Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Gun-toting Olympians forced to leave London early, banned from social media

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Chee-to, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Gun-toting Olympians forced to leave London early, banned from social media
    Gun-toting Olympians forced to leave London early, banned from social media | Fourth-Place Medal - Yahoo! Sports

    The Australian swim duo.jpg

    The Australian swim duo who posed with guns at a California shooting range and posted the photo to Facebook will be forced to leave the Olympics after the swimming competition ends on the second Sunday of the Summer Games. Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk are also banned from using social media for a month-long period beginning July 16 as part of the punishment stemming from the controversial photograph.

    The swimmers told reporters that they will institute a self-imposed social media ban on themselves before the required date.

    "At this stage it would just serve as a distraction," D'Arcy said of the personal ban. "It's really important in these last seven weeks to be really focused on training and focused on what I'm doing in pool because at end of the day I'm going to be coming up against some of the greatest swimmers in the world especially Michael Phelps."

    He and Monk were at the center of a firestorm last week after posting the gun photo to Facebook. The picture was quickly taken down at the request of the Australian Olympic Committee, but that wasn't enough to avoid any fallout. The AOC's decision was announced Saturday. D'Arcy and Monk went in front of television cameras on Monday to explain themselves.

    Monk said they went to the gun range to duplicate a similar trip the Australian swim team took in Canberra in 2007. Pictures from that visit, including one of gold medalist Libby Trickett firing an antique pistol, were popular tabloid fodder this last weekend and led to accusations of hypocrisy for Swim Australia. Why was a team-sanctioned trip to a gun range allowed but a cheeky pose at one treated differently?

    The swimmers thought it would be fun to take the photo. The issue, he said, was posting it to Facebook. The CEO of Swimming Australia agreed.

    "They showed poor judgement in posting what we saw as inappropriate photos, in which they appear to be skylarking with guns while in the U.S. last week," said Kevin Neil. "While what the boys did was not illegal, posting the photos on social networks encourages public debate, and that debate can be seen to have a negative impact on the image of the sport and their own image."

    D'Arcy and Monk have had issues in the past and this photo made the AOC have to decide whether they would do the same on a worldwide stage in London. A minor public relations headache now was intended to save a major international one later.

    This wasn't a case about gun control or the rights of gun owners. It was about two swimmers making a bad decision. Alcohol and topless bars are legal, too. Should athletes post photos of themselves doing shots at a strip club? The AOC may have overreacted, but D'Arcy and Monk have only themselves to blame.


    The Australian swim duo.jpg
     
  2. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    It is only a problem with Australia, GB and other similar minded countries, and it is only a problem because the officials made it one....there is no such thing as freedom of speech in either country.
     
  3. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Despite its image as a fun loving, free country, Australia is a socialist nanny state.
     
  4. Spray-n-pray

    Spray-n-pray Battle Ground Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,960
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    That is so ridiculous as to be laughable. But really, I'm not laughing, because that is friggin' weak.
     
  5. sheltonshooter

    sheltonshooter Shelton/Olympia New Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4
    agreed.
     
  6. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    So, a couple of Australians (foreigners) at a California shooting range... I assume they had valid hunting licenses ?

    Karim Moussaoui appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm while in

    the United States on a nonimmigrant visa in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(B).

    The facts established at trial show that Moussaoui had a rifle in his possession for

    some minutes at a shooting range.

    08-14178: USA v. Karim Moussaoui :: Eleventh Circuit :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
     
  7. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    18 USC 922(g)(5)(b) is the wrong paragraph. (g)(5)(b) is the exception that allows the temporary loan of a firearm for sporting purposes to a non-resident of a state by a private person.

    The proper section is 18 USC 922(d)(5)(g) You cannot "...sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm or ammunition..." to a non-immigent on a visitors visa...

    Now for the reason the Aussie's are/were not in trouble....they do not need a visa to enter the US, just like Canadians and visitors from the EU do not need Visa's
     
  8. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Oh wow, stupid court of appeals :D

    In all seriousness, ATF has issued an opinion a few years ago interpreting 18 USC 922(g)(5)(b) to apply to all non-immigrants, not only to those who require a visa to enter United States.

    Update:

    While searching for the text of that opinion, I ran into a more recent opinion from the US DOJ, who now says ATF is wrong, and prohibition indeed doesn't apply to persons who don't require a visa.

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/nonimmigrant-firearms-opinion.pdf
     
  9. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Do you care to rephrase that?


    Australian Olympic Shooting Team Member:
    Lauryn Mark



    Sounds more like the AOC is over reaching. Did they do anything illegal? No. Were any of those guns illegal? No. Did they do anything immoral, unethical, display themselves in a unprofessional manor? No.

    FYI Lauryn Mark has many pictures on the internet that may be viewed as having "a negative impact on the image of the sport and their own image" versus these two guys.

    061412-OLY-Lauryn-Mark-PI_20120614114348233_660_320.JPG

    lauryn-mark-179941_thumb_585x795.jpe

    So, this begs the question....why not pick on Lauryn Mark but these two guys are hung out to dry? Two words..."Liberal Agenda." If anyone would have sat down and actually looked at the photo of the guys in a non bias way (two guys doing nothing illegal having fun posing for a picture) they would not be in any trouble.
     
  10. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    Thank you...BTW: how do I know? I am a native of Canada.
     
  11. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Linked document is dated October 28th 2011, your join date says July 2011. So if the discussed distinction was applicable to you in 2011 prior to October, you might have broken the law :)
     
  12. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    Never was the law, never has been. That it took until 2011 for the DOJ to acknowledge the fact not with standing. Remember, the law is WRITTEN by congress and legislatures, not men that work for some agency. That word "Visa" was not inserted there lately. WA law has always reflected this.

    BTW: I have been a legal resident of WA since 1970...OC and CC since 1970.
     
  13. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    ATF rulings carry weight of the law when it comes to the firearms.
     
  14. livewire98801

    livewire98801 Seattle, WA Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    8
    Which is the real problem...

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
     
    Riot, fd15k, Stomper and 3 others like this.
  15. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    Until they get their hands slapped by the courts. Just like the can't carry in a "federal building" BS...not what the LAW says. Can't carry in a Federal Court, yep that is in the LAW, the other buildings there is the exemption the NPS and others want to ignore.
     
  16. livewire98801

    livewire98801 Seattle, WA Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    8
    Wait... So is the Post Office thing included in that statement?


    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
     
  17. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Whenever you disagree with any LAW, the key is not to become a criminal test case. Feel free to support litigators or file civil suits yourself though :)
     
  18. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    The Post Office has a seperate law, and for now anyway, it is still off limits...however, there is a court case going on right now over that.
     
  19. livewire98801

    livewire98801 Seattle, WA Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    8
    Huh... I wonder if the USPS case might just impact the rest of the "federal buildings", or at least bring it to light.
     
  20. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Federal Building restriction and USPS one seem to be coded with the same language, allowing for "lawful purposes". It's the case law that screwed up the USPS one, but I am not sure about the Federal Buildings altogether, though I suspect the same there as well.

    Quick googling resulted in the following :

    United States v. Cruz-Bancroft

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

    "Defendant argues that § 930(d)(3) permits carrying a firearm into any Federal facility if one was carrying firearm lawfully outside of the Federal facility. However, this interpretation of the exception in § 930(d)(3) suffers from several defects. First, it does not give full effect to the entire statute, which requires a lawful purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. If mere lawful possession of the weapon outside the facility were enough, then there would be no need for the phrase "hunting or other lawful purposes." Thus, the Court concludes that in accordance with the statute, the factfinder should determine Defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. Second, Defendant's interpretation of § 930(d)(3) would largely swallow the prohibition set forth in § 930(a) generally prohibiting firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities. If mere lawful possession of the firearm outside the Federal facility were enough to permit someone to bring it inside, virtually anyone could bring such a weapon inside a Federal facility for any reason, particularly in a state like New Mexico which liberally permits individuals to carry unconcealed firearms. Finally, Defendant's interpretation would result in inconsistent results. As the parties have pointed out, state laws regarding possessing and carrying weapons in public vary considerably. Some states, like New Mexico, permit citizens to carry unconcealed firearms in public without a license, while others have more restrictive laws. Thus, under Defendant's interpretation of the statute, his act of bringing an unconcealed weapon into a Federal facility would not be unlawful in New Mexico, but would constitute a crime in some other states. There is no indication that Congress intended such an uneven result when it enacted this law to protect those who work and conduct business in Federal facilities."