|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > Dickson City, PA police conduct Katrina style gun confiscation!
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > Dickson City, PA police conduct Katrina style gun confiscation!
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
FYI below - be prepared to rally outside the Dickson City. PA police department later this week for a "FREE RICH's GUN PROTEST" - UPDATE: Attend City Council Meeting this Tuesday - see http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=10785&forum_id=46. -- ************************************************************ OpenCarry.org Press Release - May 10, 2008 ************************************************************ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ************************************************************ Dickson City, PA police demand gun owners’ “identity papers” & conduct Katrina style gun confiscation! Gun owners to demand Habeas Arma! --------------------------------------------------------------------- It looks like the Dickson City (a borough in Lackawanna County, PA) police and Lackawanna County District Attorney have erected a “new order” in Pennsylvania – one where citizens must present their identity papers and give up their guns to police on demand. Or, maybe Dickson’s finest are just trying to borrow a page from the play book of their bros’ in blue from the City of Brotherly love. . . [1] The facts[2] The facts are simple and not in dispute – a few folks, including families with small children, met up for dinner at the Old Country Buffet on Friday, May 9.[3] Apparently a customer called the police to report that some of these people were openly carrying handguns. Next thing you know, Dickson City Patrolman Tony Mariano and female Officer Gallagher rolled up and proceeded to roust everyone away from their dinners, demanded identity documents from anyone they saw openly carrying guns, and seized the guns for some sort of Orwellian “serial number check.” When Luzerne County resident Rich Banks[4] and his wife Judy went over to the police and asked them what was going on, the police threatened to arrest Judy unless she turned off her camcorder, and then unlawfully arrested Rich when he declined to show identification[5] – Rich was then searched and placed in cuffs in a squad car.[6] Rich’s 6 year old son was upset and crying and several of the women in the party became nearly hysterical.[7] For some time thereafter, squad cars full of police from the city of Scranton and Lackawanna County rolled up to assist in the illegal detention, ID checks, and serial number gun checks of these law abiding citizens just trying to eat dinner together. Police start to get nervous But something was wrong – Banks could see officers from the various jurisdictions franticly making cell phone calls and talking to each other – after a while, Officer Karen Gallagher, the mean spirited officer in charge, who told Rich’s wife she did not want to be filmed because she might want to go back to “under cover work some day,” came over to Rich and said they were going to go easy on him and release him. But . . . Gallagher said he could not get his gun back until he “proved ownership” because there was no record of his gun in police records. Mr. Banks – a “gun smith” with a federal gun dealer license – explained to Gallagher that her seizure, arrest, and search of his person was unlawful and demanded his property be returned immediately because there was no more reason he had to prove he owned the gun than to prove he owned the TV in his house. Retorted an angry Gallagher, “I heard enough from you tonight!,” slamming the squad door in a huff. Incredibly, officer Gallagher then claimed to have contacted unknown elements of the Lackawanna District Attorney’s office which allegedly ordered her not to return Banks’ gun until he “proved ownership.”[8] Banks demanded a receipt from the police – so they wrote a note (attached, with serial number redacted). So that’s the story – a bunch of police, acting like thugs, unlawfully roust and harass gun owners and their families for the crime of obeying the law – and then drive away after stealing a gun. Police look for cover from restaurant management As the police began winding down their Kafkaesque theater act, one of the officers asked the Old Country Buffett manager on duty if he “had any problems” with the group remaining at the restaurant. The manager responded laconically that “we had no problems ‘till you showed up.” The law: It’s pretty simple actually. Pennsylvania is like most states. There is no gun registration, and, generally, anyone 18 years of age or over can openly carry a handgun on foot without any license to do so, even while eating dinner.[9] As a constitutional matter, a mere 911 call reporting a “man with a gun” does not allow the police to detain or search anyone.[10] And while it is true that the Pennsylvania State Police maintain a handgun sales database consisting of information reported to them by Pennsylvania gun dealers,[11] it is not a crime to own or carry a gun not listed in the database which only consists of guns transferred through Pennsylvania gun dealers anyway.[12] And the police have no power to confiscate personal property for failure to carry proof of ownership. What’s next? Habeas Arma! OpenCarry.org calls on the Lackawanna County District Attorney to order Mr. Banks gun returned to him immediately without any further demands for “proof of ownership,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Further, we call for the suspension and prosecution of Patrolman Mariano and Officer Gallagher and any member of the Lackawanna District Attorney’s office involved in this travesty for violations of civil rights under federal and Pennsylvania law, including Pennsylvania’s “Official Oppression statute.”[13] Finally, Dickson City Police Chief William Stadnitski had better get his Department under control such that no officer ever treat guns like “contraband” or gun owners like second class citizens. And it looks like the Chief knows his officers’ were out of control – this incident has not been posted to his Daily Activity report at http://www.dicksoncityborough.org/index.jsp?id=13.[14] John Pierce/Mike Stollenwerk ########################## Contact anytime on gun stories: -- Mike Stollenwerk Mr. Stollenwerk is a lifelong legal resident of Lancaster County, PA. In 2006, Stollenwerk prevailed in a federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania State Police to quash their unlawful demands for social security number disclosure from gun purchasers and License to Carry Firearms applicants. Stollenwerk v. Miller, 2006 WL 463393 (E.D. Pa. 2006). -- John Pierce Mr. Pierce is an IT professional and works for an Allentown, PA area firm. -- http://www.OpenCarry.org A national pro-gun Internet community with more than 5,800 registered members News media reports citing OpenCarry.org's perspective: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum63 ########################## [1] See Patrick Walters, Philadelphia Police Caught Beating Suspects, Associated Press, May 7, 2008, available with video at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/philadelphia-police-caugh_n_100569.html. [2] Assembled from OpenCarry.org’s very reliable members who witnessed this debacle first hand. [3] See discussion thread at http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/21292-pa-patriot-arrested-oc-dinner-old-country-buffet-dickson-city-5-9-a.html - at first this thread was just a way to talk about an upcoming social event – at page 15, it became a thread to talk about police misconduct and the thread’s name was then changed. [4] Mr. Banks is the owner of Frontline Armory, http://www.frontlinearmory.com. [5] Pennsylvania has no “stop and ID” statute. Further, the United States Supreme Court has struck down state statutes requiring anyone to carry ID credentials. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). And last month the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an officer arresting someone for merely refusing to show identification is not due qualified immunity in a civil lawsuit. Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2008). See also Rob Moritz, Fed appeals court says motorist's refusal to give police his name is no cause for arrest, Ark. News Bureau, April 5, 2008, available at http://www.lawreader.com/index.php/browse/node/7438.html. [8] The story is a bit more complex – by this point, the police realized they were in the wrong generally and proceeded to back down. The police told one man he could not get his gun back because it was not “registered to him” but to his wife. The man told the police there was no registration in Pennsylvania and that Pennsylvania law does not require handgun transfers between family members to be conducted through dealer checks and record keeping anyway. The police handed the gun to the wife and walked away. Another man, who happened to have a License to Carry Firearms (required to “conceal” handguns in Pennsylvania) flat out told the police “you’re not taking my gun or running the serial number,” and the police quickly backed off. [9] Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068, n.4 (Pa. 1997) (“In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license.”). Interestingly, on the same day as Bank’s arrest and theft of his gun by police, the Associated Press reported that gun carry in restaurants is becoming pretty ho hum. Mathew Barakat, Guns in restaurants draw stares but little outcry, Associated Press, May 9, 2008, available at http://tinyurl.com/536htc. [10] Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). [11] Only 13 other states are like Pennsylvania which generally bans the private **transfers** of handguns, see http://www.opencarry.org/transfers.html, but it is not a crime to move into Pennsylvania with a handgun, or transfer a handgun to a family members without going through a dealer – and so besides the point that the police have no lawful authority to seize guns and check their serial numbers against the PSP handgun transfer database, the fact that the handgun is not listed in the data base, or not associated with the person carrying the handgun is completely irrelevant. Regardless, it’s not a crime to **receive** a handgun in a private transfer under Pennsylvania law. [12] Obviously the Dickson City and the Lackawanna District Attorney either don’t know the law, or are purposefully violating the law. [13] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301 ("Official oppression") provides that "[a] person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: (1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or (2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity. See also Matt Miller, Constable charged with official oppression, Mid State News, April 3, 2008, available at http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/04/constable_charged_with_officia.html. [14] I wonder what the report will say, if it is ever posted – maybe something like, “To Old Country Buffet on a call about families eating out while some adults carrying holstered side arms. Police harassed a group of law abiding citizens for over an hour, and stole one gun from a man who would not keep his mouth shut.” Attachment: Rich Banks gun receipt.pdf (Downloaded 294 times) |
|||||||||
|
yankees98a Regular Member
|
Chief18519@hotmail.com Chief Stadnitski 570-489-3231 |
|||||||||
|
Gary in Pennsylvania Regular Member
|
- Wherever & Whenever Rich.....I'll be there! |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
Too far for me, I'm about 4.5 hours away and can't afford the gas anyhow. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
Watching with interest. God Bless. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ |
|||||||||
|
LEO 229 Regular Member 
|
Shocking.... From what I have read... and if the facts are as stated... this was a rotten situation and handled poorly by the police. In regards to holding the gun for proof of ownership.... I would love to see how this is going to be justified. Unless there was some credible evidence to prove or even believe it was not his gun.... there is no reason to compel him to prove his property belongs to him. This could go for an IPOD or even a bicycle that you could be using in public. Looks like some remedial training is in order. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member 
|
Press release e-mailed to the Dickson City Mayor. Message subject was: 400-pound Gorilla vs. Dickson City |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member 
|
LEO 229 wrote: Shocking....Yes, quite shocking. In this case I'm thinking that "poorly" may be quite an understatement. It appears on the surface that not only did the police not follow the law, they violated laws and constitutional protections as well. I am eagerly anticipating the outcome of this matter. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member 
|
 I didn't really realize the extent of what happened until reading this press release. These "law" enforcement officers are a disgrace to the rest of the Pennsylvania LEOs (except those in Philadelphia). Like I've said before, though, the fortunate thing to come out of the whole situation is that Rich will not go away quietly, and will ensure that this is given the proper response it deserves. Good luck to Rich, and my sympathies to him and his family for having to put up with this assault. After this is resolved, I think the next step is attacking the PSP over their illegal gun registry. At least this might shut up some of the mindless @#$%s on PAFOA who insist that letting the police run their gun's serial number through the registry is harmless... |
|||||||||
|
Ohio Patriot Regular Member
|
LEO 229 wrote:
No... looks like some arrests are in order. I find it interesting that, if a "citizen" is arrested for a crime, and the citizen did not know his actions were a crime, he is not allowed to claim ignorance. Yet when a LEO does something illegal, ignorance is allowed to be used as an excuse, and they simply need to be "retrained." Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 02:58 pm by Ohio Patriot |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: LEO 229 wrote: § 5301. Official oppression. A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
|
|||||||||
|
DreQo State Researcher 
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: LEO 229 wrote: That's exactly what I was thinking, Ohio Patriot. The officers that WEREN'T involved with this need training to make sure it doesn't happen again. The officers that WERE involved need to be punished thoroughly. |
|||||||||
|
Ohio Patriot Regular Member
|
Probably broke some federal laws as well: Deprivation of Rights Civil action for deprivation of rights U.S. CODE > TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. U.S. CODE > TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 05:02 pm by Ohio Patriot |
|||||||||
|
Dutch Uncle Activist Member 
|
Its time for the people involved to find a good civil rights lawyer. I know PA has more gun owners per capita than any other state. Do you have any kind of a CDL organization up there? If not, OCDO could at least help with a few thousand angry emails to the police and local papers. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member 
|
I wish this weren't so far away, I'd love to help out. |
|||||||||
|
longwatch Founder's Club Member 
|
Tomahawk wrote: I wish this weren't so far away, I'd love to help out.+1 This is definitely worse than Tony's. |
|||||||||
|
Reverend73 Founder's Club Member
|
Snail mail letter sent to the chief. He's probably not gonna like what I had to say. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: Probably broke some federal laws as well: Police (DA's?) often like to 'stack charges' on the accused. I say turnabout is fair play: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 373 § 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence (a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years. (b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. (c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241 § 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 26 > § 521 § 521. Criminal street gangs (a) Definitions.— “conviction” includes a finding, under State or Federal law, that a person has committed an act of juvenile delinquency involving a violent or controlled substances felony. “criminal street gang” means an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons— (A) that has as 1 of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or more of the criminal offenses described in subsection (c); (B) the members of which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of offenses described in subsection (c); and (C) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce. “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (b) Penalty.— The sentence of a person convicted of an offense described in subsection (c) shall be increased by up to 10 years if the offense is committed under the circumstances described in subsection (d). (c) Offenses.— The offenses described in this section are— (1) a Federal felony involving a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) for which the maximum penalty is not less than 5 years; (2) a Federal felony crime of violence that has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force against the person of another; and (3) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2). (d) Circumstances.— The circumstances described in this section are that the offense described in subsection (c) was committed by a person who— (1) participates in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a continuing series of offenses described in subsection (c); (2) intends to promote or further the felonious activities of the criminal street gang or maintain or increase his or her position in the gang; and (3) has been convicted within the past 5 years for— (A) an offense described in subsection (c); (B) a State offense— (i) involving a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) for which the maximum penalty is not less than 5 years’ imprisonment; or (ii) that is a felony crime of violence that has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force against the person of another; (C) any Federal or State felony offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may be used in the course of committing the offense; or (D) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 55 > § 1201 § 1201. Kidnapping (a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when— (1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when the transportation began; (2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49; (4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116 (b) of this title; or (5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment. (b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported to interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended. (c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. (d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years. (RICO) TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1962 § 1962. Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1963 § 1963. Criminal penalties (a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law— (1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; (2) any— (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over; any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and (3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds. (b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes— (1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and (2) tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities. (c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (l) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section. (d) (1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section— (A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation of section 1962 of this chapter and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section; or (B) prior to the filing of such an indictment or information, if, after notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the property and opportunity for a hearing, the court determines that— (i) there is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture; and (ii) the need to preserve the availability of the property through the entry of the requested order outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered: Provided, however, That an order entered pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be effective for not more than ninety days, unless extended by the court for good cause shown or unless an indictment or information described in subparagraph (A) has been filed. (2) A temporary restraining order under this subsection may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and that provision of notice will jeopardize the availability of the property for forfeiture. Such a temporary order shall expire not more than ten days after the date on which it is entered, unless extended for good cause shown or unless the party against whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer period. A hearing requested concerning an order entered under this paragraph shall be held at the earliest possible time, and prior to the expiration of the temporary order. (3) The court may receive and consider, at a hearing held pursuant to this subsection, evidence and information that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. (e) Upon conviction of a person under this section, the court shall enter a judgment of forfeiture of the property to the United States and shall also authorize the Attorney General to seize all property ordered forfeited upon such terms and conditions as the court shall deem proper. Following the entry of an order declaring the property forfeited, the court may, upon application of the United States, enter such appropriate restraining orders or injunctions, require the execution of satisfactory performance bonds, appoint receivers, conservators, appraisers, accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to protect the interest of the United States in the property ordered forfeited. Any income accruing to, or derived from, an enterprise or an interest in an enterprise which has been ordered forfeited under this section may be used to offset ordinary and necessary expenses to the enterprise which are required by law, or which are necessary to protect the interests of the United States or third parties. (f) Following the seizure of property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General shall direct the disposition of the property by sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of any innocent persons. Any property right or interest not exercisable by, or transferable for value to, the United States shall expire and shall not revert to the defendant, nor shall the defendant or any person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant be eligible to purchase forfeited property at any sale held by the United States. Upon application of a person, other than the defendant or a person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant, the court may restrain or stay the sale or disposition of the property pending the conclusion of any appeal of the criminal case giving rise to the forfeiture, if the applicant demonstrates that proceeding with the sale or disposition of the property will result in irreparable injury, harm or loss to him. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 (b), the proceeds of any sale or other disposition of property forfeited under this section and any moneys forfeited shall be used to pay all proper expenses for the forfeiture and the sale, including expenses of seizure, maintenance and custody of the property pending its disposition, advertising and court costs. The Attorney General shall deposit in the Treasury any amounts of such proceeds or moneys remaining after the payment of such expenses. (g) With respect to property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General is authorized to— (1) grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this chapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter; (2) compromise claims arising under this section; (3) award compensation to persons providing information resulting in a forfeiture under this section; (4) direct the disposition by the United States of all property ordered forfeited under this section by public sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons; and (5) take appropriate measures necessary to safeguard and maintain property ordered forfeited under this section pending its disposition. (h) The Attorney General may promulgate regulations with respect to— (1) making reasonable efforts to provide notice to persons who may have an interest in property ordered forfeited under this section; (2) granting petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture; (3) the restitution of property to victims of an offense petitioning for remission or mitigation of forfeiture under this chapter; (4) the disposition by the United States of forfeited property by public sale or other commercially feasible means; (5) the maintenance and safekeeping of any property forfeited under this section pending its disposition; and (6) the compromise of claims arising under this chapter. Pending the promulgation of such regulations, all provisions of law relating to the disposition of property, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, or the remission or mitigation of forfeitures for violation of the customs laws, and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof. Such duties as are imposed upon the Customs Service or any person with respect to the disposition of property under the customs law shall be performed under this chapter by the Attorney General. (i) Except as provided in subsection (l), no party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under this section may— (1) intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving the forfeiture of such property under this section; or (2) commence an action at law or equity against the United States concerning the validity of his alleged interest in the property subsequent to the filing of an indictment or information alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture under this section. (j) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enter orders as provided in this section without regard to the location of any property which may be subject to forfeiture under this section or which has been ordered forfeited under this section. (k) In order to facilitate the identification or location of property declared forfeited and to facilitate the disposition of petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, after the entry of an order declaring property forfeited to the United States the court may, upon application of the United States, order that the testimony of any witness relating to the property forfeited be taken by deposition and that any designated book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material not privileged be produced at the same time and place, in the same manner as provided for the taking of depositions under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (l) (1) Following the entry of an order of forfeiture under this section, the United States shall publish notice of the order and of its intent to dispose of the property in such manner as the Attorney General may direct. The Government may also, to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have alleged an interest in the property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture as a substitute for published notice as to those persons so notified. (2) Any person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may, within thirty days of the final publication of notice or his receipt of notice under paragraph (1), whichever is earlier, petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property. The hearing shall be held before the court alone, without a jury. (3) The petition shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner’s right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought. (4) The hearing on the petition shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of justice, be held within thirty days of the filing of the petition. The court may consolidate the hearing on the petition with a hearing on any other petition filed by a person other than the defendant under this subsection. (5) At the hearing, the petitioner may testify and present evidence and witnesses on his own behalf, and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. The United States may present evidence and witnesses in rebuttal and in defense of its claim to the property and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. In addition to testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall consider the relevant portions of the record of the criminal case which resulted in the order of forfeiture. (6) If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that— (A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section; the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination. (7) Following the court’s disposition of all petitions filed under this subsection, or if no such petitions are filed following the expiration of the period provided in paragraph (2) for the filing of such petitions, the United States shall have clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture and may warrant good title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee. (m) If any of the property described in subsection (a), as a result of any act or omission of the defendant— (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (5). (/RICO) TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331 § 2331. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2339A § 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists (a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 930 (c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 1993, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or 2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123 (b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law. (b) Definitions.— As used in this section— (1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; (2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and (3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. |
|||||||||
|
zoom6zoom Regular Member 
|
Since one of the folks who had their sidearm seized was a gunsmith, therefore an FFL, it becomes a Federal charge: Section 923 (g), Title 18 USC requires each Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) to report the theft/loss of a firearm from the licensee, within 48 hours of discovery to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by calling 1-888-930-9275 and to local law enforcement authorities. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
zoom6zoom wrote: Since one of the folks who had their sidearm seized was a gunsmith, therefore an FFL, it becomes a Federal charge: Niiiiice... |
|||||||||
|
sccrref Regular Member 
|
zoom6zoom wrote: Since one of the folks who had their sidearm seized was a gunsmith, therefore an FFL, it becomes a Federal charge:Hopefully this was done lest it come back and haunt him for not doing it. I hope that all turns out well. Namely that the LEOs involved get charged and prosecuted in both civil and criminal courts. A few bad eggs ruin it for all of the good ones. Hopefully the blue wall will come down and get pissed off about a few rogue officers ruining the good reputation of the honest officers. |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member 
|
Good job guys! The only thing I'd like to add is the following in reference to the threats of arrest for recording the incident: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp It is disappointing that the fourth estate is conspicuously much too silent regarding the current events. Last edited on Mon May 12th, 2008 09:53 am by ne1 |
|||||||||
|
PA-Carry Regular Member 
|
sccrref wrote: zoom6zoom wrote:I think that you will hear that the theft was reported on Saturday (May 10th).Since one of the folks who had their sidearm seized was a gunsmith, therefore an FFL, it becomes a Federal charge:Hopefully this was done lest it come back and haunt him for not doing it. I hope that all turns out well. Namely that the LEOs involved get charged and prosecuted in both civil and criminal courts. A few bad eggs ruin it for all of the good ones. Hopefully the blue wall will come down and get pissed off about a few rogue officers ruining the good reputation of the honest officers. |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
LEO 229 wrote: Shocking.... And the best training comes from the civil courts! Guillotine! |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
We need to bring back flogging for those that abuse Government positions. Make the bastards glad they don't live in Asia. |
|||||||||
|
bobcat Regular Member
|
This one is going to be interesting to watch. These cops were so way off base, it's hard to believe it actually happened. -But I do, because I've had a friend go through this in Colorado while OC'g. He won his legal case, but that's about it. At the very least, these cops should be pulled off street duty and put on desk duty. The results of the pending prosecution and litigation should fully relieve them of their duties. IMAO, these are not the kind of folks that should be cops. They obviously didn't understand very basic laws and how to handle this kind of situation. It appears many preconceived notions about PA code, civil rights and property rights were on display. If the facts are as they appear, those cops are cooked and maybe some admin as well. It appears all kinds of charges are possible, just a matter of putting public pressure on the DA and/or US Attorney to press charges? Plenty of evidence and witnesses. Then the civil suits. Oh, my. The local .gov may end up vanquishing a large quantity of dollars. Civil rights attorneys live for cases like this. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Mike (and John), You may or may not recognize how much I support OC, but I for one think that the "Sieg Heil" titling is over the top. "We DEMAND your papers!" or somesuch would be more effective IMHO, considering that the title of the press release can be used as strong proof by the anti-gun media (and antis in general) to once again portray "us" as crazed wackos. Why bring in Hitler? Who is the primary audience and who is the secondary audience? It just seems to me like the collateral damage of a release titled as such is considerable. I just don't think that hitting Joe Clueless (or Joe Care Less) over the head in this manner is going to sway him our way. Last edited on Mon May 12th, 2008 07:16 pm by BB62 |
|||||||||
|
C4talyst Regular Member
|
I hate political correctness...I think it's one of the problems with this country that's brought us to where we are today. The thread title is very fitting and appropriate. On another note...I sent an email to the Chief of the Dickson Police department too. |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
BB62 wrote: Mike (and John), Well, let's see..... WHO demanded that all guns and all citizens be registered, and papers be carried and shown on demand? |
|||||||||
|
DreQo State Researcher
|
spurrit wrote: BB62 wrote:Mike (and John), Hillary?  |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
You turd! I avoided watching the news all day, so I could stop thinking about her and the golden (bronze?) boy! |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member 
|
Perhaps this would be a nice story for Lou Dobbs! |
|||||||||
|
sprat Regular Member 
|
don't know about Lou Dobbs but Glenn beck would sure mention it, catch his full week on the 2nd amendment both on the radio and TV for the record he carries concealed. Pa Patriot you are in all of our thoughts and prayers sprat |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member 
|
Bad police abuse citizens rights. This is a story...but Don't miss the REAL STORY here. 1. PA has some sort of anti-private handgun regulation . 2. PA State police maintain a "database". 3. Police use the database as probable cause to seize citizens firearms. (The story does not give a police reason for the seizure, but if it was less than probable cause, then we are into a much larger issue.) Real Story: PA INCIDENT CLEARLY SHOWS THE DANGER TO FREEDOM OF PROHIBITING PRIVATE TRANSFER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ( CLOSING THE "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" IN THE ANTI WORLD) State mandated transfer of firearms = gun registration Gun registration leads to Gun confiscation. |
|||||||||
|
GlockJock Regular Member
|
This issue is on the air in Scranton on WILK 103.1 with the chief and John from opencarry.org.... |
|||||||||
|
OC-Glock19 Founder's Club Member 
|
Go to http://www.wilknewsradio.com/ and click "listen live" |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator 
|
BB62 wrote: Mike (and John), BB62, I understand your point completely. We were attempting to express the level of concern we had over the demand for "papers". But, on the radio interview this morning, they asked that very question. "Sieg Heil ... isn't that a little over the top." John |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
Thundar wrote: Bad police abuse citizens rights. This is a story...but Thundar, You have hit the hidden issue right on the head!! During my radio debate with the chief, he hinted at this very thing and called it "registration". It concerned me greatly! |
|||||||||
|
Malum Prohibitum Regular Member 
|
Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stollenwork, What can those of us in other states do to help out? ED |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
Malum Prohibitum wrote: Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stollenwork, I will think about it but for those who live too far away to drive to Dickson City tonight, the best thing to do right now is standby. There are bound to be polls we need to hit, newspaper articles we need to comment on and LTE's to be written. Also, depending upon what happens, there may be legal fees to be paid by Rich. For now, there isn't a lot that those outside the area can do except offer support. Thanks for asking! |
|||||||||
|
lax Regular Member
|
From the Daily Activity Report http://www.dicksoncityborough.org/index.jsp?id=13 05/11/08 6:32pm To the Old Country Buffet on a male openly carrying a handgun, restaurant cancelled complaint enroute.  |
|||||||||
|
Malum Prohibitum Regular Member
|
jpierce wrote: Malum Prohibitum wrote:Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stollenwork, Standing by. . . . |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
lax wrote: From the Daily Activity Report Well, isn't THAT special? Sounds to me as though some officers were acting outside of the scope of their duties. There are consequences for that: "Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, and call off Christmas!" - Allan Rickman |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
BB62 wrote: Mike (and John),I disagree. The people involved have to go after these pos nazis. They violated the civil rights of honest Americans like they were the Gestapo. 42 USC 21 Section 1983 deals with this. False arrest, illegal search and seizure, battery--as soon as one of the storm troopers touched anyone it was battery, 1st Amendment violation; 2nd Amendment violation; 4th Amendment violation. Supported by the Chief of Police. There is money to be made in this lawsuit in Federal Courts, against the individual cops, the chief, the town and the state, if state cops were involved. They also have no immunity in Federal Court. If it oinks and crawls in the mud, call it what it is: a pig. The fact that it may not be wearing SS insignia, notwithstanding. |
|||||||||
|
Springfield45 Regular Member 
|
Rich, My prayers are out to you, and everyone involved in this Horrific violation of your rights.... Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. ~~Springfield |
|||||||||
|
Al Swartzlander Regular Member 
|
From my cold dead hands |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Gunslinger wrote: BB62 wrote:Mike (and John),I disagree. The people involved have to go after these pos nazis... You're right - in that the police did what you said, but that's not my point. Nothwithstanding the accuracy of the release, the NAZI reference does nothing but make it easier for those on the fence, whom we otherwise might sway to our side (or at least persuade to read the announcement, and maybe understand our viewpoint), to dismiss us as what the media has popularized us to be - NUTS. One might conclude that "crazed lunatics" would be a reasonable characterization, too. Who is the press release's target audience? What is its purpose? If the intent is to get hardcore RKBA people fired up, fine, but IMHO it is still over the top, and marginalizes us. Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 01:55 am by BB62 |
|||||||||
|
SicSemperTyrannis Regular Member
|
BB62 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:BB62 wrote:Mike (and John),I disagree. The people involved have to go after these pos nazis... I think the use of "Sieg Heil" is counter-productive and very unnecesary, especially considering how well the rest of the press release was written. Starting with such an overused, inflammatory Nazi-reference adds nothing to the story. It brings no new support to the cause. It may make (some) of us feel better, but I would think many moderately pro-gun folks (I am thinking of my brothers and some of my friends) will think it is over-the-top, which detracts from the very real issues presented.... just my two cents. |
|||||||||
|
Lthrnck Regular Member 
|
I would have to agree with BB62 and SST. The title makes us out to be some kind of anti-government, anti police organization. It seems there has been alot of this type of talk in posts. It's not going to win us any votes when we need them. We already have one LEO website calling us anti government , anti LEO. Maybe we should be careful in they way we say things. I'm not saying we have to be all PC but this may be stretching it . |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
Lthrnck wrote: We already have one LEO website calling us anti government , anti LEO. Then I'd say that makes THEM anti-American. |
|||||||||
|
Renegade Regular Member 
|
Theories have four stages of acceptance: I) This is worthless nonsense. II) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view. III) This is true but quite unimportant. IV) I have always said so. J.B.S. Haldane, 1963 It seems like those so easily offended by the title of this thread are stuck somewhere between the first and second stages. In the short term titles such as "Sieg Heil! Dickson City, PA police..." may actually appear to do some harm at first glance. But the true measure are what is gained over the long term... |
|||||||||
|
Rogue9er Activist Member 
|
It looks like the guys over at pafoa.org really aren't happy with the Sieg Heil thing either. We should probably respect those involved in the incident if they want it changed. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
My vote? Ditch the "Sieg Heil" and go with something equally short but less likely to make others think of us as gun nuts. Dickson City Police Violate Citizen's Rights with Impunity. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Mike's on-the-road interview with WYOU-TV: http://pahomepage.com/media_player.php?media_id=15712 |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
BB62 wrote: If the intent is to get hardcore RKBA people fired up, fine, but IMHO it is still over the top, and marginalizes us. "Marginalises us"? What kinda liberal horse@#$% is this? You sound like one of those folks who wants reduced sentencing for criminals that had a bad childhood. I bet you're wearing a "hug a wifebeater" shirt. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
I've been thinking about this for a few days and agree with BB62's and SST's posts above. |
|||||||||
|
vermonter Regular Member 
|
Let me tell you about Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers! Several years ago my uninsured PARKED car was hit on the street in front of my house at 3AM by a drunk. I had not bothered to change my address, and did not receive mail about a license suspension for failing to have insurance on A MV that was involved in an accident on a public street. Here in VT a Police Officer would tell you "park the car and get a licensed driver to come and get it", then issue a summons. Fast Forward. I had a contract job for 6 weeks in a township in PA and did not know I was suspended. I was stopped for my tires touching the double line by a township officer. He ran a VT DMV check and found my license was suspended. I was told "I would sit in jail with the drug addicts" if I didn't pay the fines for the moving violation and the suspended license charge on the spot. He followed me to a conv store where I had to purchase a money order for $300 some odd dollars to pay my "bail"! FOR TRAFFIC OFFENSES!Fast Forward a few more days.... I was walking to my job when a municipal officer from ANOTHER township ran up to me with an un-holstered Glock. He screamed at me "get on the ground"! The Glock was shaking in his hands! It turns out later he was looking for a 16 year old that tried to enter someones shed illegally. I was 44 at the time with a grey beard! I called an attorne in PA and he told me that a PA police officer can pull a gun on anyone anytime he has fear, and I have no case! Who the hell makes up these laws in PA? Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers are OUT OF CONTROL! PSP is VERY professional, but beware of municipal officers they are dangerous loose cannons on power trips!!!!! |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
That was BS. YOu should call a better lawyer. This might have to go to Federal district court, but it was damn sure assault, unlawful detention, and, if you were cuffed, unlawful arrest. |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member
|
God speed, gentlemen....our thoughts, prayers and collective efforts are here for you. E-mails en-route. This is a disgrace and a slap to the face of Lady Liberty. To the Dickson PD: Justice may be blind, but our eyes are wide open and we're watching you. |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member
|
zoom6zoom wrote: Since one of the folks who had their sidearm seized was a gunsmith, therefore an FFL, it becomes a Federal charge: Now even as a FFL-03 (C&R) I'm bound by those same regs and that's an excellent point! Muahahaha.... |
|||||||||
|
tracylaud83 Regular Member 
|
How can this site be Anti-LEO, when you have LEO on here. FLEO at that... Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 10:13 am by tracylaud83 |
|||||||||
|
SicSemperTyrannis Regular Member
|
So.... what happened last night? |
|||||||||
|
Lthrnck Regular Member
|
Spurrit, Why would personally attack BB62 like that. All he stated was he didn't feel the title was approiate and was a little over the top. Several of us agreed and several folks on the PA site also tought the same. Are we all now wife beaters... ? geesh what a childish response. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Renegade wrote: Theories have four stages of acceptance: Woo hoo! Haldane! Thank you for his mention. I hope that you have read him. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
spurrit wrote: BB62 wrote:If the intent is to get hardcore RKBA people fired up, fine, but IMHO it is still over the top, and marginalizes us. There is no need to attack BB62 for doing exactly what we always ask people to do ... "Live every moment as if you were a public relations director for the 2nd Amendment". Right or wrong can always be eclipsed by bad presentation. |
|||||||||
|
Liko81 Founder's Club Member 
|
Al Swartzlander wrote: From my cold dead hands Quite frankly, the reason you can say that here is because you have never had to say it to a cop. It's a great sentiment, but do you have the stones to back it up? That's rhetorical, by the way; the last thing I want from this is a reply to the effect of "bring it on, baconators". |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
The use of Nazi references is merely pointing out that they were using EXACTLY the tactics used by the ACTUAL Nazi's. This isn't Seinfeld, where people gripe about the "Soup Nazi", or an everyday event, where pushy, self important people refer to the people in charge adhere to set rules. If I sounded rough, I meant it that way. This country is being ruined by apologists who insist on ignoring the victim and hugging the aggressor. LEt the blame fall where it will. Right is right, and some people need to look closer. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
I understand some people are thinking "Nazi" is over the top. The word has tremendous emotion associated with it. But, the metaphor is an apt one. I am far from anti-cop, family and many friends have worn the badge. And the vast majority of police officers are decent, honorable and often very brave individuals. That makes the incompetent, ego-maniacal, or corrupt stand out as what they are: thugs. And thug is a good synonym for Nazi. Further to that, they cannot be allowed to operate with impunity. There are plenty of lawyers who agree and will go after them for 1983 violations. State tort laws often have first dibs, so you need to have a lawyer who knows both state and federal civil rights violation law. Then, you make them pay. Damages real and punitive can add up to 100s K, and juries can easily put themselves in your shoes, so begin edged to your side. A good lawyer can get them to feel the outrage they should. If you don't like Nazis, call them what they are: thugs. But either word is apt, imo. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Gunslinger wrote: ...Further to that, they cannot be allowed to operate with impunity. There are plenty of lawyers who agree and will go after them for 1983 violations. State tort laws often have first dibs, so you need to have a lawyer who knows both state and federal civil rights violation law. Then, you make them pay... You mention lawyers - I posted over on the PA forum and got no answer, yet... Because of my experience (stopped at gunpoint by 3 officers while walking down the street OCing), and the answers I received from various attorneys, I think it is unlikely that anyone other than PA Patriot (if he is able to) could get "compensation" for what happened, because there is no pattern of illegal behavior (at least not yet) on the police's part. Does anyone want to agree, or enlighten me otherwise? Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 04:03 pm by BB62 |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
Pattern? WTF? If I sock you in the mouth, do you need to show a pattern of me doing it before that? Our judicial system SUCKS! |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
BB62 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:That is irrelevant in a tort action. It can be a factor in a 1983 Fed action, but not absolutely necessary. Also, the definition of 'pattern' is nebulous. Condoning by the chief of police a single act of violation of one's constitution rights can be enough....Further to that, they cannot be allowed to operate with impunity. There are plenty of lawyers who agree and will go after them for 1983 violations. State tort laws often have first dibs, so you need to have a lawyer who knows both state and federal civil rights violation law. Then, you make them pay... A pattern of ignorance, refusal to properly train, ignoring a duty to have full knowledge, etc can also be established. The cops have the duty to know the rights of individuals to be respected. This is an example of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And the constitution is the highest law--that also applies to state constitutional rights safeguards. That applies fully to moron cops. As I said, the Feds have shown they want tort actions: false arrest, illegal search and seizure, assault and battery, to be looked at first, but violation of three amendments to the constitution is a weighty case in Federal Court. And, you can take action in both courts, one after the other. It is more defensable for the cops who threw down on you than the cops in this situation, btw. They can claim reasonable apprehension. The cops here can claim nothing--particularly after the so called complaint was cancelled while they were enroute. There are probably few $$ to get in real damages, but exemplary damages in rights violation cases can be huge. Mental anguish is the most common, but damage to a reputation, public humiliation, etc can get lots of $$ in punitive damages. And the satisfaction of putting a pos thug wearing a badge down in the mud where she belongs__priceless. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Because of my experience (stopped at gunpoint by 3 officers while walking down the street OCing), and the answers I received from various attorneys, I think it is unlikely that anyone other than PA Patriot (if he is able to) could get "compensation" for what happened, because there is no pattern of illegal behavior (at least not yet) on the police's part. BB62, it says you're in Cincinnati, Ohio. Were your open carrying experiences in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or in the State of Ohio? Pennsylvania has two (2) State Supreme Court rulings that clearly state that open carry is legal and, in and of itself, does not warrant police intervention. In Pennsylvania one can file a personal criminal complaint against the officer for abuse of office if stopped for merely open carrying. The complaint itself may not accomplish anything in the end, but it will draw attention. |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
spurrit wrote: Pattern? WTF? If I sock you in the mouth, do you need to show a pattern of me doing it before that? Our judicial system SUCKS! I think you missed the point he was trying to make. Rich (who can prove actual harm and therefore has standing) DOES have a case if he chooses to pursue it. HOWEVER, a member of the general public does not have standing unless there is a pervasive pattern of abuse. Our judicial system is complex but can certainly be used to achieve the desired result with proper counsel. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Gunslinger wrote: That is irrelevant in a tort action. It can be a factor in a 1983 Fed action, but not absolutely necessary. Also, the definition of 'pattern' is nebulous. Condoning by the chief of police a single act of violation of one's constitution rights can be enough. Thanks for your answer! |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
IF I get a gun in the face, and don't in ANY way fit the description, that IS WRONG.  Pattern, my butt. |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
spurrit wrote: IF I get a gun in the face, and don't in ANY way fit the description, that IS WRONG. Absolutely it would be wrong. And you (as the party mistreated) would have standing to file suit. No pattern needed. It would be up to the jury to determine if the officer had reasonable apprehension in the given circumstance. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Statkowski wrote: Because of my experience (stopped at gunpoint by 3 officers while walking down the street OCing), and the answers I received from various attorneys, I think it is unlikely that anyone other than PA Patriot (if he is able to) could get "compensation" for what happened, because there is no pattern of illegal behavior (at least not yet) on the police's part. You get extra points for spelling Cincinnati correctly! LOL This was in the city limits of Cincinnati, Ohio, about 3-4 months after the Ohio Supreme Court released their ruling in the Klein v Leis case. The OSC's support of open carry was lukewarm, and only in the minority opinion. The stop had a lot of troubling elements, but the one that I think of most today was the officer's threat that (essentially) "I could cite you for Inducing Panic or Disorderly Conduct, if I had a complainant". That's one issue that troubles a lot of potential OCers in Ohio - and though the black letter law is clear, courts don't follow black letter law.  I would LOVE to challenge that reality (possible arrest/conviction for DC or IP), but support for doing so here seems to be lukewarm. Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 04:38 pm by BB62 |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
jpierce wrote: spurrit wrote:IF I get a gun in the face, and don't in ANY way fit the description, that IS WRONG. Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs]) is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still" (NOTE: famously, "quieta non movere" is a maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie"). The SCOUS has repeatedly upheld case law "forgiving" the cops committing aggravated assault (pointing a deadly weapon) when any reasonable possibility of their fearing for their lives or suffering grievous bodily injury plays. Therefor, while he would have standing, he would likely not prevail. Not knowing all the facts in the case, the case would be decided upon this simple, established precedent. That is a trying of fact. The law is well established. This would be one where I would demand a jury trial. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
The stop had a lot of troubling elements, but the one that I think of most today was the officer's threat that (essentially) "I could cite you for Inducing Panic or Disorderly Conduct, if I had a complainant". That's one issue that troubles a lot of potential OCers in Ohio - and though the black letter law is clear, courts don't follow black letter law. What you say may well hold true for the Buckeye State (used to listen to WKRP a lot), but Commonwealth v. Hawkins and Ortiz v. Commonwealth pretty well put those puppies to bed here. Again, don't know if you have the ability to file a Private Criminal Complaint in the Queen City, but we do here, and we all should be familiar with the Abuse of Authority statute. There are over 570,000 Pennsylvanians licensed to carry concealed firearms. That's one out of every 23 Pennsylvanians. A few states may have a better ratio, but we sure have the top license count! |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
Statkowski wrote: Found a page with info listed on CCW licenses for each state:The stop had a lot of troubling elements, but the one that I think of most today was the officer's threat that (essentially) "I could cite you for Inducing Panic or Disorderly Conduct, if I had a complainant". That's one issue that troubles a lot of potential OCers in Ohio - and though the black letter law is clear, courts don't follow black letter law. http://www.legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm Of states that make such data available, PA does indeed have the numbers. I like the fact that MO doesn't publish personal info, but I wish they would publish numbers of permits issued by county and overall. I suspect that I may live in the most heavily armed area of the state. |
|||||||||
|
Rogue9er Activist Member
|
This is by far the best video clip/account of what happened. http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19687220&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6 |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Statkowski wrote: What you say may well hold true for the Buckeye State (used to listen to WKRP a lot)... FYI - WKRP was a TV show, the Cincinnati radio station was and is WKRC (AM). I think the naming of the TV show was just a coincidence, but maybe not. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
I knew that, but how many others didn't? No matter how grim the situation, there's still room for levity. |
|||||||||
|
dobe Regular Member
|
While watching the news that night they reported the Manager called the police. The Manager told them "There were men openly carrying weapons and it was making the other customers uncomfortable" But you know how the news is. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
dobe wrote: While watching the news that night they reported the Manager called the police. We asked the borough council to post to their internet the full audio of all calls to the police - these are public records. |
|||||||||
|
Tekman Regular Member 
|
Did Mr. Banks get his pistol back yet? |
|||||||||
|
MustangDave Regular Member
|
dobe wrote: While watching the news that night they reported the Manager called the police. I'm just wondering, was it really the manager that called? On the PA site I thought I read that the manager on duty was a female, and had no problems until the police showed up. |
|||||||||
|
DrMark Lone Star Veteran 
|
Wow. Disturbing situation. |
|||||||||
|
dobe Regular Member
|
MustangDave wrote: dobe wrote:While watching the news that night they reported the Manager called the police. That's why I posted this. In the Facts at the beginng of this thread it say's a customer called the police. On the News they said it was the Manager who called, they played the actual call and it was a man's voice. The truth should come out soon enough. |
|||||||||
|
thorsmitersaw Regular Member 
|
Rogue9er wrote: This is by far the best video clip/account of what happened. When will people liek that fat bulldog looking assclown stop worshipping hte government, stop placing police above other mortal men, and quit campaigning to make behavior or posessions they do not LIKE, ILLEGAL!!!!! Last edited on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 07:56 pm by thorsmitersaw |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
thorsmitersaw wrote: Rogue9er wrote:This is by far the best video clip/account of what happened. As soon as half the country stops supporting a political party that uses this as their ideology... |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher 
|
Had a lengthy interview with Charles Schillinger of the Times-Tribune yesterday. We'll see what happens. |
|||||||||
|
MustangDave Regular Member
|
Can't wait to read the article. |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher
|
Story made GunReports http://www.gunreports.com/news/handguns/Pennsylvania_Pro-Open-Carry_Spokesman_Detained_Police_468-1.html?ET=gunreports:e180:145550a:&st=email |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Story made GunReportsSome of the comments are disturbing and a good explanation of why we have so many infringements on our constitutional rights. |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
deepdiver wrote: Pa. Patriot wrote:Story made GunReportsSome of the comments are disturbing and a good explanation of why we have so many infringements on our constitutional rights. I concur. The especially disturbing ones are the "militant pacifists", as I call them. They're so against guns and violence, they probably want to bomb an NRA convention. |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher
|
spurrit wrote:
I have learned a good lesson throughout all this... Namely that I am a bad person for standing up for my Fourth Ammendment rights int he eyes of many "gun owners" It's amazing how many "allies" think that "I got what I deserved" because I didn't provide ID when not obligated to. Amazing also to see that they ignore that the others that DID comply with the ID "request" (after seeing what happens to those who resist) also got illegally detained, illegally searched and one had his gun illegally confiscated. I've been wondering where the anti's have been during all this... now I realize they have decided to sit back and let the "gun people" do their work for them. No wonder we never get anywhere in regards to gun rights. Gun people will fight it tooth and nail. |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
There's a fatass cop in Junction City, Ks. that was trying to overstep and hassle me once. I thought he was gonna have a stroke when I refused to answer his questions, or provide him info on the company that I worked for. His fellow officers were rolling their eyes, just waiting for him to shut up and quit being an embarrassment. He wanted to know where I worked so he could call them and tell them lies, since he couldn't come up with a big enough lie to jail me. He kept repeating, "As a LEO, I have the RIGHT to ask you these questions." To which I replied, "Yes, and I have the right to not say anything. Read your Miranda card." That guy was a complete horse's ass. |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: spurrit wrote: Being from Chicago, I have very low expectations of the police. One that I won't compromise is for them to obey the law. If they can't do that, they're worse than useless, going from placebo to poison. Stupid people say stupid things. The proper response (which you have implemented) is to point out the stupidity of what they say and let them discredit themselves. I wish you all the luck in the world, bearing in mind that people make their own luck by judicious thought and action. My only advice to you is not to settle, and if you do, to refuse ANY terms that impose ANY limits on what you can say about the case. They've already violated your 4th Amendment rights. Don't let them violate your 1st Amendment rights too. |
|||||||||
|
swillden Regular Member 
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: No wonder we never get anywhere in regards to gun rights. Gun people will fight it tooth and nail. It's interesting that somehow in this country we've ended up with a situation where the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are also submissive to authority, and extremely "patriotic" -- where "patriotic" is defined as "agreeing with whatever your government says". I have a rather different definition myself. |
|||||||||
|
dontknow321 Regular Member
|
If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see.So concealed that would be ok because you don't want your children to know and see that law abiding citizens carry guns legally? Or you don't want such activity to instigate a discussion with your children about the United States Constitution and the rights it protects such as the right to keep and bear arms? I would think it would spark a great opportunity for a discussion about civics, self-determination and self-defense and that one of the reasons this is a great nation is that our constitution secures certain unalienable rights for the people and then to lead into a discussion of the ways that our modern government infringes upon those rights and how vigilant citizens can and do act to keep that government in check to ensure and sometimes regain freedoms. Instead of wanting to hide such legal behavior by law abiding citizens from your children, why not point it out in the context of, "Look, there is a citizen exercising his second amendment rights. In almost any other country citizens do not have such rights. Can you think of other ways that citizens and even you as a young citizen exercise your rights?" PA has the highest number of concealed carry (CC) licensees in the nation so you are more likely to be next to someone CCing a firearm there than anywhere else so to not want them carried openly is really to just say that you do not want to admit that you constantly come in contact with law abiding citizens who legally carry firearms for self-defense. What if people only exercised their first amendment rights in secret? What if they only and always carried their books, magazines and newspapers hidden from view lest someone is offended or upset by what they choose to read? Would that make the citizens of this nation and your children more or less free? |
|||||||||
|
SpringerXDacp Regular Member 
|
Well, at least most of his/her screen name applies.  |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. Why not? Specifically? Are guns "obscene"? If so we better get the police to cover theirs too!  Obviously that is not the case. So, just because you do not want to see, or your kids to see "guns". So what? Who cares? Seriously... carrying a firearm is a right in Pa. You're desire to not see them is irrelevant. What about people that do not want to see BLACK people? Would that be a good reason for police to arrest blacks at OCB? I await your reply. Last edited on Sat Dec 13th, 2008 09:46 pm by Pa. Patriot |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. SO by this admission, you would not want LEOs to patronize the old country buffet while you and your family was dining--lest your children should see their guns? OR are LEOs the only people who are trustworthy enough and "well trained" enough to carry a firearm in public? Want to see what a "well trained LEO" is capable of? watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY this is a "well trained" LEO at work.... "think about the children" has been taken way to far--want to think about the children--take responsibility for teaching them gun safety and how to leave a gun alone and to not touch them unless you are closely supervising them, and quit buying them toy guns so they can plan "bang you're dead"--because that teaches them that guns are really toys after all....teach them how to be responsible around guns-.then try and tell everyone else how and where they should and should not carry because they should "think of the children"--fine--think of them and teach them that guns are not toys, but in the hands of RESPONSIBLE adults they (guns) are useful tools for self-defense in an ever increasingly evil world and can also provide hours of good, and yes, fun range time with CLOSE supervision--and even quality family time. children learn quickly--if you do nothing but encourage them that guns are toys by buying toy guns for them, if you stand by and do nothing while they watch a cartoon where Bugs bunny shoots Elmer Fudd and then not explain to them that real guns are different and people will die if they are shot, if you do nothing but stand idle while the media educates your children for you--then don't complain when your children pick up your gun from your nightstand, or from your closet, or from under your bed and mimics what they see on televison....children follow examples--if you don't or are unwilling to set a good one--I'm sure the television media will be more than happy to set a bad one... someone lawfully carrying a gun and minding their own business in public should not scare you--the bad guys carrying one and shooting everyone and anyone in sight should scare you very much.... it is the parents responsibility to teach real gun safety, it is the parents responsibility to teach children that guns are NOT toys "think about the children" Last edited on Sat Dec 13th, 2008 09:57 pm by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
jahwarrior72 Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. really? you have exactly one post, and your first is this obvious? really? you actually thought no one would see through it? take your imaginary family and eat at Sheetz or something. go crawl back under your bridge, trollie trollstein. |
|||||||||
|
adamsesq Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. Wow, I suggest this says more about you than some unfounded concern for your "family." I am nothing but proud when my 4 year old blurts out "look Daddy, he has a gun just like you do..." It would be cool if she would equate it to "look Daddy he cares about protecting his family just as much as you do..." but she hasn't quite got there yet. But she is definitely not afraid of seeing a person exercising their Constitutional Rights. -adamsesq |
|||||||||
|
TFred Regular Member
|
Did anything ever happen here? This thread was dug up from way back... any updates? TFred |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote:If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. lol, children might see guns! Then, they might be curious! Then, I would have the responsibility as an adult to talk to them truthfully about firearms. It's much better to shelter our children so that they are ignorant of the world around them! Please, what a sorry excuse for a parent. If you were doing your job, you would have no reason to "not want" your kids to see responsible adults properly and safely carrying a gun. Now, begone. Less internet, more child-rearing. That's right, I instructed you to go raise your kid. |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
I wouldn't want to go eat at OCB with these guys either. I'd be too busy stuffing my face to chat, and it'd be a wasted experience |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
This has just gotten really retarded. |
|||||||||
|
rscottie Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: If i were eating in the old country buffet with my chidren and family, i would not want people with guns coming in with their guns out in the open for my children to see. A gun mama, a gun!That's ok dear, in this country in most states, we are still free and able to carry a firearm for personal protection. Those people are not bad guys honey and are nothing to worry about. Now, who want's dessert? That's how I or my wife would have handled our little ones if they mentioned that someone was carrying a gun. There would have been no hysterics and this would have opened up even further discussions as their maturity level increased. My specific question to you would be, why do you believe that children shouldn't see law-abiding people with guns? Do you teach them to be afraid of all things that are potentially dangerous or just guns? I'm just curious as to where your logic is coming from? |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
I liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. |
|||||||||
|
jahwarrior72 Regular Member
|
Aran wrote: I liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. bingo. but don't tell that to the gentryfolk of Dickson City. i alluded to that, and they freaked out in denial. nevermind that i've been called "spic" and "nigger" there more than most places in Lackawanna County. Last edited on Sun Dec 14th, 2008 11:57 pm by jahwarrior72 |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
jahwarrior72 wrote: Aran wrote:I liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. How about you edit that for clarity. It makes no sense, as-is. |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
spurrit wrote: jahwarrior72 wrote:Aran wrote:I liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. I think "mind" should have been "been". Help any? (He's of ... crap, correct me if I'm wrong jah, but I'm pretty sure Hispanic descent) |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
jahwarrior72 wrote: Aran wrote:I liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. How about you edit that for clarity. It makes no sense, as-is. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
It makes perfect sense. "mind" was a typo for "been". |
|||||||||
|
jahwarrior72 Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: It makes perfect sense. "mind" was a typo for "been". bingo. i kin haz brain cells? but yes, the reaction of the people in Dickson City was similar to the way they react when there are too many brown people in one place, or when a gay couple orders a meal in the Olive Garden. they deny it, of course, but the amount of times i've been pulled over, or approached by security while shopping, tells another story. so, i feel no sympathy for them, since the money for the settlement our guys will receive will come from their pockets. i hope they win millions. |
|||||||||
|
dontknow321 Regular Member
|
Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. |
|||||||||
|
dontknow321 Regular Member
|
And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
Do you believe you're absolutely, 100% safe just because you're in a restaurant? And that a car is 100% secure, and nobody will be able to break into it and steal a gun out of it? |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
I wonder, did this man feel safe? Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 01:18 am by Aran |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
dontknow321 wrote:Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. I think Suzanna Hupp is best qualified to explain why we wish to be armed in restaurants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp#Death_of_parents Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 01:30 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
dontknow321 wrote:I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them? A serious question: what is the purpose of rights if we don't take advantage of them? Why would anybody ever have declared them if they have no function? At any rate, you assume that being armed in a restaurant is childish. I argue it is responsible. Perhaps I would not want you around my kids, being that you think so childishly and all.  Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 01:21 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: SNIP It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. This is going to sound like a criticism, but its more of pointing out something so important that it can't and shouldn't really be danced around. One cannot honestly say in one breath that something, anything, is a right, and truly believe it, and then in the next breath criticize it. I am not now talking about gun rights. Rights are rights are rights are rights. They are not subject to justification. This is why they are called rights. Not privileges, not negotiating points, not debate positions. If one wants justifications for any given right, one should seek it before he decides its good or bad. One can look to the writings of the philosophers and legal treatises. As to scaring people, it has long been the custom that brandishing/carrying/holding a weapon, any weapon, in a way that is calculated to induce fear is the legal threshold. Its the legal threshold for a reason--because doing it on purpose to scare someone was and is still out-of-bounds. Just carrying one without threatening intent or demeanor, words, etc. was and is not. A sheathed sword was not, waving one was. A holstered gun is no more brandishing or intending to cause fear than a sheathed sword or dagger. Realize that you are, by confusing the two, accusing forum members of a serious misdemeanor offense punishable by jail and fine Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 01:28 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
TFred Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? Let's not wear seatbelts when we have the kids in the car. We wouldn't want them to see that we think riding in cars might be dangerous. Ridiculous, yes. For some strange reason, the criminals don't ask you if you are prepared to defend yourself. That answer has to always be yes. That you ask this question clearly illustrates that you have never considered how vulnerable you and your family are as you move between a store or restaurant and your car parked in the parking lot. But don't worry, I'm sure if you say "hold on just a sec while I dig my gun out of the glovebox..." they'll be most understanding and fully cooperative. You have decided to surrender your safety to good odds. That is your right, and your burden to bear should your choice ever be wrong. Those who have decided to supplement good odds with self defense tools deserve every bit as much respect as you demand for your right to not do so. TFred Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 01:58 am by TFred |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Suzanna Hupp explained the answer to your question while in Wisconsin (4 small videos): http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/videos.html |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
You might ask the Texas senator who followed the law, left her gun in the car, then watched both of her parents and others from her hometown being slain in a Luby's family restaurant. Please feel free to go to hell. MY family will be safe. |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. Here ya go a nice family place to eat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTainp2cY_w Watch the video then tell us why we should leave it in the car. Looks like we all posted at the same time. Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 02:47 am by Vegassteve |
|||||||||
|
rscottie Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. What on earth do people have to feel uncomfortable about? A gun? Why do you require me to be aware of their IRRATIONAL FEAR? Do you cower in fear when you walk down the sidewalk? I mean, those cars are awefully fast and surely big enough to squish you if one of the drivers is having a bad day and decides to drive over you. You're argument doesn't make logical sense. You only allude to one reason for anyone to not carry in a restaurant, well, two. One is, gasp, the children will see, and the second is that it makes sheeple, er people, uncomfortable. Well, their comfort does not trump my RIGHT. If you need to understand the reasons people wish or have a need to openly carry, I suggest you read more on this forum. As for why you need to carry in a restaurant, there have been numerous instances where there were robberies, shootings and sometimes even worse in restaurants or the parking lots. In those instances, one cannot go to their car and get their firearm. Just ask Suzanna Hupp, a survivor of the Luby's massacre in Texas that had a firearm in her car but could not come out from behind a table to go get it as the gunman shot both her mom and dad. There are many other instances if you choose to open your eyes and do some research. |
|||||||||
|
rscottie Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? Sitting in a restaurant EATING is being childish merely because one has a firearm? I mean, these firearms stay in the holster, they are not being played with, so what is CHILDISH? |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
TFred wrote: SNIP Let's not wear seatbelts when we have the kids in the car. We wouldn't want them to see that we think riding in cars might be dangerous. I'm gonna borrow this one, TFred. |
|||||||||
|
adamsesq Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. Ahh, because bad guys go in there too. Have you ever heard the young lady from Texas tell her story about "leaving it in the car?" (I think she was mentioned earlier in this thread?) Her parents died because she "left it in the car..." -adamsesq Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 03:11 am by adamsesq |
|||||||||
|
spurrit Regular Member
|
rscottie wrote: dontknow321 wrote:And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? Well, except for when I draw my sidearm to use the bayonet to cut my meat! (JOKING, of course!) |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher
|
dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? Uh... This is simple enough even my KIDS understand... I carry a firearm EVERYWHERE. Hello? Why would I leave a firearm in my car when I go to a restaurant? That makes NO sense. I mean, it's really that simple. Why wouldn't I? I love anti's arguments. They seek to sound like common sense in the process throwing common sense out the window. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
I'll give one reason as to why carry it into a restaurant (or any other place for that matter). I'm responsible for my firearm. I put it in the holster in the morning and take it out sometimes after I get home. I use good quality holsters that completely cover the trigger, my guns are in good condition, and my carry sidearms have internal safeties that create a condition such that it is nearly impossible (nothing is completely impossible I guess) for one of them to discharge accidentally while in my holster on my hip. By the very action of handling my firearm in a parking lot before going into a restaurant or store there is an inherent risk, however small, of a moments distraction or some other matter that could cause a discharge that otherwise could not happen if the sidearm remains holstered on my hip. Guns don't "just go off" when they are sitting on a shelf, or in a case or in a holster and no one is messing with them. So, disarming in the parking lot creates more likelihood, again however minuscule, of say a child accidentally being shot and wounded than does my carrying it in a well designed, secure holster. The obvious follow-up to that is that chance that my sidearm will be acquired by a bad guy and used against say someone's child, is much less if it remains in it's retention holster on my hip than if it is sitting in my unguarded vehicle in a parking of say a restaurant. |
|||||||||
|
jahwarrior72 Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. show me the amendment that says we, the people, have the inalienable right to fell comfortable. go ahead, i'll wait. oh, you're still looking? stop, you won't find it. if you don't like open carry, go join http://www.defensivecarry.com; plenty of folks there don't like it, either. |
|||||||||
|
dontknow321 Regular Member
|
haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry. I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind. But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ? You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this, they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there. You're right also with there is no amendment showing that people have to feel comfortable. |
|||||||||
|
TFred Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry. I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind. But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ? You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this, they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there. You're right also with there is no amendment showing that people have to feel comfortable. Sometimes it really helps to substitute Second Amendment "incidents" with First Amendment "incidents" to see what the issue is really about. What if someone were praying for their meal, aloud, and that offended an athiest or other religious person, and the police were called in and responded in a similar fashion to this case? Wouldn't you and most Americans be outraged? It's the exact same thing, and that is why sometimes lawsuits are required. A gun is a tool, just as words can be. Our ability to use them both in a lawful manner is well worth protecting. TFred Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 06:52 pm by TFred |
|||||||||
|
CaptainFinn Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: TFred wrote:SNIP Let's not wear seatbelts when we have the kids in the car. We wouldn't want them to see that we think riding in cars might be dangerous. When I was a range officer--at a county operated government range--I came to work one day wearing my ballistic vest under my red "Range Officer' shirt. The RO's at the sheriff's side of the range wore their ballistic vests religiously. When I showed up at the civilian side of the rifle range wearing the vest, my boss (the rangemaster) had no problem with it. We'd never had an accidental discharge related injury, but he said if I wanted to endure the heat and discomfort of the vest that was my call. After about a week, the facility manager--a paper pusher, not an instructor or range officer--told my boss that I couldn't wear the vest. A lawyer from risk management had seen me and told the facility manager that if the staff wore ballistic vests it would give the customers the impression that WE thought the range was unsafe. If a customer was ever hurt then they could hold this 'fact' up and use it as leverage in a lawsuit. So I was told to leave the vest at home. A month or so later a customer wasi njured at a private shoot on the rental range, which was staffed by the renting party's (a rifle club) own range officers. After that the union that covered county employees stepped it and we were allowed to wear private-purchase ballistic armor if we so wished, after we pointed out that the police and sheriff's dept were allowed to wear vests if they so wished. |
|||||||||
|
ghostrider Regular Member 
|
This material is just too good. dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. ...Are you suggesting that people openly carrying guns are childish, just because they are doing so? That in and of itself sounds like a childish statement however, what is it about a person who is responsibly carrying a firearm, "childish"? dontknow321 wrote: ...I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them.Okay, I'm just going to let that one "sink in". Then I'll file it right next to that British woman who said, "I believe you should give up freedom for liberty". dontknow321 wrote: Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns.That's a good reason for demonstrating (to the general public) that the people have little or no reason to fear law abiding citizens who bear arms. dontknow321 wrote: I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ?Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves (with a firearm) from harm while away from home, car, or woods? dontknow321 wrote: haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry.I wouldn't take too much credit for that if I were you, as it doesn't sound like you made anyone "angry". Most of the people around here are well experienced with the mentality that you've thus far demonstrated. It's to "old hat" to make them angry. Quite the contrayr, it just gives them a lesser opinion of you, because they know that your arguments are more emotional that logical...among other things. dontknow321 wrote: I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind.Do you even bother to read some of what you write? dontknow321 wrote: But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ?It isn't "all of a sudden". dontknow321 wrote: ...You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this...Because the cops broke the law, and violated the people's rights. They need to be held accountable to the point that they will want to not ever ever do so again. Loss of finances tend to have such an effect. dontknow321 wrote: ...they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there....Nonsense. They OC'ers were no threat that needed protecting from. The cops were not trying to protect anyone, they were trying to intimidate people from exercising their rights (sounds familiar). Furthermore, it isn't the job of the police to protect individual citizens. |
|||||||||
|
jahwarrior72 Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry. I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind. But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ? You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this, they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there. You're right also with there is no amendment showing that people have to feel comfortable. actually, you were trying to irritate people here, otherwise you wouldn't have posted in the first place. so either you're lying, or a moron. what was going through our minds? i don't know. i know i was thinking about the london broil i was about to eat, until i was ordered to get up, and all the jackbooted wimpgotry ensued. people are allowed to have get togethers. kite flyers, train enthusiasts, strippers, and gardeners. we were no different. i'm sure no matter what answer you'll get, you'll ask another dumb question. Last edited on Mon Dec 15th, 2008 07:54 pm by jahwarrior72 |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
dontknow321 wrote:haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry. I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind. But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ? You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this, they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there. You're right also with there is no amendment showing that people have to feel comfortable. We're trying to reestablish personal responsibility in society. By example. Is that clear enough? I can elaborate further if you actually care to hear. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know.The thing is--the Constitution does not provide our citizens the right to be uncomfortable. It provides us with certain rights that are inalienable, and that includes the 2A. As for restaurants--you are no safer sitting in a restaurant than you are when you walk down the street--crime does not take a holiday because you sit down in a restaurant. Crime happens everywhere and to everyone, and as I said--it does not take a break just because you sit in a restaurant. When I go into a restaurant I notice the entrances and exists and I sit with my back to the wall where they are visible--I want no surprises. You take your firearm into a restaurant because again--crime does not take a break just because you consider the place a "family" establishment--crimes happen there too, including armed robbery, hostage taking, murder--how many restaurant attacks have occured in the last few years where employees were killed by criminals? Do you think the criminals care whether you are sitting in a family restaurant with your wife and children--do you really? I'm being an *** hole, but you need to stop and think about how things look from the criminal perspective--no easier target than one that bans firearms and other tools of defense. Teach your children to respect guns--not fear them. Guns in the hands of the citizen are a GOOD thing, and everyone should be so encouraged to buy one, or two. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ?How "childish" people could be with guns? You mean like the two officers who did it "old west style" by having what Hollywood would term an old fashioned show down in the streets of a Georgia town? What do you classify as being "childish"? Can you give some concrete examples of how you define "being childish with guns"? You love your Constitutional Rights--do you exercise them, or are they something you have that is just for show? Our founding fathers risked everything to obtain them for you, and now they are being rescinded on an alarming basis. How do you take advantage of a Constitutional Right? We take advantage of them every day--the right to free speech for example, the right to not give testimony against ourselves, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms. Having the rights means nothing if we can't make use of them in a responsible fashion--refusing a search by a police officer absent PC is but one way of exercising a right that we have--being able to carry a gun is another, refusing to answer questions is yet another.... The fact that you would even suggest the changing of the Constitution in order to make prohibitions, or restrictions on possession or use of guns is--quite frankly as scary as the ideas of those at the Brady center--if you want to see what restrictions on firearm possession can do to a nation--look at Germany in 1935--here is a quote from Adolf Hitler---"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has achieved full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler, 1935 and 4 years later Hitler sent the German army into Poland and then Blitzkrieged the entire western European continent and took all of Western Europe in the process except for the UK in the process and butchered millions...And THIS is what the anti-gun movement would offer to us? All I can say is thank you--no, I'm happier the way it is. I for one would like to see MORE people own guns--I feel absolutely safe in a room full of citizens who are carrying guns--citizens with guns does not frighten me, the idea that only criminals would be left with handguns and guns in general if it were up to the anti-gun coalitions and their supports, and the Brady Center and others who are against possession of handguns, or the issuance of weapons permits to carry concealed--does indeed scare me very much. Restrictions on firearm possession will not solve crime, neither will it stop violence against our fellow man--because if they could take every single gun from every single person--we would just use clubs, and throw stones at each---and this goes to the heart of your desire to not see firearms in restaurants or other public places such as malls, shopping centers, movie theatres, and so on....criminals will NEVER obey the laws regardless of how many are made--the only thing restricting our right to own and possess firearms will do is make us a nation of victims..... Why not have a personal firearm--a handgun in a restaurant? You want to be secure from violent assault in your home and in your car--does that desire end when you exit those places? Does your right to be free from violent assault upon your person not extend also into public places? And yes--I'm all for college carry....crime happens there too--just look at Virginia Tech. There is no place in society where crime cannot reach you, criminals would just as soon walk into a "family" restaurant and kill, maim, rape and pillage, just as soon as they would anywhere else and restricting guns or their possession or carry will NOT solve that, regardless of how much you might like to think it would--on the contrary--gun ownership and gun possession can help to REDUCE crime--because I assure you, if a criminal with the intent on breaking into a home thought for a second that I could be armed with a gun--he would almost certainly choose to go pick on someone easier to target--hence an unarmed individual, or a "family" restaurant.... For me--common sense "gun control measures" would be to EXPAND handgun and long gun ownership in this country and require all citizens not convicted of a violent crime to receive appropriate training in the use of and carry of firearms and require semi-annual or annual refresher courses to help bolster marksmanship....crime would then take a holiday-or there would be very few criminals left in society who were not either locked up, fled the country to Canada, or changed their sinful ways and gone straight.... sorry for the long post---didn't mean to make it a book. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: haha, i was reallly just wondering. I wasn't trying to make anybody angry. I do understand where you all are coming from. I was just wondering what was going through your guys mind. But why did you all do this at the same time all of a sudden ? You all know exactly what you are talking about, but why would start suing cops for this, they are only trying to protect the other citizens that were eating there. You're right also with there is no amendment showing that people have to feel comfortable.You sue the cops because they violate our Constitutional Rights--often times they think that we have to stand by and be insulted and talked down to, and treated like we are beneath them....now not all of them are like this, but the sad fact is--enough of them are, such that it makes it impossible to trust LE anymore.... They violate our rights when they stop us and search us without PC, they violate our rights when they deprive us of our property without due process, they violate our rights when they try to force us to discontinue audio recording for our protection... When they violate our rights--we have the responsibility to sue them and bring them back into line and show them that --NO...we really don't have to stand by silently while they violate our Constitutional protections, and no, we really don't have to discontinue audio recording just because it may make them feel uncomfortable--if it helps keep them in line, and prevent a violation of our rights then that is a GOOD thing. Lawsuits are the only thing LEOs and the city/county/state/ generally understand when it comes to us protecting our freedoms from infringement....They certainly aren't going to do it for us. ONE violation of our rights under the color of law, or the guise of national security is one too many..... I prefer the tempestous winds of freedom to the still calm of security and despotism, because once they take our freedom--they can also take our security from us just as easily.. And the police were not trying to "protect" anyone.....that is just a spin that they gave--they knew what they were doing while they were doing it, and I for one hope that those whose rights were trampled on take that city to the cleaners--because that is the ONLY thing the city or the police understand. CYOA, because no one else is going to. Last edited on Tue Dec 16th, 2008 08:11 pm by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
suntzu wrote: SNIP They violate our rights when they stop us and search us without PC, they violate our rights when they deprive us of our property without due process, they violate our rights when they try to force us to discontinue audio recording for our protection... This is the essential element, I suspect. When a poster says, "[The police were just trying to protect other diners and their families]", it tells you right away that the poster doesn't know 4A rights. They really aren't all that commonly known from what I can tell. Which leaves the possibility that the poster is weighing 2A rights against their perception of whether the officer was trying to do something beneficial. Rather than weighing the officer's actions in balance with the 4A. Maybe we ought to direct our attention to this as a possible circumstance in the future. It might tend to cut out a lot of chatter. Extending the earlier theory a bit, maybe the poster thinks we're fussing about our 2A rights being violated, perhaps because that is the way the press presents these things, when really we're fussing about our 4A rights being violated. Last edited on Tue Dec 16th, 2008 10:56 pm by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: And yeah, its not that i want to shelter my children from guns, i dont want them showing people how childish they could be with guns. They know what would be right and wrong and manners towards other people. I love having my constitutional rights but why take advantage of them. Just because its in the constitution, does not mean the can not change the constitution, or the laws towards guns. I agree with hunting and having guns in personal vehicles and homes but in a restaurant ? Google "Brian Lanese". |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
dontknow321 wrote: Is it all about the consititution or are you guys just taking advantage of the fact that you can do this. It may be constitutionally right, but when it comes to bringing them into a restaurant, why take it that far. You couldnt just leave them in your car. Or do you feel its right to make people uncomfortable with your presence ? To me it seems very childish, something a defiant high school teenager would do. I just do not understand why you would be so rude to bring innocent bystanders into your "right." I just want to know why you took it over the edge like that all of a sudden ? What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know.Ask Suzanna Hupp........ http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/vid/RTC/GunControlWitness.wmv |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
dontknow321 wrote: What could you possibly need to bring your guns into a family restaurant for?Thats all i want to know. Most on this site understand that you are responsible for your own security. In a family restaurant I have my family to defend. The why open carry threads and true tales of self defense threads are very helpful for newcomers. |
|||||||||
|
tito887 Regular Member 
|
Another thing to consider. If we didn't have the option to pursue action against government in a court of law then what would be one of our only avenues left to defend our rights? If courts,legislation, and public demonstrations don't bring government in line then the only avenue left is violence Which I want to avoid but understand is a possibility if government cannot be reigned in a peaceful manner.Last edited on Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 05:02 pm by tito887 |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member 
|
Ok I am late to this thread but i did notice the wife was video taping is that available to watch or is it tied up in litigation. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
The video has not yet been released publicly. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
I hope that means its being used to make those who infringed on their constitutional rights pay for their crimes. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
'dontknow321 must not get out much. Rights... are not 'granted' by anyone. Your freedom of speech is no less a Right than the Right (and means) of self-defense. The free exercise of such Rights (anywhere) are not subject to what 'you' think. Nor what ignorant LEO's 'think. The very people sworn to uphold the 'law' did not (in this instance). Understand also the 4th Amendment... 'Search and siezure'. Also understand the meaning of 'probable cause'. These 'police' involved have no business being 'police'. I can say that with some authority... having been one myself. I regularly frequent restaurants while openly bearing arms. I've never had a problem. This is Arizona. 'Not as common as it once was... but still recognized under the US Constitution and the Arizona Constitution as a pre-existing 'Right'. This is not a privledge granted by the State... It is a RIGHT! Understand what actual Rights are... first. In suspect a strong sense of 'hoplophobia' in your writing. You understand stuff such as 'hunting' and 'home defense'... but have no clue as to what the extent of 'The Right to keep and bears arms' entails. 'Neither do the media talkin' heads and a goodly percentage of politicians. I carry everyday... everywhere, not otherwise prohibited. Some of us take the right to self defense... and our own security seriously. Those who do not... well... they risk becoming 'statistics'. Reality sux... but there it is. Last edited on Sun Dec 28th, 2008 12:28 am by Sonora Rebel |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
and according to some reports over 4 million crimes are stopped by people excercising their rights yet you never here this statistic on t.v. or by our politicians |
|||||||||
|
captlou Regular Member
|
it has been a while since i have heard anything about this...anyone have any updates so far about this? lou |
|||||||||
|
lildobe Regular Member 
|
captlou wrote: it has been a while since i have heard anything about this...anyone have any updates so far about this? Last word was that Depositions were under way. Trial date is sometime in December... so we've got about a year to wait for any resolution. Last edited on Mon Jan 12th, 2009 08:35 am by lildobe |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Thats the justice system....let the hammer fall figure it out later... |
|||||||||
|
Tekman Regular Member
|
So whats up with Mr. Banks? Has he had his sidearm returned yet? I'm not a PA resident but I've been following this topic for some time because the injustice of it makes my blood boil. |
|||||||||
|
DonSmithnotTMD Regular Member
|
jahwarrior72 wrote: Aran wrote:So I should shave before I go there. i look a little Mexican/Middle eastern, depending on my facial hair status. Might inhibit OCingI liken it to right wingers who teach their children to be afraid of/negative toward homosexuals and minorities. |
|||||||||