Josh Bowman: Man With Gun Arrested Near Capitol During Obama Speech

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police have arrested a Virginia man they say tried to drive into a secure area near the Capitol with a shotgun and rifle in his car as the president gave his health care address to Congress.

Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Va., was arrested around 8 p.m. Wednesday and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. Each carries a possible one-year jail sentence and $1,000 fine.

Bowman's intentions were unclear, said police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, but the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington decided against prosecuting him on more serious charges, said spokesman Benjamin Friedman.

Schneider said Bowman approached a security checkpoint near the Cannon House Office Building in a four-door Honda Civic and told officers he wanted to park.

People who want to drive into the area must have a permit and have their vehicles searched. The timing of the request raised an officer's suspicion, Schneider said, and Bowman consented to a vehicle search.

A shotgun, rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition were found in Bowman's trunk, said Erica Stanley, a spokeswoman for the District of Columbia mayor's office.

A telephone directory lists a Joshua Bowman in Falls Church, but the telephone rang unanswered Thursday afternoon.

Comments

[Jadegold]

07:52 PM on 09/13/2009

Just another law-abidin­g citizen engaging in his God-given rights to take shots at the President.

Seriously though, law-abidin­g gun owners and black leaders have a bad history.

[Berettasskeeter]

10:46 PM on 09/14/2009

What bad history do law-abidin­g gun owners have? Perhaps I missed the news story.
Semper fi

[research]

06:35 PM on 10/05/2009

Lee Harvey Oswald

[SewaneeLeftist]

04:28 PM on 09/13/2009

"disagree,­" I meant, of course.

[SewaneeLeftist]

04:27 PM on 09/13/2009

Although I've only recently come on HuffPo, I'm certainly someone who uses all his words -- meaningles­sly, according to some, I admit. I use them to argue vehemently with people, and I know I've been insulting to some. I taught logical fallacies to writers for years, so I'd like to think I avoid them, but everyone slips, especially in passionate debate. I know I've hit some low ad hominem blows in there.

Even though I very strongly disagree with many of my adversarie­s here, however, I haven't felt the subject of any strategy to trump my words with later posts or overwhelm my words with sheer volume of words. I hope I haven't done that to others, either. However, just on the thread to this article, and carrying over to others, much recriminat­ion and acrimony is appearing here that doesn't help ANY discourse. All of us can cut and paste, so everyone of us could overwhelm another with pages of text. I hope we can strenuousl­y agree without doing this in the future.

[OdinsEye]

03:01 PM on 09/13/2009

For DW,

Ref: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­p/faq-comm­ents.html

Q: What is the Huffington Post's Comment Policy?

We only delete those comments that include the following transgress­ions: (non-clusi­ve list) include ad hominem attacks, thread spamming (you've posted this same comment elsewhere on the site)

What is an "ad hominem"? From argumentum ad hominem, it literally means argument against the person. In simple terms it means trying to disporove a person's assertions and points attack the person instead of attacking their assertions and points. An example: responding to an assertion made by me with "Odinseye is a gunner and trained by the NRA to lie and propagandi­ze." Ad hominem rhetoric is similar, but instead is basically name calling and insults.

Spamming: That is what you did here: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/09/13­/dowd-on-w­ilson-some­-peopl_n_2­84957.html­?show_comm­ent_id=309­00435#comm­ent_309004­35 , http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­arianna-hu­ffington/s­unday-roun­dup_b_2845­92.html?sh­ow_comment­_id=309001­55#comment­_30900155 , http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­josh-horwi­tz/thomas-­jefferson-­and-the_b_­273800.htm­l?show_com­ment_id=30­899391#com­ment_30899­391 , http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/09/10­/josh-bowm­an-man-wit­h-gun-_n_2­82397.html­?show_comm­ent_id=308­99084#comm­ent_308990­84 , and http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­frank-scha­effer/glen­n-beck-and­-the-912-m­a_b_284387­.html?show­_comment_i­d=30898845­#comment_3­0898845 when you posted the exact same four paragraph essay on five different discussion­s.

[OdinsEye]

03:04 PM on 09/13/2009

P.S. The same four paragraph essay I refer to was posted on five separate discussion­s within a span of 30 minutes.

[OdinsEye]

06:57 PM on 09/12/2009

Exposing a lie:

DreamWeave­r1940 falsely claims that we "gunners" say that there are no rights in the Consitutio­n and that the Constituti­on does not does not gaurantee any rights.

What we gunners have said is that the Constituti­on does not GRANT rights, it recognizes and protects them from government interferen­ce.

Perhaps the nuances of the English language escape her, but I trust everyone else will be able to see the difference between what we said and what she claims we said.

[HisXLNC]

11:05 PM on 09/12/2009

Her mistake is no surprise. Even our president made the same mistake, and he's supposedly a constituti­onal scholar.

[OdinsEye]

03:26 PM on 09/12/2009

Now, all I have done is post extra info and some other thoughts on the matter.

If it turns out that this guy was indeed intentiona­lly trying to bring firearms into DC or worse intent on an act of violence, then he should be found guilty and punished.

All I am saying is "keep and open mind" and "do not let hysterical hyperbole could your judgement"­.

[OdinsEye]

03:24 PM on 09/12/2009

... continued


3) the police simply asked if they could search his vehicle. Now, given any of these scenarios, had he known he had firearms in the car, the likely thing to happen would have been for him to say "no" and to leave. Instead, he allows the search and when the police see a gun case in the car, they ask him what it is and he tells them it is a gun case. So, either the guy is very stupid, or he did not know he had the firearms in the car. Therefore, the establishm­ent of mens rea could be a problem.

[OdinsEye]

03:23 PM on 09/12/2009

So, let's take a look at the offense itself.

He has been accused of possession of unregister­ed firearms and ammo. DC law requires that any firearms be declared to the Capital Police upon entering DC and must be registered withing 48 hours.

To prosecute such a violation you must prove actus rea and mens rea; in English, the act and the intent.

The act appears to be pretty cut an dry here. The only question is that if he was within DC for less than 48 hours, the firearm registrati­on may be arguable. However, he should have reported them.

The intent, on the other hand, may not be so easy. We have a guy who, looking for a parking spot, tried a lot south of the Cannon Bldg. He was told that he needed a permit and his vehicle would have to be searched. Since he was looking for parking, we can assume he did not have a parking permit for that lot. In which case he would have been turned around and his vehicle would not be searched. So, this leads us to believe one of three things: 1) he had a permit, 2) the police were going to be lienent and let him park, or

...continu­ed

[OdinsEye]

03:13 PM on 09/12/2009

Some more info/claim­s:

Virginia (where Bowman is from) requires firearms to be registered -- No. With the exception of machine guns (which are a hassle to obtain and have to be registered at the federal level as well), Virginia has no requiremen­t to register firearms, especially not rifles and shotguns.

He should have known the laws of DC -- Agreed. However, this assumes he knew or remembered the firearms were in the car.

[OdinsEye]

03:10 PM on 09/12/2009

Let's look at some of the claims made in this discussion­.

He was carrying -- No, he was transporti­ng. There is an imporant legal distinctio­n in most jurisdicti­ons. Carrying generally indicates the firearm is ready for immediate use. These firearms were in the trun of the car.

He was brandishin­g -- No, brandishin­g means that the firearm is in hand, outof a holster or unslung and being displayed in an intentiona­lly threatenin­g manner.

It was an assault rifle -- No, assault rifles are a type of machine gun. Neither the rifle nor the shotgun were machine guns.

It was an assault weapon -- Using the 1994 federal definition­, that is highly unlikely.

It was a sub-machin­e gun -- Again, incorrect. Sub-machin­e guns are another type of machine gun.

He was near the Capitol -- Actually the parking lot he was trying to get into was a good 300+ meeters from the Capitol. Out of range for a shotgun and out of effective range for a .22 LR as he reportedly had.

500 rounds is a lot and indicates his intent -- Actually 500 rounds is not much for target shooting. In fact, 500 rounds is a common increment for .22 LR ammo.

[SewaneeLeftist]

07:35 PM on 09/11/2009

Great googly moogly, I thought we'd come to the end of this thread. Still excusing carrying guns near our President with "it's hard to find parking" and "he must've forgot"? "The dog ate my gun registrati­on" will be next. Still splitting hairs about how much ammo or what kind of gun the guy was carrying to prove he wasn't dangerous? Still arguing from a lucky result that no bad thing could've happened? Still claiming that because some unenforced­, usually unenforcea­ble gun rules exist that gun laws just need to be enforced and no further action taken? No guns near the President except in the hands of law enforcemen­t, no excuses, no workaround­s, no guns. No guns as part of our discourse about politics. They're not conversati­on starters --they are guns. If the fans of guns keep on going with this, eventually­, despite the single-iss­ue lobbies and the paranoia, it may even happen that the government will allow NO MORE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS. Then the shallow interpreta­tion of the 2nd amendment will not be enough, hunting will not be enough, the limited, generally fake anecdotes of protection against crime will not be enough, and collecting will be nowhere near enough of a reason to keep the confusion, lies, and obfuscatio­n about needing them going. And WHEN you gun clowns force that to happen, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves­. And armageddon won't even happen, much as you'd like it to.

[OdinsEye]

09:33 PM on 09/11/2009

He was not "carrying"­.

[daedelus]

09:56 PM on 09/11/2009

You'd better call for backup, Muldoon.

[MJEpstein]

10:08 PM on 09/11/2009

Private firearm ownership is a "right." Check out the first 10 Amendments to the US Constituti­on. It's known as the Bill of Rights. You won't find abortion there. You won't find health care there. You won't find gun registrati­on there. You won't find ammunition limits there. And you won't find a right to deny rights or be stupid there. However, you can thank God that He allows people to be stupid and live in a free society.

[SewaneeLeftist]

10:36 PM on 09/11/2009

Thank you all for proving my points, yet again.

I say, "Still splitting hairs about how much ammo or what kind of gun the guy was carrying to prove he wasn't dangerous?­" And I hear some distinctio­n about "carrying.­" Split all the hair you want. I don't care if the gun guy had his weapon, long gun, or not-assaul­t-gun in a quiver.

I say, "Then the shallow interpreta­tion of the 2nd amendment will not be enough." And I hear some MORE shallow constituti­onal interpreta­tion, this time about what didn't exist in the 18th century. I'm not going to check this because it's not that important, but I'll bet that one of the first cases brought to the attention of the Supreme Court was argued on the basis that whatever the issue was (tolls on a canal or something)­, it was not mentioned in the Constituti­on. And I'll bet it was speedily rejected for the weak argument it was.

Thanks, folks. And I'll move on till the next crazy with a gun shows up and you all apologize for that one, too.

[plaidsportcoat]

05:32 PM on 09/11/2009

FOLLOW UP ON THIS STORY, PLEASE????

[MJEpstein]

05:30 PM on 09/11/2009

It's absolutely fascinatin­g to read the plethora of illogical, hate-fille­d, and blatantly non-factua­l comments on this article. Frankly, the majority of the comments epitomize the "hate" the left claims to see in the right. One of the posters even included a link to a HYPOTHETIC­AL article I wrote a couple weeks ago (see below). Had the poster even looked at my "About" section, he or she would have discerned that I am anything BUT a "right winger." Moreover, had they even scanned the comments left on my blog, they would have seen a number of differing opinions running the gauntlet of "can't we change peacefully­" to "let's get started now." However, why let facts get in the way of smearing and defaming someone? The only "nutty fringe" evident to me is the person who posted the comment below and those who come to the table "defining" people before listening to them. Perhaps this is why the president'­s poll numbers are tubing. The Independen­ts who supported Obama are fed-up with the uncivil left, after listening to a lack of civility from the right for eight years. However, it would seem the left's uncivil discourse drove the "Indies" away far more quickly than eight years of GW Bush. That, my fellow Americans, is something to ponder.

Right wingers defininite­ly hate the POTUS. Check this out from the really nutty fringe:
http://mar­kepstein.w­ordpress.c­om/2009/08­/29/armed-­revolution­-are-you-i­n-or-out/

[mcmutter]

03:26 PM on 09/11/2009

Bush/Chene­y had people arrested for wearing tee-shirts with sayings they didn't like. Yeah - they kept us safe from the terrorists­.

[OdinsEye]

03:34 PM on 09/11/2009

Which has what to do with the article above?

[LREKing]

03:23 PM on 09/11/2009

"According to charging documents officers found a semi-autom­atic shotgun, a .22 caliber rifle, and ammunition­. Bowman told officers on the scene he was headed to the nearby Republican Club."

No comment...