Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 179

Thread: Another Arrested for Accidental Exposure in Florida - With VIDEO

  1. #101
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    I can assure you that the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with forums or any privately owned property for that matter, if you believe differently, perhaps it is you who needs invest a little time a homework assignment or two. The forum owner(s) can request behaviors they feel are and are not appropriate, and that includes certain types of hate speech.

    Perhaps an American Government/Political Science class at your local college might help you understand how this country's governing documents relate to the private sector vs. the government. Knowledge goes a lot further when it's coupled with understanding.
    FYI Jeepseller - Hate speech is a made up concept, by cowardly collectivists that want to quell free speech. Look at Canada if you want a good example of where the hate speech road leads a society. Many preachers are in jail over it. Tennessee resident Ernst Zundel, is in a German prison because in Germany seeking the truth is called hate speech and people are jailed for it there. http://www.zundelsite.org/store_dvds...our_knees.html

    I understand our Constitution and our form of government better than you Jeepseller I assure you.

    Yes a private forum CAN censor speech, but the question is: should one do everything that one can?
    It would seem to me very hypocritical, not to mention counterproductive, for a forum dedicated to
    the expansion, and education on the right of self defense, to arbitrarily censor another right.
    Especially when that speech is backed up by facts.

    I am glad you were not around during the American Revolution Jeepseller.
    I think you would have called the Declaration of Independence hate speech against King George III, and
    would have wanted it censored.

    The whole reason cops in this country are out of control is that enough of us are not speaking out loudly,
    and with outrage and indignation about it. I think it my duty to do so and the duty of every American
    and every Christian to do so. I find it embarrassing that most sit idley by and watch the evil, doing or saying nothing.
    Last edited by tittiger; 07-28-2012 at 03:31 PM.

  2. #102
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    349

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    The whole reason cops in this country are out of control is that enough of us are not speaking out loudly,
    and with outrage and indignation about it. I think it my duty to do so and the duty of every American
    and every Christian to do so. I find it embarrassing that most sit idley by and watch the evil, doing or saying nothing.
    +1. I'd add the court system to that as well. Although, more people seem to speak out about the courts than they do about what has become of law enforcement in general, IMHO. Both need scrutiny and major overhaul.

  3. #103
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    +1. I'd add the court system to that as well. Although, more people seem to speak out about the courts than they do about what has become of law enforcement in general, IMHO. Both need scrutiny and major overhaul.
    I agree JmE I think they need replaced they are so badly designed and corrupted. Perhaps some will find the following organizations interesting:

    http://www.judicialreformnow.com/Home.html

    Judicial Reform With David Barton.wmv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0IZhtprGnI

    Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/document-library/videos/

    New Hampshire Formally Recognizes Jury Nullification
    http://www.republicmagazine.com/news...ification.html

    What is the Black Robed Regiment? http://brr.wallbuilders.com/
    Last edited by tittiger; 07-28-2012 at 03:28 PM.

  4. #104
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr View Post
    Correct on both counts, Zach. Non-unanimous votes for conviction results in a hung jury. He walks. Prosecutors can decide whether or not to try him again.

    OC is a misdemeanor. CC without a license is a felony.
    I have to admit to be late to this discussion and Florida law in general...but I have a quick question...how is it Constitutional to require a permit to exercise a Fundamental Right?

    Is it illegal Open Carry and then REQUIRE a permit to conceal carry?? How is one to exercise their right without state permission?
    "You cannot REASON someone out of a position that they did not REASON themselves into." --Unkown
    ---------
    If you are going to be stupid, you better be tough!

    --------
    "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Samuel Clemens
    ---------
    "A right delayed is a right denied." -- MLK Jr.
    ---------
    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

  5. #105
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    349
    Thanks for the links and I'll check them out. Unfortunately, I, like many of my compadres, burned out from the 90s. We watch and read, adding our 2 cents in here and there whilst helping the causes in our own little ways as we can. The positive movements on individual gun rights has been quite encouraging in recent years. In some other areas, however, developments have been troubling.

  6. #106
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I have to admit to be late to this discussion and Florida law in general...but I have a quick question...how is it Constitutional to require a permit to exercise a Fundamental Right?

    Is it illegal Open Carry and then REQUIRE a permit to conceal carry?? How is one to exercise their right without state permission?
    Looking behind the curtain or commenting on the emperor's clothes, eh?

  7. #107
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    Looking behind the curtain or commenting on the emperor's clothes, eh?
    Well...I suppose the obvious two answers that I could give myself are:

    1) the people of Florida need to change this immediately
    2) Florida is making LOTS of money the requirement to get a permit to exercise a fundamental right. Better hope they do not put a permit requirement to talk in public Komrades!
    "You cannot REASON someone out of a position that they did not REASON themselves into." --Unkown
    ---------
    If you are going to be stupid, you better be tough!

    --------
    "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Samuel Clemens
    ---------
    "A right delayed is a right denied." -- MLK Jr.
    ---------
    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

  8. #108
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    349
    3) Some gun people that vehemently opposed to OC in favor of CC only likely support such infringements as OC would make their licensee status less "special."
    4) Some gun people erroneously believe that prohibiting OC makes people safer.
    5) States and the fed will continue to violate rights until people unite and unequivocally oppose such abhorrent behavior by our governments, law enforcement, and courts.

  9. #109
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    Hey, you don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the forum rules. I've made it easy for you and brought the relevant part here for you.

    ACCEPTANCE OF RULES

    If you do not agree with any of these Rules then please do not use this site, because BY USING THIS SITE YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE IRREVOCABLY AGREED TO THESE RULES. Please note that these Rules may be revised and reissued without notice at any time. You should review the current Rules regularly, since your continued use of the site will be deemed as irrevocable acceptance of any revisions.

    RIGHT TO CONTACT

    We reserve the ABSOLUTE right to contact our members via PM or email regarding moderation issues. Contact for non-moderation activities is governed by forum rules.

    FORUM RULES

    ... *snip*...

    (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!
    If you have a problem with the forum's rule against over-generalized statements against Law Enforcement, I suggest you take it up with the forum administration. Since I am not forum administration, I'm afraid I am not the proper person for you to air your concerns over your misguided understanding of your 1st Amendment rights to bash on Law Enforcement.

    I've lodged my objections to your anti-LEO dribble. Now you're resorting to the "tin foil" hat stuff that shows you're out of legitimate arguments. When you have something worthy of debate let me know. I enjoy a good debate.

    Good day.

  10. #110
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I have to admit to be late to this discussion and Florida law in general...but I have a quick question...how is it Constitutional to require a permit to exercise a Fundamental Right?

    Is it illegal Open Carry and then REQUIRE a permit to conceal carry?? How is one to exercise their right without state permission?

    carolina guy, the short answer IMHO is that the Constitution does not apply at all. The Constitution only lists the powers granted to the Federal government by the States, and in the case of the bill of rights they explicitly spell out what they can NOT do. So again IMHO - ALL, every single, federal gun law is unconstitutional by virtue of what the 2nd amendment says. ("Shall not be infringed") The Constitution passes the buck onto the States, and the people to handle the gun issue.

    But even the States should not be infringing upon inalienable rights such as a mans right to self defense. I mean does it make sense to say the feds can not infringe upon the right to bear arms because it is an inalienable right, but it is OK for the States to do so?

    If arms are meant to protect us from tyrannical government it also follows that no government should have any business interfering with arms. There is a huge conflict of interest here and one that will always end badly. Government is supposed to only be interested in protecting our rights not regulating inanimate objects, which are also a property right. So yes ALL state laws should be struck down (by we the people) as they violate your inalienable right to property, and also to self defense.

    Locke. Paine, and the founders believed that all men had all rights as a virtue of their birth. Governments will always get out of control when the electorate does not hold their feet to the fire. 99% of what governments do (fed, state and local) violate Inalienable Rights. And they do it because of a dumbed down and apathetic electorate.
    It's a slippery slope that we let happen. Look what happened to our right to travel! Now it is openly called a permission. Or our right to work (now licensed) or our right to build a home. (Building codes now take that away.)


    "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." ~ Ex slave -Frederic Douglass
    Last edited by tittiger; 07-28-2012 at 05:51 PM.

  11. #111
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    Hey, you don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the forum rules. I've made it easy for you and brought the relevant part here for you.



    If you have a problem with the forum's rule against over-generalized statements against Law Enforcement, I suggest you take it up with the forum administration. Since I am not forum administration, I'm afraid I am not the proper person for you to air your concerns over your misguided understanding of your 1st Amendment rights to bash on Law Enforcement.

    I've lodged my objections to your anti-LEO dribble. Now you're resorting to the "tin foil" hat stuff that shows you're out of legitimate arguments. When you have something worthy of debate let me know. I enjoy a good debate.

    Good day.
    Well you, for not being the forum administrator, sure wanted to try and enforce your interpretation of the rules on me JeepSeller.
    It was YOU that should of taken up your concerns with them off the bat, and not with me as you said yourself you are not an admin here.

    I guess the department of homeland security needs a good Brownshirt every where, including this forum. Free speech must be held in check
    especially when the police endanger the lives of their bosses, the citizens. We couldn't have citizens think that their is anything wrong with police misconduct
    or criminal behavior. That would be cop bashing and it might hurt someones feelings.

  12. #112
    Super Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    28,492
    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    I don't think you understand the difference between legal and lawful JeepSeller. As a home work assignment: It was legal to gas Jews in Germany. Figure out the difference between this, and it being unlawful to gas Jews.

    Being "wrong" as you put it is legal and standard operating procedure in this country not something that is corrected.

    It is scary that you think that the first amendment, speaking the truth, and pointing out criminal behavior is LEO bashing.
    What about showing the bashing of the rights of the American people? I guess that is allowed in the forum. But pointing it out is not?

    If speaking the truth and the 1st amendment are against the forum rules. Something is drastically wrong here, and this forum becomes
    an instrument in enabling evil rather than one that combats it.
    Let's set the record straight. OCDO is private property - by registering and posting, all agree to abide by the Forum Rules

    OCDO is dedicated to the protection and furtherance of open carry and tangentially RKBA - anything else is off topic and a violation of Forum Rules except as may be allowed in the Social Lounge.

    It is insulting to the user/members as well as the site owners to suggest that these rules are "an instrument in enabling evil" because we do not abide by your wishes.

    Further this "discussion" is decidedly off-topic for this thread and ends here.

    In case their is any question, yes I am a Moderator and yes I enforce the rules.
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  13. #113
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post

    If you have a problem with the forum's rule against over-generalized statements against Law Enforcement, I suggest you take it up with the forum administration.
    Good day.

    (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).


    I don't see where talking about law enforcement as a whole or a police dept. is violation of the rules ... only when one attacks a poster solely based on his/her profession...the rules say "being a policeman, in the military". It does not say "law enforcement, military,". The race, religion, sex, nationality are, of course, discriminatory issues (occupation is not a discriminatory issue ~ its a choice). The distinction is made in the rules. At least, that's how I read it from my understanding of our language (of a college graduate).

    I also don't see the rules applying to publicly elected officials (mayors, congressman) either (at least in practice).
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-28-2012 at 08:05 PM.

  14. #114
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    I'll kindly thank you to take your LEO bashing back to your own state's forum please. It's against the rules of this forum.
    ??? I don't know about that --- the rule is in reference to posters being bashed simply because they are policemen/policewomen or other occupations. The poster attacked the profession in general and the rules are silent on this. Its like saying congress are full of idiots v. a poster (who is a congressman) being called an idiot for being a member of congress.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-28-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  15. #115
    Super Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    28,492
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ??? I don't know about that --- the rule is in reference to posters being bashed simply because they are policemen/policewomen or other occupations. The poster attacked the profession in general and the rules are silent on this. Its like saying congress are full of idiots v. a poster (who is a congressman) being called an idiot for being a member of congress.
    The rules are not silent on that.

    (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).

    (9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity, or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE! We reserve the right to impose immediate bans for such behavior.

    It could not be more clear.
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  16. #116
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    662
    Anyway, back on to topic. I will be at, and probably testifying during, Mr. Norman's hearings on his motions to dismiss on Tuesday 7/31/12.

  17. #117
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The rules are not silent on that.

    (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).

    (9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity, or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE! We reserve the right to impose immediate bans for such behavior.

    It could not be more clear.


    Are you saying that a member posting cannot complain about the police? These are the very people who TAKE OUR GUNS away unlawfully. I have seen numerous postings about people, like MKE, Doucet, etc who have been unlawfully arrested by police, where people complain about the police departments, various towns, various specific policemen, etc.. So if postings like this are prohibited from speaking out against these groups then many violations regarding the rules have had occurred.

    I read the rules and the postings on this site and came to the conclusion that the rule applies to specific POSTERS. It did not make sense to me that the site owner would want to "protect" groups or individuals who are not members..especially groups & individuals who steal our handguns, imprison our members and other gun supporters, and harass people who lawfully OC & CC ?

    So clarification is needed as to avoid violating the rules....
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-28-2012 at 10:18 PM.

  18. #118
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    I've explained it, you've had a mod explain it. Now, hear it directly from the horse's mouth.


    This is directly from jpierce one of the administrators here:
    I have repeatedly asked that those who wish to pursue an anti-law enforcement agenda go elsewhere to do so. OCDO is about normalizing the open carry of firearms by law abiding citizens and that means co-existence with law enforcement. Occasionally, an officer oversteps his bounds WITH REGARDS TO GUN RIGHTS and then we work to address that issue via complaints, training bulletins and lawsuits where necessary. But that is the extent of our bias against law enforcement. Got it People????????
    It's from a thread where he banned a bozo once some time ago for his anti-LEO agenda. Here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1025882 So, again, I submit that anyone who has any questions regarding what is or isn't allowed on this forum regarding generalized hate speech toward anyone or any group should take it up with a mod or an administrator via PM.

    The way I understand is that discussing a specific LEO incident is fine. But, making generalized statements that paint most or all LEOs with a broad brush stroke is considered to be LEO bashing and by my understanding is against the rules. To make it simple for folks who are having trouble keeping up; "THAT LEO is a jerk" would be acceptable. The statement "LEOs are jerks" is not. Easy enough?

    Now, we have been asked to return to topic. This will be my last statement on the subject. I'll admit I facilitated the derailment of the thread, but I'll defend myself by stating that I was simply attempting to point out to a poster that the situation is well under control by a competent group well equipped to handle any misdeeds by the officers in this case and that the resulting LEO bashing was not necessary and truthfully, does no good for our cause. If anything, generalized LEO bashing and anti-LEO behavior only makes people look stupid and caters to the "gun nut" stereotype that we strive to fight against in the media and the anti-gun agenda.
    Last edited by JeepSeller; 07-28-2012 at 10:25 PM.

  19. #119
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    Anyway, back on to topic. I will be at, and probably testifying during, Mr. Norman's hearings on his motions to dismiss on Tuesday 7/31/12.
    Sorry to have taken space up on this thread to discuss other topics of the rules; guess I was just being lazy.

    I have viewed the video; the defendant is going to have a hard time with this one IMO...his shirt is just to short.

    The law needs to be changed to a carry permit, not a CC or OC permit, just a permit to carry any way one likes.

    And from what I read he had his permit for 1-5 days total?

    Of course, I think you don't need permission from our gov't at all to carry whatever way you want; so my opinions above are likely the normal person point of view.

  20. #120
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    I've explained it, you've had a mod explain it. Now, hear it directly from the horse's mouth.


    This is directly from jpierce one of the administrators here:
    "THAT LEO is a jerk" would be acceptable. The statement "LEOs are jerks" is not. Easy enough?
    That's easy enough, thanks. But it does put posters into a situation where legal liability risk would be present (slander/libel) when identifying a specific individual ... this liability would go away if one could post "town usa cops are all idiots" v. "town usa cop mr. smith is an idiot".

    I am careful NOT to name specific individuals in postings (unless the facts are undisputed as writing a truthful statement is a total defense to slander/libel--but this is rare) that may have any construction as being negative in nature. Certain public officials excepted of course.

    The rule(s) can be read several ways ... English is a complicated language..

    If the moderators wish not to allow generalizations of policemen but want people to specify specific policemen in their posts then many people may simply not be willing to post ~ to avoid liability issues.

    And people who generalize policemen in their thoughts are free to do so; it does not make them "gun nuts"...now who is generalizing? See...its hard to follow such restrictive rules. I don't even like the term "nuts" for people who have actual mental heath issues.

    I can live with the rule. Thanks for the clarification.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-28-2012 at 10:55 PM. Reason: still being lazy - sorry OP

  21. #121
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    I will be at, and probably testifying during, Mr. Norman's hearings on his motions to dismiss on Tuesday 7/31/12.
    Good and thank you. Hopefully this will get promptly dismissed and Mr. Norman can get on with his life without such intrusions in the future.

  22. #122
    Super Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    28,492
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    --snip--

    So clarification is needed as to avoid violating the rules....
    A think that question has been answered sufficiently and the thread hijacked equally as well. See nothing complicated within the forum rules - the intent should not be that difficult to honor.

    My next option will be to edit/delete posts that have taken this thread off track. Further sanctions could be imposed.
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  23. #123
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    carolina guy, the short answer IMHO is that the Constitution does not apply at all. The Constitution only lists the powers granted to the Federal government by the States, and in the case of the bill of rights they explicitly spell out what they can NOT do. So again IMHO - ALL, every single, federal gun law is unconstitutional by virtue of what the 2nd amendment says. ("Shall not be infringed") The Constitution passes the buck onto the States, and the people to handle the gun issue.

    But even the States should not be infringing upon inalienable rights such as a mans right to self defense. I mean does it make sense to say the feds can not infringe upon the right to bear arms because it is an inalienable right, but it is OK for the States to do so?

    If arms are meant to protect us from tyrannical government it also follows that no government should have any business interfering with arms. There is a huge conflict of interest here and one that will always end badly. Government is supposed to only be interested in protecting our rights not regulating inanimate objects, which are also a property right. So yes ALL state laws should be struck down (by we the people) as they violate your inalienable right to property, and also to self defense.

    Locke. Paine, and the founders believed that all men had all rights as a virtue of their birth. Governments will always get out of control when the electorate does not hold their feet to the fire. 99% of what governments do (fed, state and local) violate Inalienable Rights. And they do it because of a dumbed down and apathetic electorate.
    It's a slippery slope that we let happen. Look what happened to our right to travel! Now it is openly called a permission. Or our right to work (now licensed) or our right to build a home. (Building codes now take that away.)


    "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." ~ Ex slave -Frederic Douglass
    Well...since we now know that the 2A applies fully to the states as an individual right and is a restriction on the Fed AND the States...I still have to ask why the people of Florida are tolerating the requirement to purchase a permit to be able to carry a firearm???? Why isn't this being taken up by one of the various carry legal defense funds?
    "You cannot REASON someone out of a position that they did not REASON themselves into." --Unkown
    ---------
    If you are going to be stupid, you better be tough!

    --------
    "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Samuel Clemens
    ---------
    "A right delayed is a right denied." -- MLK Jr.
    ---------
    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

  24. #124
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,349
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    Anyway, back on to topic. I will be at, and probably testifying during, Mr. Norman's hearings on his motions to dismiss on Tuesday 7/31/12.
    That would be great if he could get it dismissed; helps the OC cause more. The average Amerikan (sic) (and legislator) assumes a conviction means the guy was asking for it anyway; and that the state was looking out for us. And, after all, he's a non-white carrying a (gasp!) gun. If it's dismissed then the poor guy is added to the list of CCers being harassed and maybe the law really sucks.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  25. #125
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,863
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    That would be great if he could get it dismissed; helps the OC cause more. .
    I would like to read the motion to dismiss pleadings .. anyone has a link?

    The link the OP gave does not link to pleadings (that I could see anyway).

    Thx

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •