| Author | Post |
|---|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:17 am |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: imperialism2024 wrote: So, gnbrotz, are you enjoying the fun of unlicensed OCing in the mean time? 
I'm having a problem with how the burden of proof is being placed on the defendant (so to speak) of proving his innocence. Not to mention that he is being crippled in his ability to defend himself while the courts drag their feet to bring up a hearing date. Just utterly criminal behavior, really.
Yeah, its kind of disgusting that the sheriff (Beuford T Justice) can just revoke without really looking into the matter....
The way *I* understand the revocation appeal hearing, it's similar to a criminal preceding. IOW, you go into court and rather than "prove" your innocence, the opposition must prove their action, to which you can defend yourself. The cost of loosing is the revocation stands, but your not on the spot to "prove" your innocence.
Hope I'm right 
But as long as the LTCF remains revoked until the court hearing, I'm led to believe that the burden of proof is still on the accused. If it were truly on the government, our fellow Pennsylvanian would be able to retain his LTCF until the sheriff can come up with a good reason to revoke it. I guess it's kind of like New Jersey's system (if I understand it correctly) of holding an arrested person in prison for a few months until a grand jury meets to decide whether or not there's enough evidence to charge for a crime. If there isn't enough to charge you, you can go... after having spent a few months in prison. Unless you had the money to bail yourself out.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 07:12 am |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: But as long as the LTCF remains revoked until the court hearing, I'm led to believe that the burden of proof is still on the accused. If it were truly on the government, our fellow Pennsylvanian would be able to retain his LTCF until the sheriff can come up with a good reason to revoke it. ..
Oh, I agree, 100%
I was just relating the appeal hearing process in case peple were curious as it seems pretty fair. As to the process of revocation leading to the hearing, your right, the sheriff should not have that authority on a whim like he does now. That's clearly oppressive BS.
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 09:46 pm |
|
Donation update.
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 01:49 pm |
|
Wow.
An OC'rs license to carry revoked by an tyranical county sheriff, in response to lawful activity and voluntary contact with law enforcement...
Am I just experiencing De'ja Vu?
No,.. I'm pretty sure it's happened twice.
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 08:36 pm |
|
Since the ongoing thread at PAFOA is now over 40 pages, some of the latecomers to the thread suggested creating a summary timeline of the events and current donation status so they can quickly get up to speed and go back over the long dialog at their convenience. To this end, I have posted this info to my personal webspace. It can be viewed at:
http://www.gnbrotz.com/revocation
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 10:13 pm |
|
UPDATE:
My hearing date has been set. It will be on January 8, 2008 at 2 p.m. in the Franklin County Courthouse, Courtroom 1.
If anyone plans on making the trip but isn't sure where they're going, you can find a map here. If you're a gps user, the coords for the courthouse are
N 39° 56' 14.5"
W 77° 39' 35.6"
I also received a billing statement from my attorney and a request for an additional $1000, which I will be withdrawing from the donation account. The external web page containing all of this info has been updated as well.
|
Springfield45
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 01:27 am |
|
Have cleared my scheudle on that date to make a very serious attempt to attend ... since I ufortunately don't have the resources to make a monetary donation at this time, I'd like to help in any way I can. Could someone post a physical street address of the courthouse for the GPS users that require a street address ? lol
~~John
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 01:37 am |
|
Franklin County Courthouse
157 Lincoln Way East
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Last edited on Fri Dec 7th, 2007 01:38 am by gnbrotz
|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 03:46 am |
|
I don't know if this is distasteful or a good idea, so I'll post it anyway.
Since the hearing is going to be Jan 8th, and since some of us would like to get out there to support Mr. Rotz, and since Chambersburg is in a fairly central location, would it perhaps be a good idea to combine this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/6405.html OC dinner with a show of support at the hearing? We could keep the courthouse's gun check busy, and maybe bring some media attention to both the case and the OC cause... not to mention send a clear message to the local law enforcement about what the law is that they are supporting.
Just an idea...
|
Springfield45
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 03:45 pm |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: I don't know if this is distasteful or a good idea, so I'll post it anyway.
Since the hearing is going to be Jan 8th, and since some of us would like to get out there to support Mr. Rotz, and since Chambersburg is in a fairly central location, would it perhaps be a good idea to combine this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/6405.html OC dinner with a show of support at the hearing? We could keep the courthouse's gun check busy, and maybe bring some media attention to both the case and the OC cause... not to mention send a clear message to the local law enforcement about what the law is that they are supporting.
Just an idea...
Good Idea, I'd make every effort to attend
~~John
|
apjonas
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 541 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 07:04 pm |
|
| Is the connection (cause/effect) between the polling place incident and the revocation proven or merely assumed at this point?
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 08:40 pm |
|
When an attorney friend made an informal call to request restoration without the formal appeal process, the Sheriff stated to him that the issue of contention was my refusal to comply with the Constable's request.
I have not yet received the Sheriff's required formal response to the court (based on my appeal that was filed), so I don't know if the story is changed or not.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 08:45 pm |
|
gnbrotz wrote: When an attorney friend made an informal call to request restoration without the formal appeal process, the Sheriff stated to him that the issue of contention was my refusal to comply with the Constable's request.
Good Grief!! That's the only basis for the Sheriff's revocation of your LTCF??
I do not thnk the issue here is open carry - the issue is "refusal to obey the Constable's request."
In other wiords, a Constable's request is now law?? Might as well just dismiss the General Assembly - no reason to wait for them guys to pass laws anymore - the Constables got it covered - you want a law? Thye'll give you the law right on the spot.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 09:08 pm |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: I don't know if this is distasteful or a good idea, so I'll post it anyway.
Since the hearing is going to be Jan 8th, and since some of us would like to get out there to support Mr. Rotz, and since Chambersburg is in a fairly central location, would it perhaps be a good idea to combine this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/6405.html OC dinner with a show of support at the hearing? We could keep the courthouse's gun check busy, and maybe bring some media attention to both the case and the OC cause... not to mention send a clear message to the local law enforcement about what the law is that they are supporting.
Just an idea...
Awesome idea, IMO.
It's a long drive for me, I'll want some food in the boiler before my return trip
And I too plan on OC'in to/fro the courthouse. Hope they have lot's 'o lockboxes.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 09:12 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Good Grief!!That's the only basis for the Sheriff's revocation of your LTCF??
I do not thnk the issue here is open carry - the issue is "refusal to obey the Constable's request."
In other wiords, a Constable's request is now law?? Might as well just dismiss the General Assembly - no reason to wait for them guys to pass laws anymore - the Constables got it covered - you want a law? Thye'll give you the law right on the spot.
Yep, gross abuseof power going on in this case. Pretty plain to see.
Let's see, the constables request was not backed by law nor a reasonable request affecting the REAL safety of anyone (except for the lack of such for gnbrotz)
Not voluntarily complying with that request is none of the things the sheriff, by law, can revoke for.
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2007 06:26 am |
|
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_7706118
Posted under fair use
------------------------------
Man who took gun to polling place on Election Day to have his day in court
By JIM HOOK Senior writer
A Chambersburg man who went to the polls on Election Day while wearing a handgun has appealed the revocation of his permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Gregory R. Rotz of 1508 Guilford Station Road is to have his day in Franklin County Court on Jan. 8.
"I think the whole sequence of events is unnecessary," Rotz said. "I'm only looking forward to (my day in court) in the respect that it's the only means I have to right a wrong."
Rotz walked up to the New Franklin voting precinct on Nov. 6 wearing his gun in a side holster, according to Franklin County Sheriff Robert Wollyung. A constable cautioned him not to be armed around the polling place.
"He was cautioned it was best to leave (the gun) outside," Wollyung said. "Instead of taking the easy way out, he has to take the arrogant stand."
"My actions were within the law," Rotz said. "I carry my firearm every day. I believe first and foremost it's my responsibility to protect myself and my family."
Franklin County President Judge John R. Walker is scheduled to hear the case at 2 p.m. Jan. 8 in Courtroom One.
The case "may speak as to how broad the sheriff's discretion is," Rotz said. "I did not break a law. I have not been charged with any crime."
"I'm sure the court is going to agree with him," Wollyung said.
Wollyung notified Rotz in a letter dated Nov. 7 that Rotz was required to surrender his license to carry a firearm, according to court documents.
Wollyung referred to a sectionof the Pennsylvania Crimes Code: A license shall not be issued to, or be held by, a person "whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."
The right to carry a firearm is not the right to annoy, harass, intimidate or alarm others, Wollyung said.
"I personally believe he violated the spirit of the law, if not the law itself," Wollyung said.
Rotz denies he did anything to call into question his character or reputation or to demonstrate he would endanger public safety, according to a court petition filed Nov. 21 by Steve Rice, a Gettysburg attorney representing Rotz.
Wollyung failed to adequately investigate the incident and abused his discretion in revoking Rotz's license, according to Rice.
In Pennsylvania, the county sheriff's office issues permits to carry concealed weapons. Nearly 8,000 people in Franklin County have the five-year permit, according to Wollyung. His office issues almost 2,000 a year. The permit fee is $30.
When a person applies for a permit, his office has 45 days in which to conduct an investigation, including a check of criminal, military and mental health data bases.
The incident at the polling place is a matter of common sense, according to Wollyung, who was preparing his official response Wednesday to Rotz's petition.
"You can't treat your privilege of being able to carry a firearm as a bully threat," Wollyung said. "There are some places you don't carry a firearm -- bars and churches. It's common sense. Would I walk into a bank with a gun showing? I don't think so. I wouldn't walk into a big crowd with a gun showing, if I wasn't a police officer."
Federal law prohibits carrying a gun into a post office.
Pennsylvania law allows a person to carry a handgun in the open, but once the person carrying the gun gets into a vehicle, the gun is considered a concealed weapon, Wollyung said. A permit is then required.
State law prohibits constables and other law enforcement officers from wearing weapons at polling places during an election.
The constable at New Franklin, whom Wollyung declined to identify, was aware of the law, Wollyung said.
The constable asked other authorities whether Rotz could carry a weapon, according to Wollyung and Rotz. Rotz declined the constable's suggestion to leave his gun in his vehicle. Rotz voted wearing his side arm.
"I think the election board was aware of what was going on and was concerned," Wollyung said.
The three members of the county election board did not return telephone calls on Wednesday.
Wollyung said he heard about the incident election night as election officials delivered ballots to the county Administrative Annex on North Second Street.
He suggested that the election board post signs at polling places on Election Day prohibiting entry to people wearing firearms.
Rotz said that would present another problem: Pennsylvania law precludes any municipality from enacting laws regarding the use and carrying of firearms.
----------
Jim Hook can be reached at 262-4759 or jhook@publicopinionnews.com.
|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2007 01:41 pm |
|
Hmm, the article seems fairly well-informed and non-biased. I just wish that it would have clarified the places where carrying a firearm is legally banned, rather than just "not being a good idea." I believe that is a rather short list, consisting of courthouses and federal property (including post offices).
And I wonder what the good sheriff has to say about why one shouldn't carry a firearm at church given the recent church shootings...
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2007 02:06 pm |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Hmm, the article seems fairly well-informed and non-biased. I just wish that it would have clarified the places where carrying a firearm is legally banned, rather than just "not being a good idea." I believe that is a rather short list, consisting of courthouses and federal property (including post offices).
And I wonder what the good sheriff has to say about why one shouldn't carry a firearm at church given the recent church shootings...
PA law does not ban carry at post offices or federal property; further, while it is not clear whether carry at post offices is actually banned under federal law, gun carry is not banned under federal law on all federal property.
|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2007 03:20 pm |
|
Mike wrote: imperialism2024 wrote: Hmm, the article seems fairly well-informed and non-biased. I just wish that it would have clarified the places where carrying a firearm is legally banned, rather than just "not being a good idea." I believe that is a rather short list, consisting of courthouses and federal property (including post offices).
And I wonder what the good sheriff has to say about why one shouldn't carry a firearm at church given the recent church shootings...
PA law does not ban carry at post offices or federal property; further, while it is not clear whether carry at post offices is actually banned under federal law, gun carry is not banned under federal law on all federal property.
I didn't say that PA law was responsible for the ban 
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make was that there are very few places in PA where firearms carrying is banned, including most of the places where it's "not a good idea".
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2007 04:09 pm |
|
Wow. That article supports some of my suspicions about the sheriff.
1) He thinks his opinion about what he would do is somehow relevant to other peoples rights.
2) He thinks that OC = threat, "bullying", and "panic" even though we have case law saying otherwise.
3) He doesn't understand Title18,ch61,A, SS6120. AKA state preemption.
4) He's ignorant to the fact that he'sworn to uphold citizens RIGHTS, not find ways to impede them.
5) He could give a flying flip because he's gone in a month.
Did I miss anything?
I also would add that I am very pleased with the news article. From my 3rd person viewpoint I think the reporter should be commended for their fairness and quality of the story.
I think it is exemplory in this day and age of "left" leaning media.
I'm going to write a feedback note now at the newspaper link.
|
Current time is 07:17 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
