In America, gun rights are for whites only

Have you heard the latest on Philando Castile?

On 9/11 and 9/15 as I recall.

Let us talking about this topic on hand about "In America, gun rights are for whites only" and not what you recall On 9/11 and 9/15.

Let us keep focus on this topic Steven.

If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal. You might think the National Rifle Association and its amen chorus would be outraged, but apparently they believe Second Amendment rights are for whites only.

You might think the National Rifle Association and its amen chorus would be outraged, but apparently they believe Second Amendment rights are for whites only.

This same charge was made in the case of Castile. Remember Ron?

These are tails of two America's and through video, American's are just now seeing and learn the other side of the story.

The videos don't show where the gun was, in either shooting.

EXACTLY!!! That is the LIE that was told by those who's purpose is to serve and protect.

In America, gun rights are for whites only

SUBJECT

--- Love Pulitzer Prizer Mr. Eugene Robinson for Years, but NO all GUNS for all AMERICANS

I say let Every Citizen or NOT..... get ANYTHING they can Afford

...... from Predator Drones....to Submarines.....

BUT...to the Disrespectful OFF subject selfProfessed 'whiteMan' at BIA...ALWAYS a MISCONCEPTION..what?

"....The videos don't show where the gun was, in either shooting...."
Friday, September 23rd 2016 at 2:09PM
Steve Williams

**********************************************************************

1. THERE NEVER was a GUN
2. THERE NEVER was a Reason to bother a Brain Surgery patient waiting for his child to come from school
3. THESE WERE 'plainClothes' COPS.......that always have a BS gun....for Murder coverups........

On closer inspection of the wife's video, you can see the gun in his right hand. It's in the middle still frame in the NYT post.

Take a look at that new prospective " Wife of Keith Scott, Charlotte Shooting Victim, Filmed Fatal Encounter With Police" http://blackinamerica.com/content/298170/w...

I've viewed it many, many, many times Ron. I see a gun in his right hand.

I don't!!! Where did you see this gun?

Zoom in on the middle still frame shown before you start the video. He's facing right and the gun can be seen in his right hand.

In the still frame on the right is an officer in a red shirt. Zoom in and you can see a gun just at the inside of his left foot.

The police on the scene never confirmed a image of a gun in the right hand of Mr. Scott or either the analyst at MSNBC. I can't tell if that image is a gun or not.

If it was a gun, in that state, it is not illegal for The citizens to have a gun.

Lawrence O'Donnell just showed the same two images and discussed them with an ex-FBI agent, who confirmed exactly what I said. And Ron, it doesn't matter if the gun was legal. When you are surrounded by five cops with weapons pointed at you, telling you repeatedly to drop the gun, guess what? DROP THE GUN!!!

Lawrence O Dannell team show an image that maybe a gun at the right foot, not the right hand of Mr. Scott in the first video but in that same position with the video released tonight clearly shows, that area was clean from any images. You did not see a gun in the right hand of Mr. Scott, don't tell anyone that LIE again.

In which video Steven, the first or the one Mrs. Scott released?

In the Last Word segment the first circle was of the officer on the left aiming his gun, and the second circle was of the gun on the ground. I must have seen the gun in Scott's hand on the Kelly File, which is the hour before Lawrence. I may or may not be able to find that video but I am looking now.

It wasn't the Kelly File either. I'll keep looking.

It appears there is no corroboration of my statement. So I must apologize, but I still believe what I see in the video is just what the police say, that he was holding a gun. We shall see if that is borne out by future analysis and/or witnesses. Since I handle guns daily it seems clear enough to me.

Take a look at the Wife of Keith Scott, Charlotte Shooting Victim, Filmed Fatal Encounter With Police just moments after the shooting that was released to the public that rise some questions about that first video. http://blackinamerica.com/content/298170/w...

Take a look between :55 and 1:05.

In 1:04 his right arm is moving and the gun is visible in his hand.

I believe his wife about the TBI and meds. It's very sad, but we can't lay this on the police.

Could that object be his meds he had in his hands?

Could that object be his meds he had in his hands?

The gun is a Colt Mustang .380. It's shown cocked with the safefy off, ready to fire.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/24/charlotte-pol...

I bought the first version of this, the Government .380, in 1984. It's an excellent concealed carry choice.

if you noticed that there was no sound until after Mr. Keith Lamont Scott was shot face down in his last moment. Did you see any aggressive actions toward the police by Mr. Scott before he was gunned down?

At second 18 it shows the ankle holster.

Ron, the police already told you the video would not show everything. This video should never have been released. That it was is a sad testament to America's instant gratification culture.

There's no audio at the beginning because Chief Putney didn't want to disclose police tactics.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=waAE9TyZ1kQ

It looks to me like this could be a case of suicide by cop

There are two broad categories of "suicide by cop". The first is when someone has committed a crime and is being pursued by the police and decides that they would rather die than be arrested. These people may not otherwise be suicidal but may simply decide that life is not worth living if they are incarcerated and thus will provoke police to kill them. The second version involves people who are already contemplating suicide and who, for whatever reason, decide that provoking law enforcement into killing them is the best way to act on their desires. These individuals may commit a crime with the specific intention of provoking a law enforcement response.

The idea of committing suicide in this manner is based on trained procedures of law enforcement officers, specifically the policy on the use of deadly force. In jurisdictions where officials are readily capable of deadly force (often by being equipped with firearms), there are usually set circumstances where they will predictably use deadly force against a threat to themselves or others. This form of suicide functions by exploiting this trained reaction. The most common scenario is pointing a firearm at a police officer or an innocent person, which would reasonably provoke an officer to fire on them in defense. However, many variants exist; for example, attacking with a knife or other hand weapon, trying to run an officer or other person over with a car, or trying to trigger a (real or presumed) explosive device.

This entire concept hinges on the person's state of mind, and their desire to end their own life, which can be difficult to determine post mortem.[2]Some cases are obvious, such as pointing an unloaded or non-functioning gun (such as a toy gun, air gun, airsoft gun or starter's pistol) at officers, or the presence of a suicide note. Some suspects brazenly announce their intention to die before they act (e.g., the iconic declaration "You'll never take me alive!"). However, many cases can be more difficult to determine, as some suspects with the desire to die will actually fire live ammunition and even kill people before being killed themselves. Many law enforcement training programs have added sections to specifically address handling these situations if officers suspect that the subject is attempting to goad them into using lethal force.

All that information is great to know but I asked you a question what you saw. The question again is this: "Did you see any aggressive actions toward the police by Mr. Scott before he was gunned down?"

I agree with Chief Putney, the videos are not definitive on that point.

It is clear though that Scott had a gun in his hand at the time he was shot.

Steven, what did you see is the question: Did you see any aggressive actions toward the police by Mr. Scott before he was gunned down?"

Not dropping the gun was aggression. So yes Ron, I do see an aggressive action. It only takes a fraction of a second to rotate a gun from that position and fire. We practiced that in class.

That is called disobeying a lawful police order and not a act of aggression toward the police or warrant a on the spot death sentence, if indeed there was a gun in Mr. Scott's hands.

So far we don't see a gun in any of the video footage while Mr. Scott was alive, do you? I hear what the police are saying, that is not in question here.

Do you see any weapon in Mr. Scott's hand from any of the video's shown so far?

By the way, Steven did you hear the reason why the officers came to confront Mr. Scott in the first place?

Mr. Scott was sitting in his car, waiting for his wife to get back, when the police rolled up on him.

North Carolina, after all, is a open carry state, isn't it? What reason was there for officers to confront Mr. Scott in the first place?

Mr. Scott, is a citizen who has the right to walk around armed if he chooses to do so. Was Mr. Scott exercising his state constitutional rights?

As you look at the police body cam, you see the police that is closer to Mr. Scott, you see Mr. Scott briefly out of his car following orders from the police, with no gun visible, when some third party running towards Mr. Scott and you hear Four gun shots, you don't see that actual shooting and then Mr. Scott laid face down being handcuffed moaning in the last moments of his life.

The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take deadly action is it?

The more and more I look at this case, the more questions pop up about the reason for the wrong actions by the Police of the death of Mr. Keith Lamont Scott.

When Mr. Scott displayed his weapon to the police when he was still inside his car, he was not exercising constitutional rights. It's called brandishing a weapon.

What Mr. Scott did was to commit suicide.

is a phenomenon that has been around since at least the mid-1980s, criminologists and other experts say.

And it may even be growing, according to a 2009 study, which found that 36 per cent of officer-involved shootings in a large sample from the U.S. and Canada were suicide by cop.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/suicide...

By the way, Steven did you hear the reason why the officers came to confront Mr. Scott in the first place?

Mr. Scott was sitting in his car, waiting for his wife to get back, when the police rolled up on him.

North Carolina, after all, is a open carry state, isn't it? What reason was there for officers to confront Mr. Scott in the first place?

Mr. Scott, is a citizen who has the right to walk around armed if he chooses to do so. Was Mr. Scott exercising his state constitutional rights?

As you look at the police body cam, you see the police that is closer to Mr. Scott, you see Mr. Scott briefly out of his car following orders from the police, with no gun visible, when some third party running towards Mr. Scott and you hear Four gun shots, you don't see that actual shooting and then Mr. Scott laid face down being handcuffed moaning in the last moments of his life.

The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take deadly action is it?

The more and more I look at this case, the more questions pop up about the reason for the wrong actions by the Police of the death of Mr. Keith Lamont Scott.

Check out this link: http://blackinamerica.com/content/298170/w...

Ms. Scott's video along with the dash cam and body cam show clearly how it went down, except why did Scott brandish his weapon? Ron, if I were to do what he did in that situation I would have every expectation of dying. My white skin would not save me.

Not once have you attempted to answer any of my questions Steven.

Have you heard any reason why the officers came to confront Mr. Scott in the first place?

I heard most of the commands for Mr. Scott to put down a gun while Mr. Scott was in his car from officers beating on the window, did you see that?

There was only 6 seconds from the time we see Mr. Scott out of the car to the next time we see Mr. Scott, then hear Four gun shots, you don't see that actual shooting and then Mr. Scott laid face down being handcuffed moaning in the last moments of his life.

Ms. Scott's video is the earliest one. It shows four undercover police in two suvs. What were they doing there? Not to kill a man smoking a blunt. What were they doing there Ron?

Steven, from all of the reports, police reports,TV network investigators and hours on this subject as a lay person, I don't know why they stopped that Mr. Scott's car in the first place.

This is a good question!!! Have you heard the reason why?

Two plain clothes officers were sitting inside of their unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs, when a white SUV pulled in and parked beside of them.

The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.” Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun.

Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-n...

So they were not at first in the position shown in Ms. Scott's video. They probably had been parked in the space between Scott's SUV and the white pickup. After the gun was displayed they drove away from Scott, joined up with the other two plainclothes officers, all four put on their police equipment, then drove back to Scott and blocked his vehicle. That's the position of the two police SUVs at the start of the video.

According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/ch...

So he served seven years for shooting someone, and had been out for five years before this happened. Maybe he didn't like the way the cops were looking at him. Probably he didn't know they were cops. Maybe brandishing a weapon was his way of telling them to mind their own business.

Probably shooting someone and being sentenced to prison for seven years meant he was a felon and no longer able to possess that gun legally.

Maybe Pulitzer prize winning idiot Eugene Robinson should have done his homework.

Keith Lamont Scott, the man whose fatal shooting by Charlotte, North Carolina police this week sparked unrest in that city and protests nationwide, told a state district judge in Bexar County in 2005 that his family had “suffered from a tremendous amount of racism and hate crimes,” court documents say.

Scott made the statement in a motion that unsuccessfully argued for a reduction to his seven-year sentence for aggravated assault, a second-degree felony to which he had pleaded no contest under an agreement with prosecutors that reduced the charge stemming from the Sept. 17, 2002 incident from a first-degree felony.

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/artic...

Led by North Carolina NAACP President William Barber, a coalition of civil rights and clergy leaders announced a list of demands Monday in the wake of the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott.

The 13-point list of demands includes calling for a federal investigation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department; releasing all video footage of Scott’s shooting; national standardization of the use of force by police; a retrial of Randall Kerrick, the white police officer who shot and killed Jonathan Ferrell, a black man, in 2013; and making it a firing offense if a police officer fails to turn on – or turns off – a body camera during an arrest.

Barber also singled out Rep. Robert Pittenger, who in an interview last week said protesters hated white people. Pittenger later apologized.

“You’re wrong,” Barber said. “White people are marching, too. All people of conscience are upset.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/spec...

This is what the liberals do, when the heat is on, breath a huge sigh of relief when the media switch to the next story.

Hillary did comment on this issue last night but everyone is pretending not to notice.

Keith Scott WAS carrying a stolen gun, police say – and his wife filed for a restraining order against him saying he was armed, violent and had threatened to kill her

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38...

What is Hillary's solution to those like Keith Scott?

"We need comprehensive background checks and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm..."

More police training is needed in the case of Mr. Scott.

No doubt she'd like to federalize the police too.

You have not heard Hillary Clinton say that she wants to federalize the police. FACE IT Steven Donald Trump won't chime in on the police murder of Mr. Scott because it was not a woman officer doing the shooting.

Donald wants to be The Law and Order candidate and he wants to is take GUNs away from the African American community by stop and frisk or by any means necessary.

Donald does not want to take guns away from the African American community Ron. He does want to prevent murder and mayhem.

What do you think STOP AND FRISK IS?

What do you think STOP AND FRISK IS?

Stop and Frisk is a catch phrase.

People, Black people don't get LOCKED UP on NO so-called catch phrase STEVEN. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT LOCKS UP BLACK PEOPLE FOR MINOR CRIMES AND WHEN THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE BAIL BLACK MEN AND WOMEN FILL OUR NATIONS JAILS IN INPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS BY DESIGN.

It was your anti-gunner Bloomberg that did that, that was ruled as unconstitutional in Bloomberg's application of it. 600,000 a year Ron.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_...

In America, gun rights are for whites only

SUBJECT

ebony/ivory racistlyIgnorant twins argue........

"...Black people don't get LOCKED UP on NO so-called catch phrase STEVEN. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT LOCKS UP BLACK PEOPLE FOR MINOR CRIMES AND WHEN THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE BAIL BLACK MEN AND WOMEN FILL OUR NATIONS JAILS IN INPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS BY DESIGN. ...."

Wednesday, September 28th 2016 at 3:57PM
Deacon Ron Gray

Stop and Frisk is a catch phrase.

Wednesday, September 28th 2016 at 3:21PM
Steve Williams

*******************************************************

On the DAY that Congress OVERRID a bill VETOED by President Baraaka Hussein Obama

------ sue non'Whites" ----- got hillHell clintonDyNASTY tpping TPT and syrianAction.....

that hillHell clintonDyNASTY .... WILL dismantle Greatest USA Citizen Obama Advances.......

AGAIN

"what have We GOT TO LOSE?"

Hey Steven, we are talking about the term STOP AND FRISK which Donald Trump used, not Everytown for Gun Safety trap you want me to fall into. THAT BULL💩 is not working on me tonight.

This is crazy, in my humble opinion. I believe that we should try to save some of the 30,000-plus lives lost each year to gun violence by enacting sensible firearms restrictions.

The only thing that's tripping you up Ron is your lack of research. Define "stop and frisk."

In his op-ed, Giuliani explained that an 8-1 Supreme Court decision in 1968 established the legal basis for police to stop people on the basis of a 'suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime.'

'If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down – that is, a frisk – of a person's outer clothing.'

That decision has never been overturned and remains the law of the land. In the case Scheindlin heard, the practice in New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg had expanded to include a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic suspects.

Earlier, under Giuliani, the police method had never met with a legal challenge.

'During my administration, the U.S. Justice Department spent two years examining stop and frisk and it filed no case,' he wrote.

'After continued use of the practice during the administration of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner [Ray] Kelly, Judge Scheindlin found that the volume of stops and the focus on the African-American community made the practice not unconstitutional in general but unconstitutional as applied.'

I want to Highlight a paragraph which you quoted as your defense for STOP AND FRISK

YOUR QUOTE: That decision has never been overturned and remains the law of the land. In the case Scheindlin heard, the practice in New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg had expanded to include a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic suspects.

"expanded to include a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic suspects."

Now here what I said earlier in this blog: " People, Black people don't get LOCKED UP on NO so-called catch phrase STEVEN. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT LOCKS UP BLACK PEOPLE FOR MINOR CRIMES AND WHEN THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE BAIL BLACK MEN AND WOMEN FILL OUR NATIONS JAILS IN INPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS BY DESIGN."

Thank You for making my point about STOP AND FRISK.

That was easy...

You are always looking for easy answers Ron. There were 600,000 stops a year under Bloomberg but under DeBlasio it's about 20,000 a year. You love gun control then Bloomberg is your man. The catch phrase "stop and frisk" is known by police as a "Terry stop", after the 1968 Supreme Court case that established it as Constitutional. The words you need to see are "suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime." The police had such suspicion in the case of Keith Lamont Scott, and it turned out to be justified. Scott was in fact committing a Federal felony at the time they confronted him.

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[4] Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances",[5] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[6]

I have been stopped for just walking down the street and I was not dressed like a THUG, at the age of 44 and I was involved with local politics at the time.

The Information and the definitions you are giving is great on paper but life experience is most valuable to me. The way I was talked to was degrading by this public servant and the way I was handled was deplorable, simply because I was walking in a park on the other side of the tracks.

Sorry Steven but I Know you can't really relate to my life's experience but I have a personnel involvement with STOP AND FRISK program here in the Southwest side of Chicago.

I've had a .357 pressed between my eyes.

It was in a deplorable section of Philly but no, it wasn't a black man that did it.

Are you still on the topic of THE STOP AND FRISK program in your case?

I'm still on the topic: "In America, gun rights are for whites only." Dumbass Eugene Robinson.

Now that we are still on the same topic of THE STOP AND FRISK, Did the police press a 357 between your eyes on a STOP AND FRISK procedure?

I'm sure that Eugene Robinson had nothing to do with that.

There was no police to be seen. You and Eugene seem conflicted.

Since you will not answer my one question of Did the police press a 357 between your eyes on a STOP AND FRISK procedure? Then why did you tell us about this in the first place?

No Ron, no police pressed a .357 between my eyes on a stop and frisk. We were trying to score some crack.

I eventually turned over the $200 in my wallet.

Do you think of yourself as street smart Ron?

No Ron, no police pressed a .357 between my eyes on a stop and frisk. We were trying to score some crack.
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:30PM

CRACK!!! OOOOH I SEE... So, you thought it was important to bring up your experience in buying CRACK COCAINE into a serious conversation about THE STOP AND FRISK PROGRAM that Donald Trump wants reactivate in cities like New York and Chicago?

Do you think of yourself as street smart Ron?
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:34PM

Not in today's Streets. See Steven, you don't get to be a old man if, you don't make a change in your life and bring God into your life. I thank God every Day and Night for allowing me to have the power to change and take those steps towards him, The Most High because I never want to be that dumb no more.

CRACK COCAINE!!! OOOOH I SEE NOWS...

You are talking to me through a cloud. I SEEEE...

I answered your questions Ron, and you answered mine.

This is what I said in response to your question of: "Do you think of yourself as street smart Ron?"

Not in today's Streets. Then I told you WHY: "See Steven, you don't get to be a old man if, you don't make a change in your life and bring God into your life. I thank God every Day and Night for allowing me to have the power to change and take those steps towards him, The Most High because I never want to be that dumb no more."

Look through that cloud Steven and you would have seen my answer right in front of your FACE!!!!


CRACK COCAINE!!! OOOOH I SEE NOWS...

You are talking to me through a cloud. I SEEEE...

Everyone wants to say God is on their side Ron, even Democrats.

In America, gun rights are for whites only

SUBJECT

ebony/ivory racistlyIgnorant twins argue........ about their drugs and their got/god/gawd

"......Everyone wants to say God is on their side Ron, even Democrats. ...."
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 6:38PM
Steve Williams

***************************************************

'whiteMan' steveAdam and 'blackHebrewIsraelite' SHOULD leave their BELIEF of 'whiteSupremacy'

---- maybe paganChristians......".. wants to say God is on their side Ron, even Democrats. ..."

but Believers of the Creator of Adaam(as) BELIEVE>.......

Sûrat Al‘Ankabût

(The Spider) XXIV

Bismillaah irRahmaan ir Raheem

1. Alif-Lâm-Mîm.

2. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say:

"We believe," and will not be tested.

3. We indeed tested those who were before them. Allâah will certainly make known the truth ...., and will certainly make known the falsehood of those who are liars, as Allâah knows all before putting them to test.

4. Do those who do evil deeds think that they can hide and escape Our punishment?

Evil is that which they judge!

5. Who ever hopes for the Meeting with Allâah, then Allâah’s Time is surely coming

He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

6. Who ever strives, he strives only for himself.

Allâah stands not in need of any of AlÂlamîn (mankind, jinn, and all that exists).

Sûrat Al-An’âm
(The Cattle) VI

Bismillaah irRahmaan ir Raheem

82. It is those who Believe in the Oneness of Allâah and worship none but Allaah Alone

and do not confuse their Belief with Zulm (wrong, by worshipping others besides Allâah),

Only they are secure and they are the guided.

83. That was Our Proof which We gave Ibrâhîm against his people.

We raise whom We will in degrees. Certainly your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.

84. We gave Ishâq and Ya‘qûb, each of them We guided, and before him, We guided Nûh, and among his progeny Dâwûd, Sulaimân, Ayyûb (Job), Yûsuf, Mûsâ, and Hârûn.

We reward AlMuhsinûn (the good-doers, the righteous)

85. Zakariyâ, Yahya, ‘ÎsâibnMaryam and Iliyâs, each one of them was of the righteous.

86. Ismâ‘îl and Al-Yasa‘ (Elisha), and Yûnus and Lût, and each one of them We preferred above the ‘AlÂlamîn (mankind and jinn) [of their times].

87. And also some of their fathers and their progeny and their brethren, We chose them, and We guided them to the Straight Path.

"DO'S AND DON'TS" OF CARRYING A CONCEALED HANDGUN 1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification whenever the handgun is being carried concealed. 2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements. 3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid identification. 4. You may not, with or without a permit, carry a concealed weapon while consuming alcohol or while alcohol or any substance, controlled or otherwise, is in your blood unless the substance was obtained legally and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts. 5. You must notify the sheriff who issued your permit of any address change within thirty (30) days of the change of address. 6. If a permit is lost or destroyed, you must notify the sheriff who issued the permit and you may receive a duplicate permit by submitting a notarized statement to that effect, along with the required fee. Do not carry a handgun without it. 7. Even with a permit, you may not carry a concealed handgun in the following areas: a. Any law enforcement or correctional facility; b. Any space occupied by State or federal employees; c. Any premises where the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a statement by the controller of the premises; d. Public educational property, however a permittee may secure a handgun in a locked vehicle; f. e. Areas of assemblies or demonstrations; State occupied property; g. Any State or federal courthouse; i. h. Any area prohibited by federal law; or Any local government building if the local government has adopted an ordinance and posted signs prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. 8. If you are in a vehicle and stopped by a law enforcement officer, you should put both hands on the steering wheel, announce you are in possession of a concealed handgun, and state where you have it concealed and that you are in possession of a permit. Do not remove your hands from the wheel until instructed to do so by the officer. 45

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-...

Seems like common sense gun safety to me.

While a weapon carried openly in an automobile would not be concealed, there are other problems specific to this method of carrying a weapon. The principal drawback, of course, is in the event of an individual being stopped by a law enforcement official, the officer may not readily know that individual's purpose and intent for carrying a weapon. As such, it is imperative that an individual immediately notify an officer of the presence of any weapon in the automobile, for the officer's and the vehicle's occupants' safety.

Radio Traffic and 911 Calls Released In Fatal Shooting Of Keith Lamont Scott

http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2016/09/29/ra...

4. You may not, with or without a permit, carry a concealed weapon while consuming alcohol or while alcohol or any substance, controlled or otherwise, is in your blood unless the substance was obtained legally and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts.

I'm still on the topic: "In America, gun rights are for whites only." Dumbass Eugene Robinson.
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 12:22PM
Steve Williams

***********************************************************************

AGAIN, 'blackHebrewIsraelite'

---- stop ENABLING the racistlyIgnorant 'whiteMan', crackHead, steveAdam

-----steveAdam ... the Cartoon redneck....DISRESPECTER of President Baraka Hussein Obama and the PULITZER

PRIZE, HIGHLY acclaimed Mr. Eugene Robinson......

STOP it............

Stupid ass Eugene Robinson.

Stupid ass Eugene Robinson.
Sunday, October 2nd 2016 at 4:21PM
Steve Williams

-----steveAdam ... Cartoon redneck....

STOP DISRESPECTING the PULITZER PRIZE, HIGHLY acclaimed African American Literay GIANT

.......Mr. Eugene Robinson.

Are you trying to change the subject of you buying cocaine when this 357 was placed in your face? What was the point of you bringing up the point that you were buying cocaine in the first place and what relevants this have in this current conversation, Stephen ?

The point Ron is the necessity of the Terry Stop, such as was done with Keith Lamont Scott, to maintain Law and Order and make American communities safe.

The were 36 shooting victims in Chicago over the past weekend, two of them fatalities, one of those a 17 year old girl shot in the head. Have you seen any viral videos of those shootings Ron?

How can you tell me about a point when you take this power subject off topic, to you talking about having a flashback of a gun put in your face while you are buying COCAINE?

How is that relevant to this conversation?

You were the one who took it off topic to YOUR personal experience Ron.

I have been stopped for just walking down the street and I was not dressed like a THUG, at the age of 44 and I was involved with local politics at the time.

The Information and the definitions you are giving is great on paper but life experience is most valuable to me. The way I was talked to was degrading by this public servant and the way I was handled was deplorable, simply because I was walking in a park on the other side of the tracks.

Sorry Steven but I Know you can't really relate to my life's experience but I have a personnel involvement with STOP AND FRISK program here in the Southwest side of Chicago.






Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 9:40AM
Deacon Ron Gray

a CHIRAQ oldeNegro that respects a cocaineCracker on BIA, an African American Family site OVER an African American Family Man......

again, BOTH of you nniigggeriiinos SHOULD leave BIA>......stop it and frisk OUT of Here......

You're nothing but a baby daddy Robert.

Cocka doodle doo.

Can't you see the connection Steven? Let me take you over this and show you why that my personal experience is dead on target with this conversation.

1. Donald Trump had mentioned that he would start back THE STOP AND FRISK PROGRAM in Chicago.
Steven, guess what, I live here in Chicago.

2. I told you about my personal experience with THE STOP AND FRISK PROGRAM, can't you see this connection?

3. I also told you about my treatment by one public servant, all of which is directly on target with this topic
and you have not told me yet , how your experience of having a 357 weapon, put in your face by some dope pusher has to do with the police STOP AND FRISK PROGRAM called for by Donald Trump, can you tell me why this is?

No Ron, no police pressed a .357 between my eyes on a stop and frisk. We were trying to score some crack.
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:30PM

I eventually turned over the $200 in my wallet.
Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:32PM

Well Ron, maybe you think it was okay for some criminal to threaten my life but it's no excuse for the police to take his gun from him.

NEWS FLASH Steven, you was involved in a criminal act your damn self, don't you realize that? You should be thanking The Most High, that your life was not taken.

One thing that I do see is back then, you did not care about your own life at that time and you still want to put blame on someone else and not yourself for being in that position in the first place.

Can't you see that? $200.00 is nothing for you to pay for that act of scoring cocaine in all of that other foolishness.


Now what do you having 357 weapon put in your face by some drug dealer that you went to, has to do with the STOP AND FRISK program called back from the past by Donald Trump?

Many of the shooting victims in the inner cities are drug users Ron. Their lives matter too.

Now what do you having 357 weapon put in your face by some drug dealer that you went to, has to do with the STOP AND FRISK program called back from the past by Donald Trump?

I don't know what they may be doing out in the night streets of today but They need to change their lives, ask for forgiveness and Thank The Most High as well. By the way Steven, those Many of the shooting victims in the inner cities drug user are not one who made this statement:

"No Ron, no police pressed a .357 between my eyes on a stop and frisk. We were trying to score some crack." at this time Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:30PM and on this blog, IT WAS YOU STEVEN.





That question still stands

My statement still stands Ron. It was stop and frisk that prevented Keith Lamont Scott from committing another assault with a deadly weapon.

If that is what you call STOP AND FRISK then it backfired in not resuting in a arrest but Mr. Scott paid for that program with his life!


Now what do having a 357 weapon put in your face by some drug dealing THUGS that you went to, to buy cocaine, has to do with the STOP AND FRISK program called back from the past by Donald Trump?

I am still awaiting the answer from you about this question Steven.

The topic here is gun rights. Keith Lamont Scott didn't want to go back to prison. He would rather have died. That is the sad truth.

You can't proof any of that Steven and you know it. Now if the police saw a white guy in his car rolling a join, they would have kept on going.

Now tell me something Steven, how can the police or anyone see a gun on a persons ankle while that person was down sitting in his car rolling a joint?

Oh, this must be that STOP AND FRISK program in effect.

The fact they saw the gun means it was not on his ankle. Remember, these were plainclothes officers, and Scott could have brandished the gun. Remember there is much more evidence than the videos. There will be statements from both the officers and witnesses.

Could have been is the word. Now you know for a FACT that the police reports are always contradicted by video.

IH! By the way Steven, did you ever explain why you brought up this: "Now what do having a 357 weapon put in your face by some drug dealing THUGS that you went to, to buy cocaine, has to do with the STOP AND FRISK program called back from the past by Donald Trump "

I am still awaiting the answer from you about this question Steven.

No Ron, YOU know for a fact that the police reports are ALWAYS contradicted by the videos. You live and die by the videos.

Steven, Video's don't LIE and it looks like you don't like the ugliness you are seeing.

Now I really want to understand why you thought your statement is relevant to this conversation: "No Ron, no police pressed a .357 between my eyes on a stop and frisk. We were trying to score some crack." at this time Thursday, September 29th 2016 at 2:30PM

What do having a 357 weapon put in your face by some drug dealing THUGS that you went to, to buy CRACK cocaine, has to do with the STOP AND FRISK program called back from the past by Donald Trump?

What would you like to know about crack cocaine Ron? Would you like to know how to cook it?

No Steven!!!! The only thing that I want to know is, why did you bring your experience of having a 357 handgun shoved in your face while buying crack cocaine, can you do that? What was on your mind when you thought about writing this, as a response to "In America, gun rights are for whites?"

No Steven!!!! The only thing that I want to know is, why did you bring your experience of having a 357 handgun shoved in your face while buying crack cocaine, can you do that? What was on your mind when you thought about writing this, as a response to "In America, gun rights are for whites?"

Thursday, October 6th 2016 at 7:36PM
Deacon Ron Gray

****************************************

you twinTowers of racistIgnorance......

----- hopefully you now KNOW deacon that you write to a racistlyIgnorant MONSTROSITY.......steveAdam

I brought it up Ron because I want to educate you about criminals. Did I tell you I knew a black man who was killed by the police?