Anti-Gun Missouri State Senator Arrested With a Gun…and Drunk

Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed

Credit: KMOV

Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed (above) was arrested on Monday night by Ferguson, Missouri police for walking in the road instead of on the sidewalk. During a post-arrest search, officers discovered that the anti-gun Democrat was packing a 9mm handgun and a spare mag.

kmov.com reports that:

 

Nasheed declined comment about the having the weapon, but did tell News 4 she has a concealed carry permit. A Ferguson police officer said Nasheed was carrying a fully-loaded 9mm handgun and additional rounds of ammunition.

In addition to being armed, the Senator had apparently spent some time with Mr. John Barleycorn before taking her mid-avenue stroll down the middle of South Florissant Road.

Sources also told News 4 Ferguson police requested St. Ann to administer a breathalyzer test at the time of her arrest because she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” but Nasheed refused to do so. Nasheed said Tuesday she was not intoxicated at the time.

Charges related to the gun or possible intoxiation are being considered by the Ferguson City Prosecutor. According to state law, it is “not illegal” to drink and be in possession of a permitted gun.

Nasheed was charges with failure to obey a lawful order of police and manner of walking in the roadway. She no doubt figures it’s worth it since she did it in the cause of a greater good. “It was a symbolic arrest – sending a message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown, but we don’t want it in vain.”

OK, then. I’m not sure that walking drunk and armed in the middle of of a suburban street is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. had in mind when he advocated and practiced civil disobedience and I’m really not sure what it has to do with protesting the death of a probably felon. It does, however help to nicely highlight the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement. And Missouri voters have noticed.

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    She needs to move to Chicago .Shell fit right in.

    1. avatar Frank says:

      You’re not going to believe this (Sarcasm) but NBC, USA Today, Yahoo and Huffington Post make no mention of the alcohol or weapon in their coverage of the arrest.

      1. avatar IdahoPete says:

        I am shocked! shocked! that the progressive media was unable to detect the clear stench of hypocrisy wafting over the streets of Ferguson!

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, did they mention ANY reason for the arrest? Like, racism? War on women? Something?

      3. avatar John Galt says:

        Speaking of shocking. Whatever happened to Leland Yee?

        Who’s that?

        A California State Senator who’s been indicted for gun trafficking.

        Never heard of him.

        Politico Buries Senator Leland Yee’s Arms Trafficking Scandal
        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/27/Politico-Ignores-Senator-Leland-Yee-s-Arms-Trafficking-Scandal

        1. avatar dlj95118 says:

          …old “bullet button” Yee? Yeah – I was giddy the whole day when that news broke!

        2. avatar John Galt says:

          Such irony.

          One of California’s chief promoters of gun control gets nabbed for arms trafficking.

          Of course, he wasn’t content with just micromanaging everyone’s guns.

          He also pushed for 3-D printer control!

      4. avatar mountocean says:

        I know I should expect as much, but it still makes me want to yell.

  2. avatar Morgan Y. says:

    Tell me why political correctness is held in such high esteem, a self-proclaimed vitrue, and requires such a sacrifice to freedom of speech in order to accommodate the emotions of others when the very politicians are the antithesis of correctness in both a moral and intellectual meaning?

  3. avatar John L. says:

    Sigh. And that picture won’t exactly be oil on the waves.

    On the brighter side, at least the local PD are willing to arrest politicians, at least here and at least some of the time. I’ve lived in more than one place where the entire incident would have been un-happened as soon as the officers realized who they had snagged.

  4. avatar Mediocrates says:

    failure to obey a lawful order of police and manner of walking in the roadway

    yea, that’s fine, but any bogus gun related charges ain’t gonna fly, or walk, in the roadway.

    1. That’s not what Bob Owens says over at Bearing Arms.
      http://bearingarms.com/drinks-dont-shoot-state-senator-arrested-carrying-concealed-weapon-ferguson-possibly-influence/

      “I suspect that law enforcement would be well within their rights to revoke Nasheed’s permit for refusing to take the breathalyzer while carrying.” Bob Owens.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        In Missouri, the law changed a few years ago. It is no longer a crime to be intoxicated while in possession of a loaded weapon, unless you are manipulating/using the firearm (except in self-defense). So, was she using the gun in self-defense? No, then there are two issues:

        1) Was she drunk, yes or no? She refused a breathalyzer, which prevented police from making that determination. That should be sufficient basis to suspend her license or revoke it after a hearing (because conservatives believe in due process for all who are charged, unlike the pro-St. Mike Brown protestors).
        2) Was she manipulating the weapon? Did she make a move for the gun? Did she touch the gun? Not sure. This will depend on the police reports.

        1. avatar Bill Ockham says:

          Can you cite the change in the law that now makes it legal to carry while intoxicated? This is from September 2013

          http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

          571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
          (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated …

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Convenient place for an ellipsis. Maybe try quoting ALL of (5), and see if it makes a difference?

        3. Here’s the unexpurgated version of (5): Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          and handles or otherwise uses such firearm

          In other words: mere possession is not a violation.

        5. avatar Joe Nieters says:

          The additional text of the statute states that in addition to being intoxicated, you must be brandishing the weapon or handling it in a reckless manner.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Has it been proven that she does, in fact, have a valid CCW in the first place?

        Other than that: if she has a CCW and was carrying, more power to her. I don’t even care if she was under the influence of alcohol, provided that she wasn’t touching her gun.

        The real issue here is her hypocrisy of being in favor of gun control, while availing herself of the right to carry.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Note: the officer interviewed in the video implies that the good senator failed to produce a valid CCW at the time of arrest:

          Reporter: If she had a concealed carry permit, why would [her gun] have been seized?

          Officer: If she had a concealed carry permit, I’m sure she would have shown it to the officers.

          Also: how does one safely carry a firearm while wearing a track suit?

        2. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Definitely blatant hypocrisy regarding firearms but even deeper is the fact that she was doing the same thing Michael Brown was and despite being armed, managed not to get shot. Now there is the greater example of hypocrisy. If Michael had behaved as she did, he would still be alive.

  5. avatar Mark says:

    We’re supposed to believe the police officer’s accounts on this? You don’t need to be a Nobel Laureate to see that the Ferguson PD has smeared people before – not like “failing to obey an order” is a b.s. charge anyway.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      she is on video disobeying police. . .

      1. avatar Jack in the Crack says:

        …but she said she’s innocent. The camera is racist.

        1. avatar Mark says:

          Sorry, but if it isn’t a crime to be drunk & to have a gun, then mentioning the gun *is* smearing her.

          And “failing to obey an officer” is one of the most commonly dropped / bullshit charges out there.

        2. avatar John says:

          Mark,
          In MO it is a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded firearm while intoxicated and a felony to carry a loaded one while intoxicated. Please stop posting that it is not illegal to do so. Not only does it nullify everything that you are arguing but it is also false information.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …only if the firearm is handled, IIRC.

        4. avatar John says:

          Chip,
          That is incorrect. MO law states on their site that is it illegal to possess, handle, discharge or have a firearm readily available while intoxicated unless they are acting in self-defense.

        5. avatar Michael in GA says:

          John,
          How, prêt ell, would one use a gun for self defense if not readily available?

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I’ll just go ahead and quote the statute, then?
          http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

          571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

          (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

          Notice the conjunction? Mere possession is not a violation. The firearm must be handled or used in a negligent or unlawful manner while not acting in self-defense.

    2. avatar juliesa says:

      One has to be pretty gullible to unquestioningly believe the Tawana Brawley-Duke Lacrosse-Trayvon agitators too. Always best to get the facts.

    3. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      Obviously due process is important, and as much as I dislike cops, I am even less likely to fall on the side of practically any politician. Most are the lowest of the low scumbags you could ever meet.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Wow. She says she purposely got arrested- captured by dozens of cameras, mind you- and we still have people here thinking the police are doing a frame job.

      As to the BS charge I wonder… do you think people should be able to purposefully block traffic with impunity? Hopefully the esteemed state senator decides to block your driveway and you can deal with her instead.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        The “frame job” is the smearing of her reputation by *implying* that her having a “loaded gun and an extra mag” was somehow illegal. It wasn’t, therefore the presence of the gun isn’t material or relevant. They also implied that she was drunk, and couldn’t prove that allegation.

        You can argue about whether the Brown shooting was appropriate or not, but there is *also* video evidence of them gassing, roughing up & arresting journalists, along with handing some loose cannons deadly weapons and letting them play soldier.

        Shouldn’t be happening in a free society, even to meatheads like the subject of the article.

        1. avatar John says:

          Mark,
          In MO it is a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded firearm while intoxicated and a felony to carry a loaded one while intoxicated. Please stop posting that it is not illegal to do so. Not only does it nullify everything that you are arguing but it is also false information.

        2. avatar Mark says:

          @John, it’s pretty clear that it is legal to have a drink and a gun in Mo, and it’s also clear that no one in the police force can *prove* she was “drunk”.

          A police smear looks just like this.

          “Well, we arrested him for jaywalking, but we think he’s a wife-beater and a child-molester, and he smelled drunk.” (But we can’t prove any of that, nor did we charge him with anything besides jaywalking).

          If you’re doing the right thing, you don’t *need* to exagerate or make charges up. Nor do you *need* to infer that other stuff may be going on.

          A “failing to obey” charge is horse-shit and everybody knows it. A “failing to obey” charge, coupled with baseless allegations looks like (and is!) Character assasination.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          When you get arrested, the fact that you are carrying a gun is an issue. Someone legally carrying a firearm shouldn’t be committing crimes and looking to get arrested. And since everyone there is talking about unarmed black people getting shot I think it’s prudent to make sure it’s public record when a politician is arrested for publicity and has a firearm. For that matter it sounds like the police do not know if she had a legal permit based on their statements.

          Maybe the police also know her voting record and decided to let people know that the good senator believes in her own right to carry a gun.

    5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Is that you, Umar?

      There is no reason not to believe the Ferguson PD statements on the incident. Oh, and there’s video evidence, too.

      Heck, just ask the other protesters. They mostly ignored/resented her for showing up for 15 minutes, looking for a photo-op arrest (and getting one). They were rather forthright about what happened, and it was consistent with the police statements.

  6. avatar Rokurota says:

    At least she was carrying a reload.

  7. avatar Kyle from OH says:

    I’m glad these newspaper articles always note that it was a “fully-loaded” firearm…as opposed to a partially loaded firearm? I’m sure it’s because they think “fully-loaded” sounds way more dangerous (and sensational).

    1. avatar Menger40 says:

      It raises the question: If someone down-loads their mags by a round or two, will that be accurately reported? Haha

      1. Colion Noir was equally making fun of .45 and 9mm carriers. He said the 9mm guys were obsessed with capacity. He said they carry a full mag with one in the chamber and a back-up mag and a back-up round in their pocket for the plus one reload. I checked my pockets and…Guilty as charged. I no longer do the +1 thing. 15+15 in the spare are plenty. Now if I carried and 8 shot .45, I would go 8+1.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          People actually carry a spare round for the +1 reload? Under what circumstances is that going to be used? You’ve already fired your 15+1 rounds in the initial loading, and the threat is still ongoing, so you need to reload. Under those conditions, are you really going to reload, rack a round, pull the mag, add a loose round from your pocket to it, then put the mag back in? What’s the bad guy doing while you’re fumbling around with all this?

          Why not bring a book and a cold drink with you, too, since you seem to have plenty of free time in this DGU…?

        2. avatar Rokurota says:

          1. Carrying a single extra round in one’s pocket is the stupidest thing I’ve heard, and I’ve heard a lot.
          2. Stinkeye, thanks for making my day. I’ve got my cold drink and book right here.

        3. Do you guys know who Colion Noir is? Then you should understand his style of spoofing POTG.
          Let me make it easier for ya, It was a joke.

    2. avatar notalima says:

      Other than really old single action revolvers, who carries partially-loaded mags/cylinders?

      “I’m so good that I only need 5 rounds of .45 in my 8-round magazine” Yep, I run across this guy every day. heh.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        New Yorkers since the SAFE Act, if they don’t want to become felons…

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Not anymore but for awhile, yeah.

    3. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Maybe they were referring to her blood-alcohol level. “Fully loaded”.

      1. avatar Kyle from OH says:

        YES!! +1

  8. avatar Gregolas says:

    We have a saying for such people in the South:
    “You’re a liar, and a hypocrite, and the Truth ain’t in Ya.”

  9. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    this was planned. Notice she has her hair wrapped up. Let me help translate. For Black women, they will wrap their hair in a silk scarf at night to protect it from breakage, etc. Nasheed never dresses like that in public. Hence, it is obvious she planned to spend the night and wanted to make sure she didn’t look like a hot mess when she got out the next morning.

    But, it gets better. Sen Nasheed admits she was a member of a gang (The Switchblade Sistas) in her youth. Moreover, she sponsored a number of bills that were anti-gun and has pledged to introduce a bill in the next session that will make use of a gun in a crime a mandatory 10 yr penalty. While under MO law, it used to be illegal to be drunk and in possession of a loaded firearm, the law changed a few years ago so now it is not a crime, unless you are using/manipulating/holding the weapon. I am sure she will be real popular with her fellow democrats in January 2015 when the legislature convenes. Here is her with her right wing BFF, (former) senator Nieves (who elected not to run for re-election) on some gun legislation they worked on together:

    http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/14info/Nasheed/multimedia/Nieves-Nasheed-SB613-Streaming-021314.wmv

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      It makes sense that it was planned. There have been many experienced communist agitators on the scene training protesters to be arrested.

    2. avatar beanfield says:

      I got the impression that Nieves simply allowed the amendment so that it would continue to committee (a similar bill died the year prior coming only a few votes shy of overriding Nixon’s veto); knowing that it could be stripped in committee (it was amended prior to adoption with a severability clause). I.E. he did what he had to in order to keep it moving and not stall in his chamber.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So, if the law were changed as she wants, “failing to obey a lawful order” while carrying a “fully loaded” 9mm would get the nice lady 10 years in prison plus a $50 fine for the original charge? Has anyone checked with her on that? Perhaps she arranged for the law to not apply to former gangbanger state legislators.

    4. avatar Sian says:

      If it was planned though, what made an anti-gun state senator think that bringing her CC piece along when she got arrested was going to be a good idea, or not look really bad in front of her peers?

  10. avatar DerryM says:

    Isn’t she the one who “vowed” there would be serious Civil Unrest in Ferguson and St. Louis, MO, if Darren Wilson is not tried and convicted of murdering Michael Brown?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You have to be kidding. I missed that, find it hard to believe that anybody, particularly a legislator of any description, insists on a CONVICTON before any trial even begins. “Do not attempt to confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Well, I have looked for that News Story for about an hour and found nothing, so I must have conflated some things Jamilah Nasheed said in regards to wanting Prosecutor McCullough removed from the Brown Case with something someone else (not famous) said. So to answer my own question: Apparently, Ms. Nasheed did not say that, my mistake!

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    So a gun for me but not for thee huh Dirk? Kinda’ like the Chicago City Council where they all could carry but the peasants couldn’t even own a handgun? Oh wait…this is justice for the gentle giant(TM) so it’s OK 🙂

  12. avatar Defensor fortisimo says:

    I’m sure she got a good discount from leland yee

  13. avatar dph says:

    The video is so full of fail, I don’t even know where to start. I’m no fan of hypocrites like the Senator, but who cares if the gun has been fired recently? How many others were arrested for walking in the street? How else would you carry a gun if not “fully loaded”, which we know to be true because they mentioned at least 4 or 5 times? That all said, why would you carry a gun if you planned on being arrested? Anyway, enough of this, I’ve got to go buy some more .22 ammo and head to the range .

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, one Michael Brown may have been arrested for walking in the street. We haven’t heard that part yet. But you would think, in that area, that people would understand it is not allowed.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Well, one Michael Brown may have been arrested for walking in the street. We haven’t heard that part yet.

        I’m not sure if that’s sarcasm, or no. But Brown wasn’t ever going to be arrested for “walking in the street”. Regarding that matter, Wilson simply told Brown and Johnson to get out of the street, and then drove on. It wasn’t until he realized they may be connected to the reported strong-arm robbery that he attempted to engage them again.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          The narrative may have changed, but days after the Brown shooting the Ferguson Chief stated that Wilson did not know about the disturbance in the store.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The narrative may have changed, but days after the brown shooting the Ferguson Chief stated that Wilson did not know about the disturbance in the store.

          As-reported, that was taken out of context, and the chief immediately clarified the out-of-context comment being reported. Of course, the chief’s clarification was buried, as it didn’t fit The Narrative.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          As-reported August 15th:

          In an afternoon press conference, Ferguson, Mo. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not initially make a connection between the robbery and Brown,whose death spurred violent protests and unrest in the St. Louis suburb over the past week.

          Wilson stopped Brown and a friend because “they were in the middle of the street, blocking traffic,” Jackson said.

          Hours later, however, Jackson told a slightly different story to CNN and NBC, saying that Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.

          At that point, Wilson “made the connection” that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said.

  14. avatar meandmealone says:

    Who the hell are those cops who think they can just arrest someone for some archaic, white man’s idea of how a civilized society should be run? So what if she was drunk and carrying a gun? Those are white folk rules.
    Of course, in my state, if that was me I would go to prison for at least five years.
    Something tells me she won’t do any time for this crime.
    And by the way, that is one thick broad.

  15. avatar Frank says:

    Too bad she didn’t pull the weapon. We could have determined how well a Missouri State Senator can shoot while in intoxicated (SWI). We could have also have witnessed Ferguson PD marksmanship skills.
    My bet is on the cops.

  16. avatar Ratbikerx says:

    Do as I say but not as I do.

    Why were you carrying a gun, Senator “Because I need to protect myself.”

    You will never hear that statement for sure.

    1. avatar IdahoPete says:

      But we have heard “because I need to protect myself from all of the right-wing NRA gun owners who don’t like my attempts to ban their guns.” (Nancy Pelosi, Babs Feinstein, and a host of Democratic California politicians.)

    2. avatar Julio says:

      Maybe not directly from her: “But her arrest and news that she was in possession of a firearm brought charges of hypocrisy. According to attorney Eric Vickers, Nasheed needs the gun for her own protection and Nasheed says she holds a concealed carry permit. But if Nasheed had her way, other Missourians would not have the same right.”
      Almost forgot this tidbit: “Twitchy noted that Vickers organized a demonstration that disrupted traffic and caused accidents on Interstate 70 in September. He also serves as Nasheed’s chief-of-staff.”
      http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-missouri-dem-arrested-with-9mm-pistol-refuses-breathalyzer-test

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Given her attitude and background, how about “I might need to knock over a bodega”?

  17. avatar Slappy says:

    My guess; she’ll get a total pass on this one from her low-information constituents AND the MSM….”Nothing to see here folks, move along!” (cricket noises in the background)

  18. avatar Jus Bill says:

    So if she wasn’t drunk, may we safely assume that falling-down stupid is normal for her?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email