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]

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]

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

[research]

Lee Harvey Oswald

[SewaneeLeftist]

"disagree," I meant, of course.

[SewaneeLeftist]

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]

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]

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

[OdinsEye]

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]

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

[OdinsEye]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

He was not "carrying".

[daedelus]

You'd better call for backup, Muldoon.

[MJEpstein]

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]

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.

[Berettasskeeter]

Wow, what a rambling waste of words! I gather from your meaningless screed that you don't like guns, or the people who like guns. Tough! I further gather that you are waiting for the government to take them all away from us. I don't think they'll get much cooperation from law enforcement, most of whom are pro-gun. And you can go back to an early '90's study that shows that a broad majority of the military will not cooperate against US citizens either.
Okay, I got that off my chest. Now, you said, as have others, "no guns near the President". As the man stopped and arrested was, arguably, too far from the President to open fire with a .22, what is your proposal of distance? Within what distance from him would you mandate a "gun-free" zone?
Semper fi

[SewaneeLeftist]

"Within what distance from him would you mandate a "gun-free" zone?"

America.

[daedelus]

Did you learn all that dumb swagger in the Marines or were you born with it?

[SewaneeLeftist]

That was an easy one you set up, but really the laughable part is the metric of the range of a .22 for the distance a gun should be allowed to be near the president. You're right that I don't like guns, and although I have hunter friends and friends who love the art that goes into making guns, usually I don't like hunters. Killing things is not my idea of a good time.

But actually, I'm NOT waiting for the government to take away your guns, although I would fully support it if it did (which it won't, the "Obama effect" paranoia notwithstanding). My point in my "meaningless screed" which for some reason you read and answered really was that you gun loonies will have no one but yourselves to blame if it happens. You could have protected gun ownership for collecting, target practice, and hunting, but by rationalizing every single stupid use of a gun that has occurred -- assault weapons to go hunting, for example -- you've made yourselves defenders of all the craziness including the latest. All you had to do was condemn every illegal or criminal use and no one would EVER have limited your supposed rights. So I'll enjoy yourselves, uh, shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bye for now -- till the next time you folks defend some more crazies because they were "carrying" their guns at port arms instead of shoulder right as they murdered someone.

[HisXLNC]

The government's efforts to no longer allow private ownership of guns will be no more effective than it's efforts to no longer allow private usage of narcotics.

In fact, knowing our government, if they treat guns like they treat drugs, they'll intentionally funnel guns into certain segments of the population in order to justify a continued War on Guns.

[plaidsportcoat]

FOLLOW UP ON THIS STORY, PLEASE????

[MJEpstein]

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]

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

[OdinsEye]

Which has what to do with the article above?

[LREKing]

"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...