| Author | Post |
|---|
rjent1
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
|
SP101
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 01:17 am |
|
I always thought that we, as humans, were equal. I guess politicians are "SPECIAL".
I would like to see the LAW that says you can't carry near a politician. I don't dispute that there is , but I would like to see it.
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:58 am by SP101
|
Renegade
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Yorktown, VA |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:22 am |
|
Wow...this will be very interesting - please post everything you can and keep us informed.
Maybe we should contact the lawyer that handled the Jim Webb carry incident that happened in Washington DC inside the Senate! He and his guy got off with no problems.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:52 am |
|
Looks like he should have been an atheist.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
|
Steve in PA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | Wilkes-Barre |
| Posts: | 118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:57 am |
|
I'd like to know what law was broken????
|
MomTeacherFarmerHunter
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
| I don't know any details as of yet, but it looks like our good lord was with my dad (Mtn Jack) He is being released and a close friend will be picking him up shortly. Please keep him and our country in your prayers! Lets not let Obama take our rights away. Thank you for all of your support. I'm sure Dad will update you before too long on how things went play by play...
|
OC-Glock19
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:34 am |
|
MomTeacherFarmerHunter wrote: I don't know any details as of yet, but it looks like our good lord was with my dad (Mtn Jack) He is being released and a close friend will be picking him up shortly. Please keep him and our country in your prayers! Lets not let Obama take our rights away. Thank you for all of your support. I'm sure Dad will update you before too long on how things went play by play...
Thanks for letting us know that your Dad's been released. I'm looking forward to hearing the details of what happened.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
I'd like to know why he brought a bible? Such childish behavior doesn't make christians look very good, and it makes us gun owners look like idiots, if you don't mind me saying.
With that said, I hope this turns out well. The Secret Service should be a little more intelligent than to arrest someone who is clearly engaging in legal, nonviolent protest.
Edit: and yes, it's childish. We all know exactly what comments he was responding to. And showing up as the stereotypical bible-thumping gun-owner (even if that's exactly what he is) isn't exactly a mature response.Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:54 am by marshaul
|
XD Owner
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | Israel |
| Posts: | 363 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
See if there are any sympathetic local media. Arrested and released in one day? Sounds like MTN Jack should also look into filing suit for false arrest, violation of Consitutional rights, etc.
Good on him for peacefully (I will assume) exercising his First and Second Amendment rights.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:23 am |
|
XD Owner wrote:
See if there are any sympathetic local media. Arrested and released in one day? Sounds like MTN Jack should also look into filing suit for false arrest, violation of Consitutional rights, etc.
Good on him for peacefully (I will assume) exercising his First and Second Amendment rights.
I agree. Hopefully he can find a lawsuit in all this. The Secret Service do not have some magical power to disregard civil rights, nor to create laws.
|
RedKnightt
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:30 am |
|
I'm glad to hear he's already been released and is on his way home. While it may be tempting to have him share the whole story here or on the PAFOA forums, he probably shouldn't until he talks to a lawyer. The OC movement in PA rivals the one here in VA, and I know he'll have local support there as well as national support from the folks here.
I hope it all works out.
This appears to be the story:
edited to add link:
http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/doc48b8adb204d42890214530.txt
--RedKnightt--
Zombie Squad has it right: “We hold fast to the belief that if you are prepared for a scenario where the walking corpses of your family and neighbors are trying to eat you alive, you will be prepared for almost anything.”Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:46 am by RedKnightt
|
bdevil73
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:46 am |
|
From the local paper:
http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/doc48b8adb204d42890214530.txt
Man arrested for having gun at rally
By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:10 PM EDT
BEAVER — An Industry man is facing a disorderly conduct charge for attending the Barack Obama rally in Irvine Park with a loaded gun that was holstered on his hip, according to state police and the Beaver County sheriff’s department.
John Noble, 50, was questioned by police for several hours Friday night after the incident, in which witnesses said he also was passing out fliers with writing about gun rights.
John Atkinson of Vanport Township said he saw Noble passing out the fliers and noticed the small-caliber handgun strapped to the man’s waist. He said he quickly notified nearby deputy sheriffs, and deputies Joseph O’Sche and Rich Yonlisky approached the man as he walked along Market Street.
Atkinson said that when the deputies asked why he had a gun, Noble replied, “Because I’m an American,” and one of the deputies responded, “Well, you’re under arrest.”
Noble was hustled to a nearby vehicle, and state police took him to the Brighton Township barracks to question him.
Beaver County Sheriff George David said that Noble insisted he had a right to have the gun because he has a permit to carry it. It wasn’t clear late Friday whether Noble had a valid permit.
David said Noble “wanted to show his rights.” He said Noble never removed the gun from the holster or threatened anyone.
Noble’s arrest took place around 7 p.m., nearly 90 minutes before Sen. Obama and the rest of his campaign team arrived in Beaver.
Bill Vidonic can be reached online at bvidonic@timesonline.com.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:44 am |
|
I'd love to hear what he was arrested for.
My hunch is this was an ilegal arrest by the SS (perfect irony in that abbreviation)
Get ready to support Jack.
Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:48 am by Pa. Patriot
|
Tomahawk
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:52 am |
|
It says right in the article it was for "disorderly conduct".
John Atkinson, the little brownshirt who called the cops, clearly eats his own feces.
The best part of the article is this:
Atkinson said that when the deputies asked why he had a gun, Noble replied, “Because I’m an American,” and one of the deputies responded, “Well, you’re under arrest.”
Apparently, being an American with a gun is grounds for arrest.
|
RedKnightt
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:53 am |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: I'd love to hear what he was arrested for.
My hunch is this was an ilegal arrest by the SS (perfect irony in that abbreviation)
Get ready to support Jack.
According to the article, is was Beaver County deputies and then State Police, not Secret Service. Secret Service may have come in after the arrest, since it involved a firearm near a presidential candidate, but this hasn't been confirmed yet. I've set my Google-fu to track this 
Okay, it's on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26464328/
--RedKnightt--
Zombie Squad has it right: “We hold fast to the belief that if you are prepared for a scenario where the walking corpses of your family and neighbors are trying to eat you alive, you will be prepared for almost anything.”
Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:06 am by RedKnightt
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:18 am |
|
I am on the phone with Jack now...
Mtn. Jack has been released.
More later...
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:12 am |
|
"I am an American"
"You are under arrest"
I have rarely seen something so short and poignant in print.
|
longwatch
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:13 am |
|
Glad to hear he's out. Hope he gets a good lawyer.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:59 am |
|
UPDATE:
I spoke at length with Jack on the phone and we will be posting some info tomorrow (Sat).
For now we know and will release this:
He was illegally arrested
His property illegally seized
He was NOT cited at the scene but was told he will be cited with at least two criminal charges.
We will update later.
Remember folks. Jack was walking through HIS town, on PUBLIC streets, legally open carrying as he does routinely any other day.
The Pennsylvania constitution does not get suspended when Obama comes to town. Pennsylvania law is not afforded some magic exemption for the false messiah. If Obama has a problem with people carrying guns he should stay out of Pa.
The PSP, Beaver PD and Secret Service committed illegal acts tonight against a fellow American citizen.
|
Skuggi
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | McKees Rocks PA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:25 am |
|
Guess I need to start saving vacation days and fuel perks, sounds like this is gonna end up in DC.
|
SP101
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 01:09 pm |
|
Glad to hear John is out of the pokey. I am also prepared to support him in any way I can, to resolve this false arrest.
The saddest thing about this "made-up" charge is that Osama wasn't even there yet, for another 90 minutes, so the carrying near a politician bull@#$%, is complete bull@#$%.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:28 pm |
|
My understanding (I cannot quote the law) is that the Secret Service is empowered to establish a zone of protection under federal law. This is then a weapons free zone for as long as the Secret Service maintains it as such. They can also control who may enter such a zone and empower local authorities, i.e. local law enforcement, to enforce/protect such a zone.
Within that area they appear to have almost Martial Law type authority on a temporary basis.
Can any of you varify my understanding, or authoritatively dispute it?
Ken
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:49 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: My understanding (I cannot quote the law) is that the Secret Service is empowered to establish a zone of protection under federal law. This is then a weapons free zone for as long as the Secret Service maintains it as such. They can also control who may enter such a zone and empower local authorities, i.e. local law enforcement, to enforce/protect such a zone.
Within that area they appear to have almost Martial Law type authority on a temporary basis.
Can any of you varify my understanding, or authoritatively dispute it?
Ken Regardless of the validity of the above assertion, is there ANY evidence that Jack was within, or attempted to enter such a "zone"?
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
If there isn't a lawsuit over this, you are part of the problem.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
codename_47 wrote: If there isn't a lawsuit over this, you are part of the problem.
Who is going to sue who for what? It would seem that under U.S. Title 18, 3065 the Secret Service, or any local LEO's that they designate, can detain anyone they deem is a potential threat to a "protectee."
This is a normal part of thier operations in preparation for a visit to any location by a "protectee."
Ken
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
Kneel civilian!
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$$
|
ShipAhoy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
If MTN Jack does get cited for an offense, they will most likely try something from this code.
USC Title 18, Section 1752
Sec. 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and
others
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons -
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of
the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, or
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area
of a building or grounds where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized -
(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and
(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term "other person protected by
the Secret Service" means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secret Service can designate any area a protection zone and it doesn't need to be roped off to be included in the area. They can then direct all PD's participating that protection zone is gun free. So these deputies may have been acting under direction of the Secret Service. And take it from someone who has legally OC'd in front of a President while in the military, the Secret Service does call all the shots on protection details.
This code supersedes any other state or federal law.
|
rjent1
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:00 pm |
|
I'm glad to see my message finally got you. Jack mentioned your handle some time ago to me and I just could not recall.
I would ask you to consider the 4th Amendment as you ponder the legality of this situation, the first line of the amendment states. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated....."
thanks again
a friend of MtnJack
and now a friend of Open Carry
Rjent1
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
If the area is not posted and controlled what teeth would the statute have?
Reading the text of the statute this applies whether one is armed or not. So how many others around MTN Jack were arrested for being "in the zone"?
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:11 pm |
|
Hello,
I was at the rally in Irvine park in Beaver PA. The Zip code for beaver is 15009. I checked google maps and the location where they are stating mtn jack as detained(arrested) was NOT in the area where secret service was doing searches. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. I can make phone calls, talk to people and I have let my family know what he did was not illegal
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=15009&ie=UTF8&ll=40.69433,-80.307114&spn=0.00268,0.002929&z=18
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:25 pm |
|
ShipAhoy wrote: If MTN Jack does get cited for an offense, they will most likely try something from this code.
USC Title 18, Section 1752
Sec. 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and
others
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons -
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of
the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, or
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area
of a building or grounds where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized -
(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and
(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term "other person protected by
the Secret Service" means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secret Service can designate any area a protection zone and it doesn't need to be roped off to be included in the area. They can then direct all PD's participating that protection zone is gun free. So these deputies may have been acting under direction of the Secret Service. And take it from someone who has legally OC'd in front of a President while in the military, the Secret Service does call all the shots on protection details.
This code supersedes any other state or federal law.
If MTN Jack has a LTCF then his carry of a firearm is "permitted by law" is this section applicable?
It appears to me this statute would only be operative if the state has no law to the contrary. In the absence of a specific law I would believe that a clear constitutional right being abridged would also render the statute unenforceable.
The likelihood of obtaining a conviction under this statute for anyone not otherwise engaged in some other criminal activity is a practical impossibility. All the actors involved are fully aware that by the time anyone can contest the arrest under this statute the venue of the zone will have moved -on , charges will be dropped. The arrested party certainly has a civil rights claim, and should be pursued if possible.
If you look at the way it is enforced it is more of a tool to keep undesirable political operatives under control. There may have been numerous persons within the "zone" carrying concealed. To Obama those carring concealed pose a much greater threat.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
Might this be the SS version of a weapons enhanced Disorderly Conduct (as in Wisconsin) and extra legal?
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:20 pm |
|
Who is going to sue who for what? It would seem that under U.S. Title 18, 3065 the Secret Service, or any local LEO's that they designate, can detain anyone they deem is a potential threat to a "protectee."
Gee, I don't know how about 1983 civil rights violation... 4th amendment violation...He wasn't detained, he was arrested.
It had nothing to do with being in a SS restricted area, but for disorderly conduct, or at least that was the charge. Obama wasn't even THERE yet.
The SS did not detain/arrest him, the Sherrif did, and by the Sherrif's own words he was not disorderly or menacing or whatever:
David said Noble “wanted to show his rights.” He said Noble never removed the gun from the holster or threatened anyone.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:28 pm |
|
lockman wrote:
If MTN Jack has a LTCF then his carry of a firearm is "permitted by law" is this section applicable?
It appears to me this statute would only be operative if the state has no law to the contrary. In the absence of a specific law I would believe that a clear constitutional right being abridged would also render the statute unenforceable.
The likelihood of obtaining a conviction under this statute for anyone not otherwise engaged in some other criminal activity is a practical impossibility. All the actors involved are fully aware that by the time anyone can contest the arrest under this statute the venue of the zone will have moved -on , charges will be dropped. The arrested party certainly has a civil rights claim, and should be pursued if possible.
If you look at the way it is enforced it is more of a tool to keep undesirable political operatives under control. There may have been numerous persons within the "zone" carrying concealed. To Obama those carring concealed pose a much greater threat.
ShipAhoy. Thanks for citing that very relevent section.
You people have to be kidding. This is Federal law. It supercedes local/state law. They can certainly detain anyone they like and can charge and gget a conviction if they choose to. They can remand you for psychiatric evaluation and hold you for days with no charges and there is little or nothing anyone can do to et you out.
You can try to sue them all you want. You will get NADA.
Please stop being so silly.
Ken
|
lildobe
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: You can try to sue them all you want. You will get NADA.
Please stop being so silly.
... So let's just all lay down our arms and submit to having our inalienable rights violated over and over again.
If you don't FIGHT it, you are ACCEPTING it. If you accept it, you are saying that what they did is "OK" and further erosion of our rights will occur.
Fight for what is right and don't back down!
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: You people have to be kidding. This is Federal law. It supercedes[sic] local/state law.
Good boy, good civilian.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:57 pm |
|
lildobe wrote: CowboyKen wrote: You can try to sue them all you want. You will get NADA.
Please stop being so silly.
... So let's just all lay down our arms and submit to having our inalienable rights violated over and over again.
If you don't FIGHT it, you are ACCEPTING it. If you accept it, you are saying that what they did is "OK" and further erosion of our rights will occur.
Fight for what is right and don't back down!
The next Political Rally in PA happens today, 30 August, at 3PM in Consul Energy Park in Washington, PA where John McCain is scheduled to speak. I am not advocating that anybody enter the park (This is minor league ball park), but will anybody carry in the vicinity of the ballpark, advocating for our god given and civil rights?
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some. But don't complain if you succeed and are arrested or detained by law enforcement. And if you believe that you can do these kind of things and then sue and get money for your effort I hope you can find a really good, cheap lawyer to represent you.
Do you think the ACLU is going to ride in to the rescue?
Ken
|
RedKnightt
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:06 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: You people have to be kidding. This is Federal law. It supercedes local/state law.
I'm really confused by your statement. You claim that this law supersedes state/local laws, yet the statute itself says:
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
I've seen this quoted on both this thread and the PAFOA one. It seems to say specifically that it does not supersede state laws, which in PA includes preemption on firearms laws.
--RedKnightt--
Zombie Squad has it right: “We hold fast to the belief that if you are prepared for a scenario where the walking corpses of your family and neighbors are trying to eat you alive, you will be prepared for almost anything.”
|
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eagle, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 486 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
Also, just a small point here. Federal law never trumps state law...at least in theory. The federal government has certain areas of law that it exercises exclusive control over, and the state has the same. Equal and concurrent powers.
Terrible shame....I hope his charges get dropped soon.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote:
Do you think the ACLU is going to ride in to the rescue?
Of course we would never rely on the ACLU any more than we would rely upon the NRA Cowboy Ken, but we do rely on each other. In VA we have the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). It relies upon the NATO Doctrine - an attack on one is an attack upon all. It is quite effective at curtailing govt. abuse of legally armed citizens. Last year more than 100 of us showed up openly carrying at the Norfolk City Council Meeting to protest the arrest of a member for violation of a preempted local ordinance and the thuggish behavior of the Norfolk Police Dept at a local festival. It works. Stand up and forbid a corrupt govt. agent from violating your rights. Or let your rights be eroded by the corrosive effect of unchecked government power. Stand up for MTN Jack.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:20 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: CowboyKen wrote:
Do you think the ACLU is going to ride in to the rescue?
Of course we would never rely on the ACLU any more than we would rely upon the NRA Cowboy Ken, but we do rely on each other. In VA we have the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). It relies upon the NATO Doctrine - an attack on one is an attack upon all. It is quite effective at curtailing govt. abuse of legally armed citizens. Last year more than 100 of us showed up openly carrying at the Norfolk City Council Meeting to protest the arrest of a member for violation of a preempted local ordinance and the thuggish behavior of the Norfolk Police Dept at a local festival. It works. Stand up and forbid a corrupt govt. agent from violating your rights. Or let your rights be eroded by the corrosive effect of unchecked government power. Stand up for MTN Jack.
When McCain and Obama come to Virginia are all 100 of you going to show up for the rally open carrying? Please let us know and also tell us where we can contribute to your legal defense fund.
Ken
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:27 pm |
|
What does it say of an elected official that is afraid to face his armed electorate constituency?
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: What does it say of an elected official that is afraid to face his armed electorate constituency?
It says he is just a hair smarter then I would normally give him credit for.
But, more realistically, the Secret Service has the job of seeing to it that that doesn't happen in this case.
Ken
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:09 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote:It says he is just a hair smarter then[sic] I would normally give him credit for.
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
If you don't FIGHT it, you are ACCEPTING it. If you accept it, you are saying that what they did is "OK" and further erosion of our rights will occur.
That's how I feel about it. You are part of the problem or part of the solution. Ken, you are part of the problem. Everyone says don't fight it out in the streets, handle it in the courts. But then someone suggests that, you have Ken claiming the fight is over before it even has started.
If you can get a lawyer, fine. If not, sue Pro-se. There's a separate thread on this started by someone...
The question is not "was he in a SS declared secure zone or not with a weapon"
The question is "is a man walking down the street wearing a handgun in a non-threatening manner "disturbing the peace"?
This is a question for a judge/jury, period. Anyone that advocates otherwise is suggesting that the 4th amendment doesn't matter.
By Ken's logic, they can arrest anyone driving a car and impound the car because they "may" be a car bomber.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
codename_47 wrote:
By Ken's logic, they can arrest anyone driving a car and impound the car because they "may" be a car bomber.
Do you really think that they can't? They will. They changed the traffic pattern around the White House for just this reason. They closed off street around the venues for the conventions.
"That's how I feel about it. You are part of the problem or part of the solution. Ken, you are part of the problem. Everyone says don't fight it out in the streets, handle it in the courts. But then someone suggests that, you have Ken claiming the fight is over before it even has started. "
Please feel free to go ahead and "fight it out in the streets," as I said above, "If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some. But don't complain if you succeed and are arrested or detained by law enforcement."
But I will not come to court to plead your case and the ACLU won't either. And I won't do the time if you are convicted of a criminal act. Good luck to you.
It seems to me that if you want to make this kind of a political statement and not get arrested, you carry a sign with a picture of a gun and a bible. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested, you carry a gun and a bible.
Ken
Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:58 pm by CowboyKen
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:02 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some.
Can you please explain how engaging in completely lawful behavior qualifies as "civil disobedience"?
This is NOT a case of "civil disobedience"!
|
Nelson_Muntz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:11 pm |
|
| Sounds like the local and federal leo's are guilty of a hate crime. Hang 'em.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:30 pm |
|
gnbrotz wrote: CowboyKen wrote: If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some.
Can you please explain how engaging in completely lawful behavior qualifies as "civil disobedience"?
This is NOT a case of "civil disobedience"!
I thought I just did, "It seems to me that if you want to make this kind of a political statement and not get arrested, you carry a sign with a picture of a gun and a bible. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested, you carry a gun and a bible."
He was detained in the vicinity of where the Obama rally was going to be held. That makes it the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, who incorporate local Law Enforcement into their authority, and they establish a protected area in advance.
If you are within stricking distance of that "area" and they deem you a potential threat they can, and will, have you detained. If the Feds or the locals want to press charges you need to get a lawyer.
I am stumped. Is this really that difficult or do you all just not like it?
Ken
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: gnbrotz wrote: CowboyKen wrote: If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some.
Can you please explain how engaging in completely lawful behavior qualifies as "civil disobedience"?
This is NOT a case of "civil disobedience"!
I thought I just did, "It seems to me that if you want to make this kind of a political statement and not get arrested, you carry a sign with a picture of a gun and a bible. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested, you carry a gun and a bible."
He was detained in the vicinity of where the Obama rally was going to be held. That makes it the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, who incorporate local Law Enforcement into their authority, and they establish a protected area in advance.
If you are within stricking distance of that "area" and they deem you a potential threat they can, and will, have you detained. If the Feds or the locals want to press charges you need to get a lawyer.
I am stumped. Is this really that difficult or do you all just not like it?
Ken
You're take on the situation is interesting, but seems to have no legal standing. Note that the Secret Service will not be filing any charges, and state themselves that he "never entered the event area".
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08243/908351-100.stmIndustry man contests arrest outside Obama rally
Saturday, August 30, 2008
By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A Beaver County man who routinely wears a pistol on his hip says he was illegally arrested by local law officers before a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
"I am a threat to no one. Mr. Obama doesn't trump my constitutional rights. The president of the United States doesn't trump my constitutional rights," said John Noble, who was handcuffed, questioned for about two hours and then told by state police that he would receive two citations for disorderly conduct.
Mr. Noble, 50, of Industry, said he wore a holstered Glock 19 when he entered the park across the street from the Beaver County Courthouse more than an hour before Mr. Obama arrived for a campaign appearance Friday night.
"I had a Bible in one hand and an apple in the other. I was going to pass out my fliers [on the rights of law-abiding Americans to carry guns], but I never got the chance."
State police in Beaver County referred questions about Mr. Noble's arrest to Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre, of New Castle, who was part of the law enforcement detail in the park. The trooper, who was to begin his shift later today, could not be reached immediately for comment.
Jim Gehr, agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service field office in Pittsburgh, said the federal agency did not file any charges against Mr. Noble.
"Our people did talk to him. He never entered the event area," Agent Gehr said.
Mr. Noble said four or five law officers, plus a police dog, descended on him after somebody reported that he was wearing a pistol on his hip. He said they held him for 40 minutes in a Secret Service vehicle, then took him to the Beaver barracks of the state police for questioning. After being cuffed and shackled, he said, police eventually read him his rights. They also confiscated his pistol.
"Didn't even give me a receipt for it. There were lots of violations of my constitutional rights," Mr. Noble said,
After his arrest, his wife, Janet, handed out his fliers on citizens' rights to carry guns.
Mr. Noble said he had not decided whether to support Mr. Obama or Republican John McCain in the presidential election. He said he hoped Mr. Obama would call him to affirm the right of a law-abiding man to carry a pistol while a presidential contender visited.
Mr. Noble, a former body guard, said he used to carry his pistol in his clothing. But, he said, he has openly worn his handgun in a secure holster for the last four or five years. Nobody ever bothered him before, he said. He said he sometimes is asked why he carries a gun, and he explains that it is his constitutional right. In a practical sense, he said, he arms himself for protection.
He said he has a lawyer and may bring a lawsuit over his treatment by police.
First published on August 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
CowboyKen:
Your first post here you stated claims of fact that are not supported.
So far you have posted nothing factual or relevant to the thread. Please refrain from arguing conditions that do not apply your replies here have done nothing to the benefit of the actual situation.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:44 pm |
|
Jack was NOT in the "secured" area, regardless what the reporter claims.
There simply is no applicable criminal statute that would apply to Jack passing out flyers on public property, while openly armed, outside a "rally". Obama or no Obama.
It is very important that we try and make sure that this story is reported accurately.
As I said prior, Mtn Jack was simply doing what he does regularly, in his town, within the law. The police, the PSP and the SS acted illegally and are the ones that shall face legal consequences. Stay tuned, we are working round the clock (literally) on a plan of action for this right now.
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
The police, the PSP and the SS acted illegally and are the ones that shall face legal consequences.
At this point, we don't even know the involvement of the SS or if they directed the Sherriff or any local cops to do anything.
This has nothing to do with civil disturbances, protests, or anything of the like.
Jack was NOT in the "secured" area,
Correct, according to the Secret Service.
According to the Sherriff, the person in question was not threatening anyone.
Yet they bring him up on disorderly conduct charges, which is BS for "we have to make up some reason to get this guy out of here because we don't like him"
At this time, there is no indication that the cops were acting at the request or direction of the SS. Ken is just presuming that they were.
This is simply a case of a man walking down the street with a gun, doing nothing wrong, and getting arrested.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
codename_47 wrote: ...At this point, we don't even know the involvement of the SS or if they directed the Sherriff or any local cops to do anything.
Actually... "we" do  . But I assume you mean the in regards to the thread/public in general, to which you are correct.
codename_47 wrote: At this time, there is no indication that the cops were acting at the request or direction of the SS. Ken is just presuming that they were.
Exactly, thanks for the back up.
codename_47 wrote: This has nothing to do with civil disturbances, protests, or anything of the like...
...This is simply a case of a man walking down the street with a gun, doing nothing wrong, and getting arrested.
DING!
|
cccook
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:32 pm |
|
After his arrest, his wife, Janet, handed out his fliers on citizens' rights to carry guns.
I gotta love this woman. You too MTN Jack. You're a couple of great Americans.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
When McCain and Obama come to Virginia are all 100 of you going to show up for the rally open carrying? Please let us know and also tell us where we can contribute to your legal defense fund.
In this photo of me with McCain, taken in February of this year during the Liberty Forum at the Crowne Plaza, Nashua, where McCain and his entourage were staying the weekend before the New Hampshire primary, I was carrying a loaded, chambered Glock 30 in my Bianchi Black Widow belt holster:
Many other attendees of the Liberty Forum were carrying openly or concealed in compliance with New Hampshire law.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:54 pm |
|
codename_47 wrote: This is simply a case of a man walking down the street with a gun, doing nothing wrong, and getting arrested.
Code - you mean YET ANOTHER case...
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: CowboyKen:
Your first post here you stated claims of fact that are not supported.
So far you have posted nothing factual or relevant to the thread. Please refrain from arguing conditions that do not apply your replies here have done nothing to the benefit of the actual situation.
Excuse me. Are you the owner or moderater of this site? If you are, send me a PM about this. Otherwise who are you to tell me that my opinion should not be presented here.
Ken
p.s.; IMO, and apparently the opinion of the authorities on the ground, he was close enough to the event that they felt compeled to determine whether or not he wa a threat. If he sent time in a Secret Service car as reported above then they were there and had something to do with this if they want to admit it or not. "He said they held him for 40 minutes in a Secret Service vehicle," enough said.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
Ken, I highly advise you to think before getting onto a negative track with Pa. Patriot. Whether or not he's currently in a position of power here on OCDO, I'd heed any advice given by him. He may not be speaking for those in 'control', but I'd bet my favorite rifle that he's on the same wavelength.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
And besides, raging at Pa. Patriot over little things is sort of my schtick, and I don't take kindly to interlopers.
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
p.s.; IMO, and apparently the opinion of the authorities on the ground, he was close enough to the event that they felt compeled to determine whether or not he wa a threat.
But he wasn't a threat. The Sherriff already said that. Obama wasn't there yet and he wasn't waving his gun around or pointing it at anyone. It was decided that he was disturbing the peace, not threatening an elected official or anyone else.
Once again, the charge was disturbing the peace, not threatening anyone.
Strip out the context of Obama being in the area, because it doesn't really matter. It is completely unrelated to the charge of disturbing the peace.
This precedent has already happened many, many times of policing officials arresting people under the guise of "disturbing the peace" or "obscenity" because they are voicing an unpopular opinion in the area of a policy maker. Just ask Cindy Sheehan. (like her or hate her, she was arrested for wearing a protest shirt in DC)
Some are wearing a T-shirt that the officials may not agree with or perhaps handing out literature or whatever.
If he sent time in a Secret Service car as reported above then they were there and had something to do with this if they want to admit it or not. "He said they held him for 40 minutes in a Secret Service vehicle," enough said.
That could have been the closest vehicle. That doesn't mean that the SS directed anyone to do anything.
If MTN Jack stripped naked and started running around (actually disturbing the peace), he probably would have been arrested and could have been put in a SS vehicle, but that doesn't mean that the SS directed that action to happen or were concerned about it.
If a cop decided to pummel him while handcuffed in a SS vehicle, that doesn't mean that the SS ordered the excessive force any more than they ordered an illegal detention.
|
Huck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 11:53 pm |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote:
The Pennsylvania constitution does not get suspended when Obama comes to town. Pennsylvania law is not afforded some magic exemption for the false messiah. If Obama has a problem with people carrying guns he should stay out of Pa.
Only evil people need fear good, armed, people.
I'm glad Jack's been released. I dont personally know him but I'm on his side as, I'm sure, every good American is.
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:04 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote: Pa. Patriot wrote: CowboyKen:
Your first post here you stated claims of fact that are not supported.
Not in evidence - unsubstantuated - manufactured
So far you have posted nothing factual or relevant to the thread. Please refrain from arguing conditions that do not apply your replies here have done nothing to the benefit of the actual situation.
"Please refrain.......do not apply ........nothing to benefit."
Excuse me. Are you the owner or moderater of this site? If you are, send me a PM about this. Otherwise who are you to tell me that my opinion should not be presented here.
He did not tell you anything. He asked you rather politely to refrain from making ambiguous statements and let this matter play out. Unless your intention is to be disruptive, it even constitutes good advice.
Ken
p.s.; IMO, and apparently the opinion of the authorities on the ground, he was close enough to the event that they felt compeled to determine whether or not he wa a threat. If he sent time in a Secret Service car as reported above then they were there and had something to do with this if they want to admit it or not. "He said they held him for 40 minutes in a Secret Service vehicle," enough said.
Opinions are like a**holes - everybody has at least one. The opinions, thoughts, feelings of the authorities are not in question. Whether they operated legally is. Since when is "determining whether or not he wa(s) a threat" involve arrest and charges being filled?
My thoughts/comments and annotations in red above.
Yata hey
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:29 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote: It seems to me that if you want to make this kind of a political statement and not get arrested, you carry a sign with a picture of a gun and a bible. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested, you carry a gun and a bible.
Huh? How is legally carrying a gun "civil disobedience"?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:31 am |
|
| FYI, I, John Pierce, and about half of the VCDL board of directors openly carried while having a meeting with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (guarded by his KY state police entourage) at GRMP last year - no problem at all. Nothin' was said or done - Paul later spoke at a large event including some open carriers.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:39 am |
|
Grapeshot wrote: CowboyKen wrote: Pa. Patriot wrote: CowboyKen:
Your first post here you stated claims of fact that are not supported.
Not in evidence - unsubstantuated - manufactured
So far you have posted nothing factual or relevant to the thread. Please refrain from arguing conditions that do not apply your replies here have done nothing to the benefit of the actual situation.
"Please refrain.......do not apply ........nothing to benefit."
Excuse me. Are you the owner or moderater of this site? If you are, send me a PM about this. Otherwise who are you to tell me that my opinion should not be presented here.
He did not tell you anything. He asked you rather politely to refrain from making ambiguous statements and let this matter play out. Unless your intention is to be disruptive, it even constitutes good advice.
Your view, you are entitled, so am I. Sure sounded like it to me.
Ken
p.s.; IMO, and apparently the opinion of the authorities on the ground, he was close enough to the event that they felt compeled to determine whether or not he wa a threat. If he sent time in a Secret Service car as reported above then they were there and had something to do with this if they want to admit it or not. "He said they held him for 40 minutes in a Secret Service vehicle," enough said.
Opinions are like a**holes - everybody has at least one. A compelling argument! The opinions, thoughts, feelings of the authorities are not in question. Whether they operated legally is. Since when is "determining whether or not he wa(s) a threat" involve arrest and charges being filled?
It sounds like he was detained to determine if he was a threat. Don't try to tell me that local authorities or the Secret Service can't do that. If Obama was not going to be in the area it would be very different, but he was.
My thoughts/comments and annotations in red above.
Mine in Navy
|
SP101
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:52 am |
|
Someone here needs to get on their horse, and ride it on out of town.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:03 am |
|
I think this is a pretty simple matter. The secret service sets up a perimeter deemed to be sufficient to prevent harm to their protectee. Carry will not be allowed inside that perimeter; the area is clearly designated. MTN Jack was clearly not inside this perimeter so it is irrelevant.
So now the question is what's the problem. If he was close enough to be a threat then the SS did not set up a sufficient no weapons perimeter which is their fault and their problem. If he was not close enough to be a threat then there was no reason to accost him. Maybe chat with him to get a feel for his not being a nutjob, but to arrest him and seize his property seems out of all proportion not to mention like an illegal detention, arrest and seizure.
It begs the question that being he was not inside the marked event area, how far away would he need to be to not have been harrassed? How many yards beyond the area marked as restricted would be far enough? Most people can't hit squat with a handgun over 25 yards, is that far enough? There are still a lot of people with a good sidearm who can be accurate out to 50 yards. Is that far enough? A few people with the right pistol are pretty accurate out to 100 yds. Is that far enough? An errant bullet can go a mile or more, is that far enough? If this really was a security issue, how far away is far enough? And why isn't the public informed that anyone within that distance is subject to armed robbery, er, LEO weapons confiscation.
Actually, how far away from the restricted event area was he anyway? Anyone there have any idea or an informed guess?
Last edited on Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:03 am by deepdiver
|
bdevil73
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:11 am |
|
The rally was in Irvine Park. According to info posted on PAFOA.org, Jack was in McIntosh Park.
|
gnbrotz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:11 am |
|
deepdiver wrote: Actually, how far away from the restricted event area was he anyway? Anyone there have any idea or an informed guess?
As indicated, the perimeter of the"event area" was limited to Irvine Park. Jack was just west and across the street in McIntosh Park, which did not have controlled access in place. Linky to online version of this map.
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:52 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote:
You people have to be kidding. This is Federal law. It supercedes local/state law. They can certainly detain anyone they like and can charge and gget a conviction if they choose to. They can remand you for psychiatric evaluation and hold you for days with no charges and there is little or nothing anyone can do to et you out.
You can try to sue them all you want. You will get NADA.
Please stop being so silly.
Ken
Yes, but this specific Federal statute states in the text that it does not supersede any State laws.
Last edited on Sun Aug 31st, 2008 04:56 am by lockman
|
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 05:48 am |
|
|
templar223
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 06:00 am |
|
Mike wrote: FYI, I, John Pierce, and about half of the VCDL board of directors openly carried while having a meeting with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (guarded by his KY state police entourage) at GRMP last year - no problem at all. Nothin' was said or done - Paul later spoke at a large event including some open carriers.
I was the guy standing behind RP taking photos for several minutes. He was never more than an arm's length away and I was sporting more firepower than the KY plainclothes trooper he came with (who was a cool guy, BTW).
As for John McCain, I had a chance to see him at the NRA convention, even with VIP tickets, but given that I couldn't bring my lawfully OCd carry piece, he could stick it.
Now, if Sarah Palin had been there... whoa... I would have stripped down to my boxers to see that!
John
|
RayBurton72
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 185 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 06:01 am |
|
While the Secret Service CAN in fact, DETAIN someone, that is a horse of a very different color than arresting and charging them.
|
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 08:02 am |
|
Mike wrote: FYI, I, John Pierce, and about half of the VCDL board of directors openly carried while having a meeting with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (guarded by his KY state police entourage) at GRMP last year - no problem at all. Nothin' was said or done - Paul later spoke at a large event including some open carriers.
Big difference in the security procedures for the nominee and a guy that just likes to pretend he is running for president occasionally for publicity.
Ron Paul was never considered a real candidate and never had a Secret Service detail.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 08:55 am |
|
And yet I'd imagine he'll have more write-in votes from the young voters demographic than there'll be votes from the same demographic for Obama/McCain
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 10:39 am |
|
My fellow Pennsylvanians,
Sorry I am coming to this late (this is the peak of the farming season and don't get on the internet just to browse and chat, much these days) not to mention I am moving an old timber-frame barn to rebuild on my farm.
I saw this article yesterday . . .
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08243/908351-100.stm
. . . and knew I'd stop here to talk about it, and of course you folks are already on it.
My thoughts are with this guy and I agree that he was technically doing nothing wrong . . . but he maybe could've done things a little differently.
I say thanks to people like this who are willing to be arrested for their beliefs and to try and protect our freedoms for those of us who aren't willing to go the extra step sometimes.
To quote Mr. Noble . . .
"I am a threat to no one. Mr. Obama doesn't trump my constitutional rights. The president of the United States doesn't trump my constitutional rights," said John Noble, who was handcuffed, questioned for about two hours and then told by state police that he would receive two citations for disorderly conduct.
I think I have to agree that Constitutional rights should not be trampled by another person, regardless of status, because supposedly (as someone mentioned here already) we are all equals . . . but we know better don't we.
Common sense tells me that the LEOs probably did the right thing . . . but my gut tells me that this is wrong and that we are on the slippery slope when it comes to personal freedoms.
That's all for now, best wishes to Mr. Noble and keep on keeping on.
By the way . . . we still have lots of work to do . . . last night I was chatting with some family/friends/neighbors in the local bar/restaurant over a meal, and his wife showed me a newspaper article about a guy who shot his lawnmower with a gun and got arrested for it. That got us going on gun rights etc., and he is a strong supporter of gun rights . . . but he disagreed with me that open carry is permitted in Pennsylvania . . . I argued my point but due to his silence, I think he thought I was full of B.S., so I'm going to print out the PA Open Carry flyer for him and drop it in the mail on Tuesday.
Happy Labor day everyone . . . don't forget, Labor Day means you must labor twice as hard, so if anybody wants to help me move a barn, look me up. THANKS!!!
Farmer Troy in Crawford County
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 11:13 am |
|
Here is another article from the Pittsburgh Trib . . .
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_585805.html
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:31 pm |
|
no carry permit ? wrote: Ron Paul was never considered a real candidate and never had a Secret Service detail.
Representative Paul is a Member of Congress, and has been for many years. He was candidate for the Republican nomination, and came in ahead of the Anointed One, Rudy Giuliani, in a number of states. He got 24% of the vote in Idaho, won a county caucus outright in one state, and wound up winning a total of 40 pledged delegates, versus zero for Giuliani, Thompson, and Hunter.
He didn't need or want a Secret Service detail, because he's been a champion of the individual right to arms for decades - the right which the Secret Service most despises and most frequently violates on behalf of its protectees (see, for example, Mr. Nelson in Pennsylvania) - and he routinely was in the company of supporters who exercised that right on a daily basis. Any attempt to harm him would have been immediately met with overwhelming defensive force.
Politicians who NEED Secret Service details are usually the ones committing the most grievous abuses against the rights and wallets of their constituents.
McCain: 'No' to Secret Service help - He points to inconvenience, expense to nation's taxpayers
He was ultimately pushed to accept it back in April, however, his campaign staff prevailing upon his concern for those around him.
Last edited on Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:50 pm by mvpel
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
Another article noting Jack was merely "near the Obama event."
--
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_585805.html
Beaver County man defends carrying gun near Obama rally
By Brian C. Rittmeyer
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, August 31, 2008
A Beaver County man says he believes he broke no laws by carrying a gun across the street from the site of a rally of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
John Noble, 50, of Industry, said he was not attending the event Friday night in Beaver and wanted only to hand out fliers about gun rights.
Noble said he was in a park across from the Beaver County Courthouse with his wife, Janet, an hour before Obama arrived. He was eating an apple and holding a Bible when four officers and a police dog approached Noble, disarmed and arrested him.
He said he offered the officers fliers, but they weren't interested.
"It's my right to keep and bear arms. It's completely legal what I was doing," Noble said Saturday. "I was about to hand out some gun-right fliers. I never had a chance."
State police Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre said in a news release that Noble breached a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally with a fully loaded, holstered and exposed handgun.
Noble's actions created a clear public alarm and caused a significant breakdown in rally security because officers had to leave manned security posts to arrest and disarm Noble, the trooper said.
Misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges will be forthcoming against Noble, said Schexnaildre.
Noble said he openly was carrying a Glock 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in a retention holster, which prevents the gun from being removed without activating a secret release. He said he has carried the gun every day for 23 years for protection but never has drawn it or had to use it.
"I carry it all over Beaver County, and I never had anything happen," said Noble, describing himself as a self-employed contractor who installs fencing for horses and cattle.
Noble said he has a license to carry a concealed weapon. A self-described activist and "law-abiding citizen," Noble said he has distributed fliers on gun rights to police agencies, but this was the first time he tried to do so in public.
Noble said he was shackled and held for about three hours. Police kept his gun, worth about $600, he said.
He said he has an attorney but would not provide the name. Noble said he's not sure how he'll respond to the incident.
Asked if it was wise to carry a gun near the Obama event, Noble said: "His rights don't trump mine."
Brian C. Rittmeyer can be reached at brittmeyer@tribweb.com or 724-779-7108.
|
Freedom-PA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 01:09 pm |
|
New member here - first post.
I was at the Obama rally on Friday night. I was carrying my NRA yard sign "I am a Bitter Gun Owner and I vote". The sign was stapled to the top of an 8'-0" long 1"x2", with 2 McCain signs below it. There were 10-12 of us McCain supporters standing outside the entrance to the Obama rally. Other than a handful of snide remarks from the Messiah worshippers, we didnt have any problems with them or LEO's.
Both myself and two other McCain supporters decided before going to the event to leave our firearms at home. (Wussy!) I just had this feeling that if i carried a gun to the event it would cause me problems. I pictured myself being arrested, and being stuck in jail until after the holiday weekend.
I've never met MTN Jack, and did not see his arrest. On Saturday morning, i got a phone call from a friend checking to see if i was the one who got arrested!
I do have a Carry Permit, and exercize my constitutional rights daily.
If there's anything i can do to help this good citizen, please let me know!
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
Welcome to new member Freedom-PA. Do you live in Freedom, PA?
I am a wussy sometimes too . . . I open carry as much as possible, but there are some times when you get the feeling that you need to pull that shirt over your piece to keep the hassle level low . . . I wish I was brave (bravery can sometimes be called stupidity) enough to go the extra mile, but I don't need any arrests or jail time either, I'm just too busy to lose any more time that I already don't have.
When I do open carry, I always try to have a copy of the PA Gun rights flyer on me, just in case, because I can't recite state law verbatum, like some other members on this list, I'm just a farmer . . . not a lawyer (but I hafta' play one sometimes in my daily business dealings).
Again, Welcome . . . and Happy Labor Day (that means unless you are in a union (I am not) you have to labor twice as hard today)!!!!
Gotta get back outside to work, Farmer Troy
|
Freedom-PA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 01:51 pm |
|
Yes, i live in Freedom, PA
Jeff Harris
Former Republican candidate for PA state house - 2006, and PA Senate - 2008
Lost both primary elections by slim margins.
Endorsed by FOAC, "A" rating from NRA
|
Mtn Jack
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
| As you all know this is a busy weekend for me and my friends on this site. I would like to take a little time and thank every one for there opinions and massive support i have received. I would also like to thank the new members for signing up and joining in. I will release more on this matter as my legal team allows. God bless ,be safe ,and have a nice holiday. Mtn Jack
|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 12:10 am |
|
Freedom-PA wrote: New member here - first post.
I was at the Obama rally on Friday night. I was carrying my NRA yard sign "I am a Bitter Gun Owner and I vote". The sign was stapled to the top of an 8'-0" long 1"x2", with 2 McCain signs below it. There were 10-12 of us McCain supporters standing outside the entrance to the Obama rally. Other than a handful of snide remarks from the Messiah worshippers, we didnt have any problems with them or LEO's.
*snip*
And who was holding the, "But I want de facto gun registration at 'gun shows' [whatever those are]" sign? And did you make sure that the funding for your political activism checked out with the McCain-Feingold limitations on free speech?
Back on topic, though, I support Mtn Jack, and wish him the best of luck in suing the pants off of those responsible for this gross violation of rights.
|
troy96
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:15 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote:
Please feel free to go ahead and "fight it out in the streets," as I said above, "If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some. But don't complain if you succeed and are arrested or detained by law enforcement."
But I will not come to court to plead your case and the ACLU won't either. And I won't do the time if you are convicted of a criminal act. Good luck to you.
Ken
I think its a safe bet that noone would even ask you to "come to court to plead" with your idiotic lay down and take it "logic".
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:38 am |
|
codename_47 wrote:
Once again, the charge was disturbing the peace, not threatening anyone.
There is no Disturbing the peace law in PA
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
| This incident is a perfect example of what Obama has in store for us all nation wide, God Forbid this ----- makes it to the presidency, he's never fixed anything in Illinois, I'd love to hear that Beaver Pa. initiated a city ordinance that Visiting Polititians must hold any and all political rallys outside the town limits in a pole barn. Treat em like the second class citizens they are.. Or better yet, create a law that states when Polititians do visit their town that all permit holding residents must O.C. so the political figure feels much safer during his/her stay.
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Not to get too political . . . but, as a Ron Paul supporter, I wasn't sure who to vote for in November, but ever since McCain announced his VP running mate as Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, that swayed my vote . . .
http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_SarahPalin.jpg
. . . who wouldn't want this gun toting woman as VP and maybe even Prez some day???!!! I'm gonna vote for her . . . I mean, umm vote for McCain
Troy
P.S. My only question is whether she is related to that one guy on Monty Python, Michale Palin . . . nothing wrong with that either, cause I find Monty Python quite enjoyable.
Attached Image (viewed 279 times):
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 04:17 pm |
|
| very nice
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 04:59 pm |
|
troy96 wrote: CowboyKen wrote:
Please feel free to go ahead and "fight it out in the streets," as I said above, "If you choose to engage in civil disobedience I will support your right to do so to the limits of reason and then some. But don't complain if you succeed and are arrested or detained by law enforcement."
But I will not come to court to plead your case and the ACLU won't either. And I won't do the time if you are convicted of a criminal act. Good luck to you.
Ken
I think its a safe bet that noone would even ask you to "come to court to plead" with your idiotic lay down and take it "logic".
Dispite your opinion that I advocate a "idiotic lay down" you might be well off having my support. I do and will support all kinds of causes and politically I am slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. All I have done here is point out that the powers of the Secret Service while in their role of protecting a person will often, on a temporary basis, make your head spin.
Local Law Enforcement sometimes takes advantage of this situation to do things that they would otherwise want to do but hesitate to take the chance. In my opinion, in this case, they will get away with it. Mr. Noble has lost his firearm and may not get it back. He may bring suit, but it will be difficult to do that without involving the State Police and the Secret Service and they will, most likely, not back down as it would establish a bad precident. Very expensive. Please let me know where to send my donation.
Ken
p.s.; Farmer Troy, GREAT picture, thanks for posting it.
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:17 pm by CowboyKen
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/open-carry
Looks pretty cut and dried to me, maybe Mtn Jack flirted with the inevitable, SORRY TO SAY, but it don't look to me like he has a winning argument.
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
| This does not make it illegal Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:21 pm by joe15003
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
Has it emerged that MTN Jack is not licensed to carry a firearm? If he is, then the "city of the first class" nonsense doesn't apply.
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:24 pm by mvpel
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
joe15003 wrote: This does not make it illegal
No it doesn't !! but the gray line is as clear as muddddd, that they will wear your ARSE out in court while you fight with your entire net worth..
- Being stopped and questioned by law enforcement.
- Having your License To Carry Firearms seized and sent back for revocation.
- Being arrested either improperly or for other charges like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance
No offense, but The only thing that has ever impressed me about Pennsylvania is the native trout fishing, My extended family who are in fact from Beaver Pa. and my Darling Bride from Gettysburg.
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:46 pm |
|
Carnivore wrote:
3. Being arrested either improperly or for other charges like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance
There is no disturbing the peace charge in PA
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: Has it emerged that MTN Jack is not licensed to carry a firearm? If he is, then the "city of the first class" nonsense doesn't apply.
The only "city of the first class" in PA is Philadelphia. He was not in a "city of the first class" and did not need to have a LTCF to leaglly open carry.
He was detained because "Noble breached a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally with a fully loaded, holstered and exposed handgun."
Ken
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
| He was not in the Security zone
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
joe15003 wrote: He was not in the Security zone
I just quoted what was reported as being released by the State Police.
They don't always tell you how big the "security zone" is and the qoute was "a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally." My understanding of Secret Service procedures is that this is always larger then the apparent "security zone."
Ken
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
I know that Pa. infact does have a law against public Disturbance in the Township of Arenstville(spellchk.) as do practically every town/city/burrough in this wonderful country, because my wifes EX played a little game with me some 10 yrs. ago that got his ASS beat, followed up by a Pa. S.H.P. with public disturbancs charges, all the way to the court date when a witness working the gas station was subpoened and tastified that I was attacked first and acted in self defense.. even though the charges against me were dropped, Pa. sent notification to Delaware and I was denied Purchase of all firearms for three years,
But thats not where my purchase delays come from, I've been delayed on purchases since I was 18.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
The quote from the Secret Service contradicted the quote from the State Police, and I would tend to believe the Secret Service, responsible for establishing and securing the perimeter, than the State Police who seem to get pissed off about open carry.
He was handing out fliers - were any of the people he was handing fliers to detained, questioned, and searched for weapons, given that the Staties assert that they were "inside the security perimeter?" where was the checkpoint for entering the perimeter located?
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:14 pm by mvpel
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:14 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: joe15003 wrote: He was not in the Security zone
I just quoted what was reported as being released by the State Police.
They don't always tell you how big the "security zone" is and the qoute was "a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally." My understanding of Secret Service procedures is that this is always larger then the apparent "security zone."
Ken
I just wanted to make sure you were quoting. Also I was at the rally(mother in law and wife wanted to go) and I had to cross a area that was roped off and I had to go through metal detectors. So if the area was not roped off, how can you "assume" that he was in the zone?
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
| If you really knew the zone other than a cordoned off area, it probably included several city blocks, not to mention eye in the sky/cameras and spotters..
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:28 pm |
|
If a "security zone" is not "apparent," then how can anyone know whether or not they're inside or outside of it?
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: If a "security zone" is not "apparent," then how can anyone know whether or not they're inside or outside of it?
Agreeed...and yes it may have included a more extended zone, but if not told how would you know, and yes there were snipers on the roof that watched the crowd and the psp chopter was in the air...but if not told where it is then why did they not ask mtn jack to move because of an extended premier?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
| Hypothetically, even if a gun carrier were to be inside a so-called "security zone," minding his own business, is this unlawful? Would not the remedy be simply ejectment from the private event?
|
joe15003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Hypothetically, even if a gun carrier were to be inside a so-called "security zone," minding his own business, is this unlawful? Would not the remedy be simply ejectment from the private event?
This is what I am saying. If mtn jack crossed this "invisible" security zone, and was not aware, he made no threats, did not become disorderly(like the charge he was given) then why not ask him kindly to move and tell him why, "Hey there's a security zone setup here, for the VIP, can you kindly move to xyz area, or cover up your firearm?" if it were me I would have done as they said and made a fuss later if need be
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:37 pm |
|
joe15003 wrote: Mike wrote: Hypothetically, even if a gun carrier were to be inside a so-called "security zone," minding his own business, is this unlawful? Would not the remedy be simply ejectment from the private event?
This is what I am saying. If mtn jack crossed this "invisible" security zone, and was not aware, he made no threats, did not become disorderly(like the charge he was given) then why not ask him kindly to move and tell him why, "Hey there's a security zone setup here, for the VIP, can you kindly move to xyz area, or cover up your firearm?" if it were me I would have done as they said and made a fuss later if need be
Way I see it . . . he never made any threats anyways . . . but I agree . . .make your fuss later and move on. If the line is invisible, then there isn't really a line, savvy?
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
joe15003 wrote: Mike wrote: Hypothetically, even if a gun carrier were to be inside a so-called "security zone," minding his own business, is this unlawful? Would not the remedy be simply ejectment from the private event?
This is what I am saying. If mtn jack crossed this "invisible" security zone, and was not aware, he made no threats, did not become disorderly(like the charge he was given) then why not ask him kindly to move and tell him why, "Hey there's a security zone setup here, for the VIP, can you kindly move to xyz area, or cover up your firearm?" if it were me I would have done as they said and made a fuss later if need be
Again, I am not an expert but this is my understanding of how it works. The secret Service and local authorities agree on a "secured perimeter" around where the "protectee" will be. The assess security requirements and attempt to determine if there are any potential threats in the vicinity. They investigate those potential threats. They don't give a hoot about anyone's 2nd ammendment rights at that point. You and I may not like it but that is what happens. I do not think, under the laws pertaining to this that the courts will stop them from this kind of action as long as the "infringement" of your "rights" is temporary.
As I posted on another board:
The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.
The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Ken
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 09:01 pm by CowboyKen
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 09:12 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: The quote from the Secret Service contradicted the quote from the State Police, and I would tend to believe the Secret Service, responsible for establishing and securing the perimeter, than the State Police who seem to get pissed off about open carry.
From the news reports quoted above - the Secret Service:
Jim Gehr, agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service field office in Pittsburgh, said the federal agency did not file any charges against Mr. Noble.
"Our people did talk to him. He never entered the event area," Agent Gehr said.
The State Police:
State police Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre said in a news release that Noble breached a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally with a fully loaded, holstered and exposed handgun.
Noble's actions created a clear public alarm and caused a significant breakdown in rally security because officers had to leave manned security posts to arrest and disarm Noble, the trooper said.
Misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges will be forthcoming against Noble, said Schexnaildre.
It would seem obvious to me that "secured perimeter" and "event area" are two different thing, but have it your own way.
Ken
|
lildobe
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 09:15 pm |
|
Farmer Troy wrote: Not to get too political . . . but, as a Ron Paul supporter, I wasn't sure who to vote for in November, but ever since McCain announced his VP running mate as Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, that swayed my vote . . .
http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_SarahPalin.jpg
. . . who wouldn't want this gun toting woman as VP and maybe even Prez some day???!!! I'm gonna vote for her . . . I mean, umm vote for McCain
Unfortunately, as cool as that picture is, it's a fake...
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp
(Besides, you'd think she'd have better finger discipline then that!)
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 09:16 pm by lildobe
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 09:28 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Again, open carry is NOT civil disobedience.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: CowboyKen wrote: This is what civil disobedience is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Again, open carry is NOT civil disobedience.
Neither is riding on a bus or sitting at a lunch counter.
I think it kinda depends on where and how you do it.
If you march into a prohibited location, with your firearm prominently displayed, so as to make a statement about the 2nd amendment and to get arrested, that is IMO civil disobedience.
What Mr. Noble did may or may not have been an act of civil disobedience. I don't know what was in his mind.
Ken
p.s.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedienceLast edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:14 pm by CowboyKen
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
Again, he was not in a prohibited location.
You keep repeating the same two falcies.
There was nothing prohibited about his public location and there was nothing prohibited about OC at that location.
Since he was not "disobaying" anything, it 100% can not be civil disobediance.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:21 pm |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Again, he was not in a prohibited location.
You keep repeating the same two falcies.
There was nothing prohibited about his public location and there was nothing prohibited about OC at that location.
Since he was not "disobaying" anything, it 100% can not be civil disobediance.
As I said, I have a question about what happened to Mr. Noble, was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If the answer is no, then he was just unlucky. If yes the you may make the call as you see it and I will look at it the way I do and we will agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Ken
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:30 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: As I said, I have a question about what happened to Mr. Noble, was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If the answer is no, then he was just unlucky. If yes the you may make the call as you see it and I will look at it the way I do and we will agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Ken
Another falacy. The possible presence of "Obama" is not a relevant factor to the conditions discussed prior.
If your insinuating that you are unable to determine if Mtn Jack was there to assassinate Obama, then I can't help you make that decision beyond the info posted here. But the presence of a firearm, and the presence of a prez candidate does not by itself constitute a threat, civil disobedience, or any other statutorily supported criminal act or even intent to commit such.
|
leo53
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | New Galilee |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:31 pm |
|
| mtn jack is always welcome at camp runamuk(trout camp) with his gun.leave the bible home
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:59 pm |
|
I do not think, under the laws pertaining to this that the courts will stop them from this kind of action as long as the "infringement" of your "rights" is temporary.
Umm, no. There is no such thing as a temporary infringement of your rights. You infringe on them or you don't. If you do, life can get expensive.
This is going to go back to the fundamental question of: Is carrying a gun openly disorderly conduct?
The PA supreme court has already ruled on this. Get ready for the state police cowboys to catch a beat down.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 12:09 am |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: CowboyKen wrote: As I said, I have a question about what happened to Mr. Noble, was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If the answer is no, then he was just unlucky. If yes the you may make the call as you see it and I will look at it the way I do and we will agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Ken
Another falacy. The possible presence of "Obama" is not a relevant factor to the conditions discussed prior.
If your insinuating that you are unable to determine if Mtn Jack was there to assassinate Obama, then I can't help you make that decision beyond the info posted here. But the presence of a firearm, and the presence of a prez candidate does not by itself constitute a threat, civil disobedience, or any other statutorily supported criminal act or even intent to commit such.
Clearly, I do not and did not say anything about intent to do harm to anyone. If you think that you can open carry and not run into someone who will stop you from "exercising your right to do so" in the presence of either of the candidates I think you are living in fantasy land. But, of course, that is only my opinion.
Please be my guest and do so. As I said before, you don't think of this as civil disobedience and wish to pursue it, go ahead, and I will support your right to do so.
Ken
|
cccook
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 12:45 am |
|
As one who has worked inside of Secret Service protectee secured areas, there is no question or ambiguity as to when you have ingressed or egressed one. MTN Jack would have known and security personnel would have prevented or allowed his entry at an established checkpoint. Hence secure.
If the SS says he did not enter the event area then he did not enter a secured area. They're pretty good at what they do. They know whether or not MTN Jack was a threat, most likely long before the events of that day. They would have been negligent had they not interviewed someone detained by local authorities, but responsibility for the detainment/seizure clearly rests with the State Police. IMO from the information set forth previously on this site.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 01:12 am |
|
Neither is riding on a bus or sitting at a lunch counter.
Both of those actions, under prevailing circumstances, violated a law or ordinance. It can't be civil "disobedience" if you're not "disobeying" anything.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 03:25 am |
|
The obvious logical fallacies are rampant in some of this:
Either he was or was not within the secured perimeter.
If he was not then his rights were clearly violated.
If he was then:
1) How does a 6'3" 280lb man "sneak" by security to get inside a secured perimeter? Or how would security personnel not notice him? His size harped on by the media and a few posters lays aside any idea that he did anything but just walk into the area.
2) If he just walked into the area, if it was a secured perimeter why was it so insecure that an armed 6'3" 280lb man just wandered past security.
3) If it was a secured area and he just walked right into the area where is reprimand for the state police and local authorities for having such an insecure secure perimeter?
In short, either MTN Jack was not inside a secured perimeter or the PA state police and local security details were incompetent and ineffective. Or maybe they are just too used to showing up after the fact  . Seriously though, they can't have it both ways. I would ask why the media doesn't have the logic ability to figure out that one of these has to be true and to ask these questions directly and loudly to the PA state police who are making accusations against him re: being within a secured perimeter, but I think the reasons for the medias bias, er deficiencies are well known and documented.
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 07:41 am |
|
As this situation stands right now, who do ya'll feel got their point across and is in control of the scenario? Mtn Jack or the state of Pennsylvania.. Mtn. Jack or the Feds.?
Could Mtn. Jack have got his point across to the multitudes just handing out fliers unarmed ?
Has this scenario helped to progress the freedom to OC, or has it caused a setback on the numbers of Handgun owners that will OC at will due to the ever vigilant eye of the antis trying to get someone elses sidearn confiscated?
Although I truely understand Mtn. Jack has a right to OC, was this really the right scenario to put it to the test?
Seriously, aside from walking up the Commander in Chief himself armed, this scenario has got to be the next most paranoid type of event that he could have picked to visit armed with a sidearm. I'm not saying he broke any laws/went beyond any secure zone/or acted in any threatening manner what so ever, but one has to know that given the perfect opportunity every Cop within a mile of this kind of event is gonna try to earn the BLUE RIBBON of the day..
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 08:07 am |
|
Where legal, OC is always appropriate.
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 628 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 10:09 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote: As I posted on another board:
The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.
The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Ken
How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: joe15003 wrote: He was not in the Security zone
I just quoted what was reported as being released by the State Police.
They don't always tell you how big the "security zone" is and the qoute was "a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally." My understanding of Secret Service procedures is that this is always larger then the apparent "security zone."
Ken
Cowboy Ken,
This reminds me of reading Catch -22. Could you imagine?
SS: Sir, you are under arrest for breaching the security perimeter.
MTN Jack: No that is across the street where there are signs and metal detectors.
SS: No, that is the apparent security zone. Our actual security perimeter is quite a bit larger.
MTN Jack: Look I stayed outside of your signs. If your actual security perimeter is bigger, then how do we know where our constitutional rights are stripped from us so that you may protect the ruling class?
SS: You will know when we arrest , shackle and handcuff, kidnap and interrogate you and steal your weapons. Why did you open carry again?
MTN Jack: Because I'm an American.
Last edited on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 01:03 pm by Thundar
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 01:30 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: This reminds me of reading Catch -22. Could you imagine?
It is quite likely the result of a 'generation gap' from the generation of print textbooks and literature for the sake of literature to the virtually educated generation. Hypothetically and generally the next word after 'virtually' is a lie.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
DKSuddeth wrote: CowboyKen wrote: As I posted on another board:
The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.
The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Ken
How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?
I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.
People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.
Ken
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 628 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.
People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.
Ken
One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.
Is this correct?
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:13 pm |
|
DKSuddeth wrote: CowboyKen wrote: I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.
People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.
Ken
One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.
Is this correct?
OCing is alright if we use "common sense." We must also constantly be alert to threats for expressing our freedoms and even though these threats may be illegal, they may be carried out and are therefore best to be avoided. Doesn't the safety of of a politician make any action to warrant that acceptable? Note: Major sarcasim.
Thank you mtn jack for standing up for our rights and in a pefectly acceptable manner.
Yata hey
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:17 pm |
|
Fly by night OC??
That must be me too. mine is usually carried just during hunting trips, due to the fact that I've not taken the time to buy a lefty holster, Other than that their either in the house in various locations, or in the vehicle. once I find the holster I like OC will be more obvious to those I cross paths with.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: DKSuddeth wrote: CowboyKen wrote: As I posted on another board:The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.
The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?
If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.
Ken
How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?
I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.
People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.
Ken
Cowboy Ken:
I'm going to agree and disagree with you. In the agree column I'll say that I would never have done what MTN Jack did as I would expect to be at least hassled, if not arrested. At best an inconvenience, at worst an expensive defense and possible permanent black mark on my record that could have far reaching effects. I tend towards non-confrontational, quiet carrying and am quit adverse to being embroiled in a legal problem for numerous personal reasons that effect more people than myself.
On the other hand, what of the "zealots" as you call them? Where would we be without those who provoked the so-called Boston Massacre which was really more of a mob act against soldiers trying to retreat until they were literally backed up against a wall? Or without those who led and acted in the Boston Tea Party? Or without Rosa Parks refusal to sit at the back of the bus? Many people saw those overt acts as less than helpful to the cause. Many people, even those supportive of the end goal, disagreed vehemently with the tactics used. One man's zealot is sometimes another man's patriot.
I'm not suggesting that MTN Jack was acting in such a radical manner, however, he was certainly running a significant risk of a negative LEO encounter and I think he was certainly well aware of that. But he was to the best of his knowledge acting fully within the law. Whether or not the state agrees with that will be found out as this winds its way through the legal system.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:29 pm |
|
Double tap -- site hung up.
Last edited on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:30 pm by deepdiver
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
deepdiver wrote: I would never have done what MTN Jack did as I would expect to be at least hassled, if not arrested. At best an inconvenience, at worst an expensive defense and possible permanent black mark on my record that could have far reaching effects. I tend towards non-confrontational, quiet carrying and am quit adverse to being embroiled in a legal problem for numerous personal reasons that effect more people than myself.
So how big of a self-imposed exile zone do you give yourself when a major political event is held in a park?
Jack was in an adjacent park. Would you go to the park at the other end of town? In the next County? Next state?
And recall that nobody has profferred a rule of law that would make carry unlawful even at the Obama event per se.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:40 pm |
|
DKSuddeth wrote: One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.
Is this correct?
Does it matter what I personally do or don't do?
And I have not condemned Mr. Noble.
I have commented on the actions, and the legality or lack thereof, of the police and the Secret Service. I have looked up, and commented on, the law that the Secret Service operates under. I have noted the circumstances surrounding Mr. Noble's situation.
I have not called anyone any names.
I am not alone in thinking that this situation may not help those of us that carry firearms for self protection, either openly or concealed. Some quotes from things posted on other boards:
I can't speak for the actions of the State Police, but I can tell you that the primary objective of a Secret Service Protective Detail is to keep their protectee alive at all costs. They don't give a rat's ass about your 'rights', nor should they.
I doubt that anyone here would be outraged about citizens of another country being disarmed in order to be allowed within proximity of our President or other senior U.S. official.
Anyone that is going to be in same environment of a presidential candidate, regardless of political party, and is packing without an official assignment, is not thinking too well. The potential for problems is there. No matter what political party the candidate belongs to. Period. That is simply the way it is today.
If this makes me, in your eyes a "fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter," so be it.
Zealots in almost any area scare me.
Ken
Last edited on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:45 pm by CowboyKen
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 628 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
Ken, i'm not calling you any names either and I am only expressing my opinion on what i see in your posts. If i'm off base, tell me so and how I am off and I'll be happy to apologize.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, well not too much anyway, but I'm just trying to see how not forcing all sides to follow the law is the best path to take.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:49 pm |
|
DKSuddeth wrote: Ken, i'm not calling you any names either and I am only expressing my opinion on what i see in your posts. If i'm off base, tell me so and how I am off and I'll be happy to apologize.
Not for me to say, friend. IMHO each of us must set our own standard for how we conduct discourse with each other. I am sure that your opinions have merit too.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
'Seems the SS has been busy gettin' honest people locked up. First Denver... now this.
"...the primary objective of a Secret Service Protective Detail is to keep their protectee alive at all costs. They don't give a rat's ass about your 'rights', nor should they."
'Because they're sworn to support 'n defend the Constitution is why. Their 'protectee' has too. This isn't something that comes and goes as is convienient for THEM. They ain't Royalty, We fought a Revolution over that kind'a crap. They keep pushin' the 'privledged personage' envelope 'n they'll liable to have another one. This is about the CONSTITUTION. If it means anything or not... All the time... Everywhere. Otherwise we may as well bend over for the JBT's 'n grease up! 
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
Anyone local to Pittsburgh or Beaver Co. that is interested in speaking in person to a local print media concerning open carry. Please PM me.
|
Carnivore
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 07:19 pm |
|
| E-mail to Front Line Armory P.A. Patriot.. I'm pretty sure the ole boy is still around.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 09:44 pm |
|
Mike wrote: deepdiver wrote: I would never have done what MTN Jack did as I would expect to be at least hassled, if not arrested. At best an inconvenience, at worst an expensive defense and possible permanent black mark on my record that could have far reaching effects. I tend towards non-confrontational, quiet carrying and am quit adverse to being embroiled in a legal problem for numerous personal reasons that effect more people than myself.
So how big of a self-imposed exile zone do you give yourself when a major political event is held in a park?
Jack was in an adjacent park. Would you go to the park at the other end of town? In the next County? Next state?
And recall that nobody has profferred a rule of law that would make carry unlawful even at the Obama event per se.
I avoid them altogether. I don't like big crowds. I don't like unexpected surprises of suddenly finding myself at a security point and having to let someone paw through my personal belongings (happened to me in St. Louis the first year they imposed new security at a certain event), I don't want the hassle of having to either abort the trip because of some unknown security area or having to schlep back to the car to store my sidearm and then worry the rest of the day whether my car is going to be broken into or stolen. So as I said I would not have done what MTN Jack did.
Just to clarify and summarize my thoughts in case someone just reads this and not the entirety of my posts in this thread:
I wouldn't have done it as stated above. I totally support that MTN Jack did, I do not see that he violated any rule of law, this unsecured/unposted "security perimeter" is BS and OC needs people like MTN Jack who are willing to take such a risk of confrontation or worse with LEO.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 03:18 pm |
|
I'm not suggesting that MTN Jack was acting in such a radical manner, however, he was certainly running a significant risk of a negative LEO encounter and I think he was certainly well aware of that.
When police think they are above the law, complying with the law can become a radical act.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
I see an analogy here... "Lets not form up on Lexington green... we might piss 'em off." "Don't sit in the front of the bus... we might piss 'em off."
Status Quo?
To quote the Motto of the SAS: "Who Dares, Wins" "Qui Audet Adipiscitur".
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 02:15 am |
|
CowboyKen wrote: SNIP "a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally."
Somebody is an idiot.
It can't have been a very secure perimeter if a guy handing out literature and wearing a gun was able to walk through and keep handing out literature.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 03:48 am |
|
Legal Defense fund raiser for Jack has been posted here:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/31704-fundraiser-mountain-jack.html
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 03:53 am |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Legal Defense fund raiser for Jack has been posted here:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/31704-fundraiser-mountain-jack.html
While I am sure that all donations will be appreciated, it would be wonderful to see a major contributor step forward, even anonymously.
Yata hey
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 09:22 pm |
|
leo53 wrote: mtn jack is always welcome at camp runamuk(trout camp) with his gun.leave the bible home
Why? I mean, I'm not a religious person myself, but if Mountain Jack was to come to any place I was at, and wanted to bring his bible, I would not tell him to leave it home.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 03:01 am |
|
Some people don't like having guns around, some people don't like religious paraphernalia around.
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
Aran wrote: Some people don't like having guns around, some people don't like religious paraphernalia around.
If people don't want my gun around, they don't want me around. I would think the same goes for a personal bible as well.
But that's just my opinion.
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 01:34 pm |
|
Big Gay Al wrote: Aran wrote: Some people don't like having guns around, some people don't like religious paraphernalia around.
If people don't want my gun around, they don't want me around. I would think the same goes for a personal bible as well.
But that's just my opinion.
+1 and I probably wouldn't want to be there anyway with those givens.
Yata hey
|
mombrown1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 06:52 am |
|
I was outside the park delivering water to the attendees and handing out brochures for the Russell campaign. I had my weapon concealed in a holster just inside my waistband on my right side. I did not enter the park through the metal detectors. At times when I lifted my right arm my weapon was visible. I didn't experience any problems.
Now you want to know about a true 'police state' it was evident at the RNC Convention. The Secret Service positioned people in all the delegate hotels. There were LEO's on every bus transporting delegates. There were helicopters flying above, dogs sniffing around, and SS and LEO's everywhere. The TSA was repsponsible for the security checks. There were sharpshootters on top of all the buildings. Everywhere I looked there were suits and they had those little curled plastic things sticking out above their collars with the little thing in their ear.
Did it make me feel safer - not really. Actually I felt a bit suffocated.
PA doesn't have reciprocity with Minnesota so I did not have my gun with me.
|
mombrown1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 07:12 am |
|
| I attended the GRPC also. I sat at towards the back of the room and wondered if those two local LEO's knew the amount of firepower that was in the room. They looked so authoritative standing behind Ron Paul with their backs to the wall and their thumbs in their waistbands.
|
mombrown1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 07:15 am |
|
| Who is the SAS?
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
Just a guess, Second Amendment Sisters.
|
mombrown1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 01:31 pm |
|
Big gay Al - Our thing is "Self-defense is a basic human right." I hope Noble sues the pants off Beaver and the State Police. I carried outside the stadium in Washington County when McCain/Palin came without a problem. The State Police always over-reach. They should stick to giving out speeding tickets.
I'm still looking in the constitution to find where it says we have the right to live "without fear." We live without fear because we are armed.
I'm the PA State Coordinator for SAS. Have a great day.
|
tittiger
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
Since when do our God given inalienable rights disappear near politicians?
If that is the case then why didn't his freedom of religion also disappear at the same time?
Why didn't the storm troopers then arrest Jack for his bible? After all that bible was not legal when his freedom of religion disappeared.
Why wasn't he arrested for talking, as his right to speech must have also disappeared when he was near a politician?
As far as Federal Law superseding state law since when does the employee order the employer around? The states are the sovereigns that created the federal government and are thus in the superior position. The ONLY time anything federal takes precedent is when it is a power explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Such as the States explicitly giving the federal government a monopoly on coining money. Any other law stating anything different is unconstitutional.
We did not give the fed any powers concerning firearms! In fact we did the exact opposite in the second amendment!
The second amendment prohibits the feds from making ANY gun laws so how the hell do they get off saying carrying a fire arm near one of them is a crime? It's blatantly Unconstitutional.
Should those secret service agents not be arrested for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution? We all know what the penalty for treason is don't we?
In Liberty,
Joe Tittiger
http://truthtribune.com
Last edited on Fri Sep 19th, 2008 09:42 pm by tittiger
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
tittiger wrote: This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
Since when do our God given inalienable rights disappear near politicians?
If that is the case then why didn't his freedom of religion also disappear at the same time?
Why didn't Secret service then arrest Jack for his disappeared right to religion because was near a politician? After all that bible was not legal with disappeared freedom of religion.
Why wasn't he arrested for talking as his right to speech must have also disappeared when he was near a politician?
As far as Federal Law superseding state law since when does the employee order the employer around? The states are the sovereigns that created the federal government and are thus in the superior position. The ONLY time anything federal takes precedent is when it is a power explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Such as the States explicitly giving the federal government a monopoly on coining money.
We did not give the fed any powers concerning firearms! In fact we did the exact opposite in the second amendment!
The second amendment prohibits the feds from making ANY gun laws so how the hell do they get off saying carrying a fire arm near one of them is a crime? It's blatantly Unconstitutional.
Should those secret service agents not be arrested for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution? We all know what the penalty for treason is don't we?
In Liberty,
Joe Tittiger
http://truthtribune.com
Great rant but not productive.
Yata hey
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
tittiger wrote: This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
Since when do our God given inalienable rights disappear near politicians?..........
First, you need to read ALL the messages, not just the first one, which was slightly in error. Mtn Jack was arrested, but NOT by the Secret Service. And in the previous hurricane that hit the Louisiana coast, it was the Democratic led state gov't that started the gun grabbing, not the Republicans, Gov. Jindal didn't take anyone's guns. So fix your web site.
Last edited on Fri Sep 19th, 2008 10:33 pm by Big Gay Al
|
tittiger
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 12:16 am |
|
Big Gay Al wrote: tittiger wrote: This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
Since when do our God given inalienable rights disappear near politicians?..........
First, you need to read ALL the messages, not just the first one, which was slightly in error. Mtn Jack was arrested, but NOT by the Secret Service. And in the previous hurricane that hit the Louisiana coast, it was the Democratic led state gov't that started the gun grabbing, not the Republicans, Gov. Jindal didn't take anyone's guns. So fix your web site.
Big Gay Al
What should I change on my web site? Since nothing about this is posted my web site.
Secondly I don't see one iota of difference about who arrested Jack. The Principles are the same either way.
Thirdly, I beg to differ over your politics, both of the socialist parties have been consistently treasonous on the second amendment and most of the others also.
In Liberty,
Joe
http://truthtribune.com
|
PavePusher
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 728 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 05:12 am |
|
mombrown1 wrote:
Who is the SAS?
Big Gay Al wrote:
Just a guess, Second Amendment Sisters.
Please tell me both of you are joking???!
Google: Special Air Service and/or Special Boat Service.
No, they are NOT cargo companies. Well, not commercial cargo haulers... hehehe!
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
PavePusher wrote: mombrown1 wrote:
Who is the SAS?
Big Gay Al wrote:
Just a guess, Second Amendment Sisters.
Please tell me both of you are joking???!
Google: Special Air Service and/or Special Boat Service.
No, they are NOT cargo companies. Well, not commercial cargo haulers... hehehe!
WHY would we be talking about the Special Air Service?
http://www.2asisters.org/
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
Big Gay Al wrote:WHY would we be talking about the Special Air Service?
http://www.2asisters.org/
To a hammer, everything is 'nail'. 'Pave' may be H-53 helicopter.
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 09:22 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Big Gay Al wrote:WHY would we be talking about the Special Air Service?
http://www.2asisters.org/
To a hammer, everything is 'nail'. 'Pave' may be H-53 helicopter.
Ohh. Ok.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
| Pave Low actually...
|
PavePusher
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 728 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Big Gay Al wrote:WHY would we be talking about the Special Air Service?
http://www.2asisters.org/
To a hammer, everything is 'nail'. 'Pave' may be H-53 helicopter.
Aargh, guilty as charged. It was a rough day at work and I had too many Twinkies, got flashbacks of my previous duty station and lost the thread of the discussion. The 15-year-old Scotch had nothing to do with it and should be viewed as an innocent witness to the thought-crime.
Nothing to see here folks, move along now...
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 09:22 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Pave Low actually...
Only because the 53 is more common than the H-60 Pave Hawk
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
The Pave' stuff comes from the Program Element series assigned to these projects when they were in R&D. There's some other 'Pave' stuff that's still classified apparently. Forgot if it was DARPA or the Air Force budget. H-53's and H-60's (all variants) are entirely different animals. No... wuzzint always a Cowboy.
There's more H-60's than H-53's... mainly replaced the UH-1's as the workhorse.
Last edited on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 09:51 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 10:23 pm |
|
PAVE TACK, PAVE PENNY, PAVE PAWS, ... PRONTO, ... SWORD, ... SPIKE, ... SPECTER
Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment
|
PavePusher
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 728 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28th, 2008 07:47 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Pave Low actually...
Only because the 53 is more common than the H-60 Pave Hawk
Not any more, sadly.
|
Wonderer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Beaver County, USA |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12th, 2009 01:49 pm |
|
rjent1 wrote: This message is to let friends of MTN Jack know he has been arrested by The Secrete Service. Jack was open carrying with his Bible.
One Secrete Service Officer told Jan, Jack's wife, being close to a politician with a gun on your side is illegal and trumps States rights .
If anyone out there can help Jack, he is in Beaver, PA
thanks
Rjent1
....this was first post after the arrest.
PA. jury trial this week, - thanks for your support- jan
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12th, 2009 01:54 pm |
|
| http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/15555.html
|
Current time is 06:21 pm | |
|
