Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the report of aiming the loaded firearm at the reporter's chest is accurate then there is absolutely no doubt the state senator violated the first two primary firearms safety rules.
1) All Guns are always loaded (and should be treated as such).
2) Never allow your muzzle to cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Since no one has bothered to actually post the specifics of state firearms or assault laws directly from the AZ books I won't broach which laws she may or may not have violated.
Yes, this careless gun handling by this Senator is most unhelpful and reflects poorly on all who responsibly carry. Shame on her. I would hope that the rangemaster from the Phoenix Rod & Gun Club who commented would invite her to firelams safety training at his facility at the first available opportunity.
As for the rest of the fodder in this thread and the links that the gun grabbers use to call for a closure of the so-called "gun show loop hole" and an ethics investigation, they are typical knee jerk reactions that have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to this unfortunate incident unless and until such a time that the reporter and the state sucessfully file charges for a law broken rather than her sheer stupidity.
You guys and gals, sure can read something into a post, that is not there.
A simple yes or no question, turns into banter and the question never gets answered?
But Klein, in an e-mail to Arizona Capitol Times, said there was only one instance where she turned on the laser sight while on the table, and she wrote that Ruelas sat himself down in front of it.
Finally someone mentions more of the story than the poor soul got a gun pointed at his chest. The OP original story told no part of the story other than the gun being pointed, not why, not how, not anything but he got pointed at and the woman says he sat himself down in front of the laser sight. I bet that is an important part of the whole story.
Bart Graves, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Safety said, "It depends what the person's intent is. It's not always a criminal violation."
But Klein, in an e-mail to Arizona Capitol Times, said there was only one instance where she turned on the laser sight while on the table, and she wrote that Ruelas sat himself down in front of it.
Well, his version is obviously different, or didn't you read the links I posted? An AZ Republic reporter has no reason to lie. However, another loon in what passes for this state's political arena DOES. Just like how Jan Brewer lied about decapitations in the desert and then admitted the lie afterward.
Bart Graves, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Safety said, "It depends what the person's intent is. It's not always a criminal violation."
Right. Are you nuts? It is NOT ok to aim a loaded weapon with no safety on at a reporter.
Actually, I could find a link for you where it's said the sun does literally bake your brain in this state. So you do not have to say just kidding.
We don't know what her intent was. It's obvious from this reporter's surname he is Latino. But you're right. It is shocking and she should be removed from office immediately.
I can't believe it too you that long to do the racial profiling job. I saw that name in the very beginning of your story.
Finally someone mentions more of the story than the poor soul got a gun pointed at his chest. The OP original story told no part of the story other than the gun being pointed, not why, not how, not anything but he got pointed at and the woman says he sat himself down in front of the laser sight. I bet that is an important part of the whole story.
Did you read all three articles? The reporter has quite the different version of the story.
Finally someone mentions more of the story than the poor soul got a gun pointed at his chest. The OP original story told no part of the story other than the gun being pointed, not why, not how, not anything but he got pointed at and the woman says he sat himself down in front of the laser sight. I bet that is an important part of the whole story.
To a degree it is important but only to the extent that it illustrates how very little situational awareness the reporter had. It is the responsiblity of the gun handler to have muzzle awareness at all times. Less than two seconds is all it takes to unload and then demonstrate the lazer in a safe direction.
Clue: Concealed means concealed. No one will think your personal firearms is as fabulous as do you and nobody really wants to see it. Keep it concealed until such a time that you feel your life is being threatened with lethal force, you are in the privacy of your own home, or, you are on the range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistygrl092
Did you read all three articles? The reporter has quite the different version of the story.
Indeed. And none of us posting on this thread knows what really happened do we? So, for the interest of fairness to all parties we should stick to the facts that are known and not jump to other conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistygrl092
Right. Are you nuts? It is NOT ok to aim a loaded weapon with no safety on at a reporter.
It appears you really know nothing about firearms or their mechanics. If it was a revolver there is no mechanical safety by design. If it was a pocket .380 in a semi-auto it is likely it did not have a safety either. That said: mechanical safeties as devices designed by humans are bound to fail and they should never be relied upon. The ultimate safety is the brain, the second the trigger finger, and the third the strict adherance to the rules of firearm safety. All three work in conjunction to insure the safety not only of the handler of the firearm but of innocents in the vicinity. Get over the fact that this story mentions that the firearm has no safety, it is totally irrelevant.
Finally someone mentions more of the story than the poor soul got a gun pointed at his chest. The OP original story told no part of the story other than the gun being pointed, not why, not how, not anything but he got pointed at and the woman says he sat himself down in front of the laser sight. I bet that is an important part of the whole story.
The story did mention how it happened:
Quote:
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, before aiming the gun at Ruelas's chest to show off the red beam of the laser sight. Klein's gun, a .380 Ruger, has no safety, but the senator assured Ruelas that he wasn't in danger.
However, I'm curious what why and hows here could make you believe that what Klein did here reasonable.
Quote:
Bart Graves, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Safety said, "It depends what the person's intent is. It's not always a criminal violation."
True, depending on the circumstances she might have managed to commit no crime. Are you going to say that what she did here was reasonable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
