn't happen because the mall expected a maniac with a stolen rifle to obey a sign. Why keep out the good and advertise to the scum who prey on society. Gun Free Zone = Criminal Protection Zone

Ok we are # 8 in gun murders per capita yet we have the most guns per capita and the death by firearms includes accidental shootings, criminals killing each other and suicides. So only a fraction of the weapons are used criminally. The best example of firearms being a deterrent to crime is switzerland. Every adult male is REQUIRED to possess their military issue assault rifle and side arm. As a result there is a negligable amount of crime in the land of chocolate and kuku clocks. They have NO home invasion robberies NONE. Yes there are exremely rare cases when that weapon is used in a murder or a suicide but thats 1 or 2 cases a year out of 1.3 MILLION rifles. Not to mention they've never been invaded ever! The japanese were loathe to invade the states during ww2 based on the words of yamamoto "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

Its not a wild west attitude it really isn't. We have a right to life as you said, don't you believe we have a right to preserve that life? Are you not going to fight for your own life if you find it threatened? Are you going to surrender that right if it means the cost of your self preservation is violence? Like I said a firearm is a tool, It can be used to preserve my life and will be if need be.

The following is a cut and paste I can't take credit for, but its the hard facts despite what sara brady will admit. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026

America has seen a major change from 1985, when just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws, which automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and in some cases complete a training class. Today the total is 33 states. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78% in states that passed such laws.

In Europe, by contrast, violent crime is rising. Many factors are responsible, but it's clear that strict gun control laws aren't helping.

In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that despite the ban, "the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all."

Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.

And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control because they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast smuggling is much easier on the Continent or within the U.S.

Gun-control advocates frequently ignore another inconvenient fact: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the U.S.S.R.'s homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S.

Can you really read the above and tell me that the banning of firearms is beneficial to citizens?

I carry a gun when I read CoasterBuzz.

That's enough reason for me to "drop you," you thug. Personally, I wouldn't come to this site unarmed anymore. ;)

Jeff, we can go round and round till we're blue in the face. I see your from brunswick. I'm from the east side and I'll extend an invitation to let me show you my side of the debate . You have obviously had negative experiences with firearms. I would be more than happy to meet you at a nearby range and give you a safe introduction to shooting. We are both firm in our convictions here but I ask you to base your opinions on real life experience give yourself the opportunity to be educated on the subject. I would go so far to point you to a framilarization class at a nearby range if you are not willing/ unable to meet. But on the recurring note would you not use the force or deny yourself use of it nessesary to defend not yourself but the lady on your arm who you seem so attatched?

Wow, now I'm an outsider but the idea of owning guns for protection is so bizarre. I can't believe in any reasonable society there would even be a debate about the issue because it is so seemingly clearcut and blatantly obvious.

Now that story about helping a guy car with troubles as some kind of awakening as to why one needs a gun. Did I miss something here? How does "this guy had some big friends" suddenly jump to "everyone's out to shoot me"?

The idea that there are crazies out there who just want to shoot anyone and everyone that gets in their way. I'm sure that's true to a very tiny extent (one in a million+ sort of stats i'm sure), but how can creating a situation where guns are readily available for all (including the crazies) go anywhere to making people feel secure. The organised crime types that would be the only ones to sufficiently bypass gun laws in a stricter country, are you'd find I'm sure that statistically they're not the ones shooting everyday people, whom some here feel they need to protect themselves from.

I live my life knowing that I'm a good person and that no one would ever consciously want to bring harm to me or my family. If I were in a position where someone was trying to rob me or whatever, I'd comply in every way I could and hope for the best. I can't imagine that me pulling out a gun could ever possibly have a positive impact in that situation.

auscoasterman, here in the states criminals and persons found to be mentally ill are not permitted to legally own firearms. The virginia tech shooter should NEVER have been able to buy those weapons, he had been declared mentally ill by the courts who failed to commit him to an institution. Can you argue the fact that when your government stripped you and every other ozzie of your firearms rights that crime rose so drastically? The facts speak for themselves, when defending yourself with a firearm became a crime itself it basically gave a free pass to criminals gun control has always led to increased gun violence because only the criminals have the guns. Hence your "oganised crime" types who if they are the only ones with the weapons, THEY are the ones shooting the people.

"Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."

Most people are good people, but to deny the reality of someone not wanting to hurt you or your loved ones because you are "good people" is ignorant. I could point out innumerable robberies where the victim/s complied in everyway and got DEAD. Are you going to "comply in everyway possible when mr bad guy is forcing your daughter or wife into a car at knife point? Are you instructions to them to comply? I feel sorry for you and your countrymen. Your government has disarmed you, made it a crime to effectively protect your self and for what? Now your crime rates have skyrocketed can you tell me another reason why this has happened?

If anyone does not want to exercise your right to own and properly use firearms, I see no problem with that, but why would you try to take that right away from someone else? Here in ohio people have voted away the right to smoke in public, the people who passed that law are non smokers, also recently passed is restrictions on strip clubs and strippers being able to touch you, the people who lobbied for this never set foot inside a strip club but found it vital to press their morals on someone else. Who are they to take my rights away.

Guns are not evil they are hunks of metal that are sometimes used by evil people.

Also the grandma in the op did not have a permit to carry that weapon otherwise she would have only been asked to leave the property as a PA license is recognized in FL. THAT is why she was arrested.

Well, if she wasn't licensed to carry then she was clearly in the wrong and I will, in no way, defend her actions.

If you can't understand that 4 grown young men against 1 on the side of a highway in the middle of the night have a large advantage, and can't think of anything dangerous which might have come from that, then I'm sorry. They could have used their advantage in any way they wanted. In Mexico (which highly outlaws guns), they do just that. Either way, I didn't expect the guy and his 3 friends to shoot me. They could have done just a number with their fists and feet and left me in the ditch.

I guess I'm just some crazy Cowboy.

BTW There isn't much I can do to stop cancer. If it happens it happens, whatever. I can, however, prevent myself from being the victim of a violent crime.

Unless of course, the four of your imagined thugs have guns to your one. While you could have just been out of a car, now you're guaranteed a spot in a body bag.

Or let's just say you DO drop your thug--and let's even say for the sake of argument that you're right, he's wrong and your use of force was 100% justifiable. But then his family hires a lawyer and sues you. Let's say your word alone carries more weight than his three friends who didn't like watching him die, too. Let's say you don't lose and wind up paying his legal and medical bills. Let's say you're totally, absolutely vindicated in court.

You'd still lose more in legal fees than you would have giving up the car. You're out of roughly $20K every time you whip OUT your gun, much less use it.

I've only seen maybe two incidents of chaotic mayhem breaking out that I can recall, and admittedly I've watched them on TV from the comfort of my couch. From what I've seen, the looters tend to go where the food, money and things worth taking are first. Given that pattern, unless you live upstairs from your appliance store, grocery or savings and loan, the average Coasterbuzzer is a long, long way down the 'To Do' list. It takes more than a small measure of self-importance, a healthy dollop of narcissism even before the paranoia to believe otherwise.

Why don't banks hire Quick Response Teams with ex-Marines to keep their money safe? Cuz it's more expensive to pay for someone getting hurt than it is to have their tills emptied out. Quite the thought, isn't it?

And let's not even discuss a stray bullet of yours hitting an innocent bystander. Let's just not.

-'Playa

You're immune from Civil and Criminal liability if the use of deadly force was found to be justifiable in the State of Michigan.