I have a little bit more respect for Sean Penn

[Tony]

http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=11550

Sean Penn’s Downtown Lunch Marred by Car, Gun Theft

By NATE TABAK
Daily Cal Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 9, 2003

Actor Sean Penn's car was stolen as he lunched at a Downtown Berkeley restaurant yesterday afternoon, police said.

The car, a black 1987 Buick Grand National, was taken in broad daylight between 1 and 2:45 p.m. while it was parked on the 2300 block of Shattuck Avenue, said Berkeley police Officer Mary Kusmiss.

"It was quite bold," Kusmiss said.

Penn, 42, told police he had a loaded 9 mm Glock handgun inside his car in addition to an unloaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in the trunk.

It was legal for Penn to have the guns in his car because he has a state concealed weapons permit, Kusmiss said.

An officer remembered seeing the car heading south on Shattuck from Derby Street about 2:35 p.m before Penn reported the theft, Kusmiss said.

Penn was eating lunch at Venus restaurant with his assistant when the theft occurred.

The actor was "very mellow" in the aftermath of the crime, Kusmiss said.

Penn declined to comment about the incident.

"I'm not talking. I'm just having a cigarette," Penn told The Daily Californian.



Not only does he drive a badass car, he also carries weapons. :cool:

Originally posted by Tony


Not only does he drive a badass car, he also carries weapons. :cool:

If these things define the respect you have for a man, you're an even bigger idiot than I gave you credit for, and that's impressive.

[Richard G]

Carry weapons? Doesn't everybody?

[Marquis de Carabas]

<dragging this thread straight to hell>

Hitler had a badass car and guns, too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
<dragging this thread straight to hell>

Hitler had a badass car and guns, too.

So does James Bond. And Hitler's car was a piece of sh*t.

[Ian Osborne]

Sean Penn has his car stolen, and loses two firearms in the process. Two legally-owned guns are now in the hands of criminals. Don't any of you gun-rights advocates find this a matter of concern?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Sean Penn has his car stolen, and loses two firearms in the process. Two legally-owned guns are now in the hands of criminals. Don't any of you gun-rights advocates find this a matter of concern?

Although I'm not a strong gun-rights advocate (more middle-of-the-road), I am more likely to blame the people who actually stole the car for any damage caused by the guns, than the original owner. (Unless of course, Sean Penn left his car unlocked, and the gun sitting on the front seat in plain view, with a big sign saying "Free Gun Available".)

I don't know what the laws are in the U.S., but up here in Canada we have storage requirements. (I believe all guns have to have at least 2 locking mechanisms... Being in a locked car and also having a trigger lock would be considered proper storage.)

[Richard G]

Don't any of you gun-rights advocates find this a matter of concern?

Couple of criminals are on the street with guns now. Nothing new here. Wake up and smell the roses pal. I have my guns, do you?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Richard G
Couple of criminals are on the street with guns now. Nothing new here.

Hey, I think he's got it at long last!:D

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tony


Not only does he drive a badass car, he also carries weapons. :cool:

...and smokes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Hey, I think he's got it at long last!:D

Its one of the pitfalls of freedom. We have the right to defend ourselves, do you?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
Its one of the pitfalls of freedom. We have the right to defend ourselves, do you?

Yes we do. Sef defense is recognised in statute. But petty lawbreakers like the people who stole Sean Penn's car tend not to get guns as an unexpected bonus. Perhaps that's why an American is 50 times more likely to be shot to death than a Brit...

[Marquis de Carabas]

...or maybe we just have better aim? :D :D :D

[Wolverine]

Tony, how can you have any respect for an irresponsible firearms owner?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Sean Penn has his car stolen, and loses two firearms in the process. Two legally-owned guns are now in the hands of criminals. Don't any of you gun-rights advocates find this a matter of concern?

The solution is for all the rest of us to buy more guns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Yes we do. Sef defense is recognised in statute. But petty lawbreakers like the people who stole Sean Penn's car tend not to get guns as an unexpected bonus. Perhaps that's why an American is 50 times more likely to be shot to death than a Brit...

Guns arent illegal in the UK?

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Sean Penn has his car stolen, and loses two firearms in the process. Two legally-owned guns are now in the hands of criminals. Don't any of you gun-rights advocates find this a matter of concern?

If someone steal your car and run over someone, will you still use cars?

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony


Guns arent illegal in the UK? There are many ways to defend yourself, some of which are legal and some illegal. In the US it would be illegal to use heavy artillery to defend yourself in most situations, but legal to use a smaller gun, baseball bat or your fists.

In the UK the right to self-defence exists but the line of what weapons can legitimately be used is drawn in a different place. There are situations where using a gun for self-defence would be legal in the UK but they are far fewer.

With crime in England & Wales having fallen by nearly 40% over the last 8 years, I have yet to see good evidence that this is a bad approach.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
There are many ways to defend yourself, some of which are legal and some illegal. In the US it would be illegal to use heavy artillery to defend yourself in most situations, but legal to use a smaller gun, baseball bat or your fists.

In the UK the right to self-defence exists but the line of what weapons can legitimately be used is drawn in a different place. There are situations where using a gun for self-defence would be legal in the UK but they are far fewer.

With crime in England & Wales having fallen by nearly 40% over the last 8 years, I have yet to see good evidence that this is a bad approach.

You mean you'd exchange the freedom to own guns for the safety of not being shot?!! :eek:

;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


You mean you'd exchange the freedom to own guns for the safety of not being shot?!! :eek:

;)



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin

Since when were guns essential? I certainly don't need one - I have a real penis.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Tony




They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin
Totally agree Tony. I have no time for these wimps who meekly hand over guns and knives when they get on aeroplanes. They deserve no ones respect.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Since when were guns essential? I certainly don't need one - I have a real penis.

Yeah, and I dare you to show it to a mugger or someone rapeing your wife.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony




They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin

You wouldn't be equivocating "little temporary safety" with safety from being shot would you? Particularly as being shot (and especially being shot to death) is kind of... permanent. And irreversible.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


You wouldn't be equivocating "little temporary safety" with safety from being shot would you? Particularly as being shot (and especially being shot to death) is kind of... permanent. And irreversible.

I guess you think that just because something is illegal, people will not have access to it. Interesting.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Yeah, and I dare you to show it to a mugger or someone rapping your wife.

I don't make a habit of searching for muggers to expose myself to.

My wife is not a particular fan of rap, but even she would agree that shooting people because you don't like their music is a little... excessive.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


I guess you think that just because something is illegal, people will not have access to it. Interesting.

Call Randi! I think we've got another claim of special powers...

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin This quote is wheeled out time and again, but without support.

Tony, can you explain why this statement is correct.

1. Maybe it is just wrong - it is one man's opinion and I'm sure Franklin said many incorrect things in his life.

2. What was the context of the statement?

3. Why would carrying a gun be considered as an "essential liberty?"

4. Why is this statement not also used to oppose every anti-crime and anti-terrorism measure the US Government pushes through. Nearly every anti-terrorism action by the US Government, and others, involves a restriction on liberty in order to increase safety.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I don't make a habit of searching for muggers to expose myself to.



But muggers make it a habit of looking for you.


My wife is not a particular fan of rap, but even she would agree that shooting people because you don't like their music is a little... excessive.



I meant RAPE. Ill change my mistake. :D

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Call Randi! I think we've got another claim of special powers...

Huh?

[iain]

Originally posted by BillyTK
My wife is not a particular fan of rap, but even she would agree that shooting people because you don't like their music is a little... excessive. Let's not be too hasty here. Tony may have a point about rap music.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


But muggers make it a habit of looking for you.
Another claim of special powers? An otherwise dull Friday is certainly looking up.

I meant RAPE. Ill change my mistake. :D

I knew what you meant, but the opportunity for humour kind of improved your post.

Btw, no "e" in raping.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
4. Why is this statement not also used to oppose every anti-crime and anti-terrorism measure the US Government pushes through. Nearly every anti-terrorism action by the US Government, and others, involves a restriction on liberty in order to increase safety.

Because they've got guns to shoot the government! But wouldn't that make them terrorists?

Humour aside, your point is something I've been wondering about myself.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Another claim of special powers? An otherwise dull Friday is certainly looking up.



Don’t be stupid. Are you trying to say muggers don’t look for people to mug? This ploy of clouding the issue with sarcastic comments is your way of not addressing the issue.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
Let's not be too hasty here. Tony may have a point about rap music.

If we extend the point to cover country and western, I'll be happy to retract my claim! :D

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
And Hitler's car was a piece of s__t.

How do you know?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Don’t be stupid. Are you trying to say muggers don’t look for people to mug?

Your claim was that muggers make it a habit of looking for me. Even if this was the case, you couldn't know that, what with being on the other side of the Atlantic and all. If that's not what you meant, then my apologies, but I feel it necessary to warn you that I'm in a very literal mood today.

This ploy of clouding the issue with sarcastic comments is your way of not addressing the issue.
No, it's my way of taking the p!ss. Admittedly some of it is undeserved on your part--so apologies--as there's a level of "gun-thread fatigue" in this forum. On the other hand... what was the issue again? :D

Edited to fix tags. Again. Well it is Friday.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


How do you know?


Of course that was my opinion.

I dont know about you, but I prefer a modern, high performance machine.

My car :D
http://www.ec-cc.com/images/vehicles/shelbySeries1.jpg



Hitlers Car
http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/car.jpg


You decide.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
This quote is wheeled out time and again, but without support.


And the weird thing is, there's at least five different versions (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/q110256.html) of it.

This is my current favourite version:
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
You decide.

I'd take the Benz. It would outlast most modern cars.
Besides, I don't define manhood by the brand of car I drive like many simpler minded males do. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Besides, I don't define manhood by the brand of car I drive like many simpler minded males do. :)


Ive never met anyone like that, I assume you're describing your friends? :D

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Ive never met anyone like that, I assume you're describing your friends? :D [/B]

Nevertheless certain cars seem to impress you much that it influences your attitude towards their owners:

Not only does he drive a badass car, he also carries weapons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Nevertheless certain cars seem to impress you


Hey, I like cars, so what?

much that it influences your attitude towards their owners

Can you take a joke?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Since when were guns essential? I certainly don't need one - I have a real penis.

it aint about that, penis size small = I need lots and lots of guns.

Do you not, at least a little bit, understand people wanting arms to protect themselves?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Tony, how can you have any respect for an irresponsible firearms owner?

Hmm, no answer?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Hmm, no answer?


Can you take a joke?

[Wolverine]

:rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Anyone who has a gun permit who leaves two guns in his car should have it revoked. People leaving guns in cars are a source of guns on the streets.

Not to mention, if he had taken a tactical pistol class they probably would have let him know him that fact.

If you have a carry permit, carry the damn thing. A gun in your car does you no good.

[Wolverine]

CCW in CA mandates that you take a training course -- that being known I can only surmise that he chose to ignore the law.

Looking at this first item from the app, I'm wondering how he even got the license (not to mention passing the psych test :eek: ):

Prior to issuing a CCW, the statutes require proof that:
• The applicant is of good moral character
Source. (http://www.sdsheriff.net/mgt_serv/licensing/ca_ccw_app.pdf)

From the CA Penal Code:

Carrying a handgun concealed within a vehicle is prohibited without a license. A handgun carried in a glove compartment or under the seat of a vehicle is considered to be concealed. A handgun placed in the trunk of an automobile, or locked in a container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment or while in a locked container carried directly to or from a vehicle is deemed not to be "concealed." A locked container means a fully enclosed secure container locked by a key lock or similar locking device.

I thought for a moment that perhaps it's illegal to carry on the grounds of a business that serves alcohol; while it's possible that businesses in CA may have the right to place their own restrictions on the issue, the app states:
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
- Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
... aka a bar. Doesn't sound like restaurants apply although I could be wrong. So, instead of leaving the guns at home, or, carrying on your person as specified, he makes an error in judgment.

How nice, that in one of the most difficult states in existence to obtain a CCW permit, this guy doesn't follow the guidelines.
His permit should be revoked.

Whether intended jokingly or not, Sean Penn deserves even less, not more respect.

[Richard G]

Its damned near impossible to get a carry permit in most of California. Because he is an elitist "holywood" type, he gets his, right along with the hypocryt Dian Feinstein. For some reason a washed out actors life, and a gun grabbing nazis is more important than mine.

Not to mention he's been arrested, and convicted of numerous assault charges. He never should have had a permit. But hypocrycy runs deep among the liberal elite.

Leaving guns in your car is stupid, and no responsible CCW holder does it. BUT, the liberals insist on allowing buisnesss the discretion of barring firearms on their property. So when I drive to a workplace that has a "no guns allowed" policy, I HAVE to leave it in my vehicle. Likewise, most establishments that serve alcohol prohibit carry, even if your only there to eat.

More stinking hypocrycy, and stupidity. As a result, most CCW holders I know carry to work anyway. What they don't know won't hurt them, and it is the more responsible thing to do.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by LeFevre
Do you not, at least a little bit, understand people wanting arms to protect themselves?

I certainly would if I lived next to Texas Tony. The idea that someone like him can legally own a gun makes me shudder...

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Richard G
More stinking hypocrycy, and stupidity. As a result, most CCW holders I know carry to work anyway. What they don't know won't hurt them, and it is the more responsible thing to do.

So your gun-owning friends completely disregard the gun laws? So much for gun owners being law-abiding citizens... :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I certainly would if I lived next to Texas Tony. The idea that someone like him can legally own a gun makes me shudder...

Freedom sux, doesn't it?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Freedom sux, doesn't it?
No, but freedom does have limits. In your opinion, should a private citizen be able to own any kind of weapon? If not, where is the cut-off for you?

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Richard G
[B]Its damned near impossible to get a carry permit in most of California. Because he is an elitist "holywood" type, he gets his, right along with the hypocryt Dian Feinstein. For some reason a washed out actors life, and a gun grabbing nazis is more important than mine.

This is another shining example of California's discrimination against regular citizens trying to get CCW permits. Generally, you can only get a permit if you are a celebrity, government employee, or buddy of the sheriff. Penn's CCW permit is from Marin county, one of the worst offenders in the entire state. Link (http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/marin.pdf)

Not to mention he's been arrested, and convicted of numerous assault charges. He never should have had a permit. But hypocrycy runs deep among the liberal elite.

Actually the law states that applicants are disqualified if they have been convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, including assault and battery, but the misdemeanors do not count if they occurred more than 10 years ago (as it did in Penn's case). So it appears it was legal. You can bet it would have made a difference for some regular shlub.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

In your opinion, should a private citizen be able to own any kind of weapon? If not, where is the cut-off for you?

Seriously? I think the cut off point should be military explosives and heavy artillery, like a Howitzer. Machine guns, rifles and handguns should be ok.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
I think the cut off point should be military explosives and heavy artillery, like a Howitzer. Machine guns, rifles and handguns should be ok.

Why?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Why?

Why what?

[schplurg]

Why ask why what? ;)

Silly me, I thought this topic was started to show some kind of hypocrisy regarding Sean "no war" Penn and the fact that he carries a small arsenal in his car. But I guess it's just another "right to bear arms" thread.

I like to have a gun when I go camping (real camping out in the wilderness, not in a 40' luxury travel trailer). I'd feel very vulnerable without it. Haven't actually fired at anything though. I feel no need to carry one anywhere else, unless I need to drive up to Oakland. It is, in most California counties, very difficult to get a permit to carry. Something tells me he pulled some strings to get his. Mr. Penn obviously has no regard for the law or gun safety and gets my "Dumbass of the Week" award.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by schplurg
I thought this topic was started to show some kind of hypocrisy regarding Sean "no war" Penn and the fact that he carries a small arsenal in his car.

Why does the personal ownership of handguns contradict the opposition to a war?

Mr. Penn obviously has no regard for the law or gun safety and gets my "Dumbass of the Week" award.

Seconded, but Tony obviously respects him...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne





Seconded, but Tony obviously respects him...


You people are really pathetic. When did I say I respected him? I said "I have a little bit more respect for him". Which means, where before I thought he was a bedwetting douche bag, I now think he is he is just a douche bag.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony


Seriously? I think the cut off point should be military explosives and heavy artillery, like a Howitzer. Machine guns, rifles and handguns should be ok.
Yes, it was a serious question. It was to illustrate that the line between pro-gun and anti-gun is not so clear cut as many may think. I personally have no problem with hunting guns, and I can make a case for some people having handguns. I cannot see any fathomable use for a machine gun, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Others to the right of Tony (yes, there are some) think that you should be able to have anything you can acquire. People to the left of me (yes, there are some) think that nobody should own any guns for any reason.

Funny how this world cannot be painted with a pencil. You need colors. Sean Penn is not whiny wimp you might have suspected. Liberals like me are pro-death penalty (with absolute proof). Some rightists, like jj (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=419200#post419200) find the actions of the far right abhorrent.

This is why it is a mistake to make straw men of the positions of the "right" and the "left". Accept that people have a wide range of beliefs and that they cannot be easily labeled. When you cry "hypocrisy", be sure that you are only attacking what a person has said or demonstrated, not some image of what a liberal or a conservative is.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

No, but freedom does have limits. In your opinion, should a private citizen be able to own any kind of weapon? If not, where is the cut-off for you?

Stay on the topic of Sean Penn being a prick.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx


Stay on the topic of Sean Penn being a prick.
Okay. I've always thought that Sean Penn was a prick. He wants the glory and fame of being a movie star without any of the BS you have to put up with. I remember how he used to rough up photographers who were just doing their job.

The fact that we share some opinions gives me no joy.

[John Harrison]

Update on Mr. Penn here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20292)

Would he have gotten a CCW if he wasn't Sean Penn? Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Of even more concern is an alleged timeline of Penn’s criminal past, as compiled via public sources online:

In 1985, Sean Penn was arrested in Nashville for assault and battery for attacking two photographers with a rock. He plead guilty, paid a fine and was given a suspended sentence.

In 1986, Penn slugged a man he accused of trying to kiss his wife. Again he plead guilty and was placed on parole.

In 1997, while on parole for his previous conviction, he punched an extra working on his film "Colors" who tried to take a picture of him. He served half of a 60-day jail sentence for parole violation.

In 1998, Penn was accused of hitting a photographer with a rock. Penn claimed the photographer attacked the rock in Penn's hand with his head and injured himself. No arrest was made.

Mr. Ridgeway, in your PRA response, you list a traffic incident (minor speeding) in 2001, a lawsuit which Penn was involved in (business dispute resolved in Penn’s favor) in 1998/9, and the assault conviction of 1987 for the 1986 incident. The Nashville incident (assuming the above was correct) wasn’t mentioned, neither was the 1997 assault. Did you and/or the California DOJ “miss these”? Or are these reputed incidents in error somehow?

Any clarifications on these issues you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please be aware that CCW issuance in general is subject to equal protection principles per the US 9th Circuit in Guillory vs. Gates (1983): http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/guillory.html

By that standard, the legions of people out there who feel we have been unfairly denied access to permits have a legitimate interest in asking about how permit issuance is handled across the state. Which is exactly why the California Supreme Court threw open the permit records in CBS vs. Block: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony


Not only does he drive a badass car, he also carries weapons. :cool:


Not any more.. At least not this particular car, and those particular guns..:D