Hopkinsville Chief denied citizen to bear arms in police station

chief lied to wkdz.com

gutshot said:

Thank you for that clarification. That makes everything different. You have made a great contribution to this thread.

Click to expand...

i love how the chief's used of the word something, i could see something on his hip this is what he told wkds.com
http://wkdzradio.com/pages/15721231.php?contentType=4&contentId=12548065

gutshot said:

100% Correct. I don't Care if they comply or not. Actually, I'd prefer they didn't. Then we could sue them over and over.

Click to expand...

This is very short sighted Gutshot and I don't believe you actually feel this way. We want to file suit against government officials only to force their compliance with the law so that everyone is more free, not to profit in the short term.

09jisaac said:

This is very short sighted Gutshot and I don't believe you actually feel this way. We want to file suit against government officials only to force their compliance with the law so that everyone is more free, not to profit in the short term.

Click to expand...

Couldn't it be both? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

gutshot said:

I do feel that way, exactly that way. I don't think it is the slightest bit short sighted. I don't know how you think I could "profit in the short term". My only reason to sue them is to force compliance, but do it in a way that will assure their continued and permanent compliance. A lawsuit is the only thing that does that and guarantees compliance in the long term. Just getting them to agree to it doesn't work. They soon forget, they feel it politically better for them to go back to their old ways or a new administration takes over. I want this fixed for good.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%!

If you got your wish Gutshot, one person would lose his/her right for self defense one time (at least) per suit.

You would want someone to lose a right temporarily often just to make sure the person taking the right learns a lesson this time, but not the next?

The lawyer taking the case would be the one profiting on the short term, I didn't say you. It would only be a short term advancement though as the government wouldn't be footing the bill but it would be us, the citizens.

One post states that you don't want them to comply, the next says you want to force them to comply. You cannot have both, if you force compliance, they are complying.

09jisaac said:

If you got your wish Gutshot, one person would lose his/her right for self defense one time (at least) per suit.

You would want someone to lose a right temporarily often just to make sure the person taking the right learns a lesson this time, but not the next?

The lawyer taking the case would be the one profiting on the short term, I didn't say you. It would only be a short term advancement though as the government wouldn't be footing the bill but it would be us, the citizens.

One post states that you don't want them to comply, the next says you want to force them to comply. You cannot have both, if you force compliance, they are complying.

Click to expand...

He doesn't want them to comply by their own free-will because he wants to sue them. By suing them, he is FORCING them to comply through the courts. Once the courts grant an injunction, they can NEVER again bring about their illegal ordinance or signage. If they comply on their own, then after awhile they may think it is okay to bring back their ordinance or sign, and since there would be NO court order demanding them to remove their ordinance or signage, nothing would stop them from doing so. It is BEST to get them to comply through the courts, because after that they can never institute any type of infringement again.

If someone was arrested for exercising a right that is protected by 65.870, then they have ONE HELL OF A CASE. They would NOT lose their rights, and they would protect everyone in the future who decides to exercise theirs.

KYGlockster said:

...If they comply on their own, then after awhile they may think it is okay to bring back their ordinance or sign, and since there would be NO court order demanding them to remove their ordinance or signage, nothing would stop them from doing so. It is BEST to get them to comply through the courts, because after that they can never institute any type of infringement again...

Click to expand...

As you say, Gutshot's thinking is exactly right.

And, if one pays attention/is involved in civil rights activism of any kind (e.g. firearm rights activism) one will see this sort of "slippage" happen over and over again.

SHOTGUN285 said:

--Deleted quote -- see above

Click to expand...

so your first post to OCDO is to visit Three yo thread and degrade another member w/o any type of cite or explaination?

this should be well received...

ipse

solus said:

so your first post to OCDO is to visit Three yo thread and degrade another member w/o any type of cite or explaination?

this should be well received...

ipse

Click to expand...

No doubt... I tried to post a funny Necro Thread Meme but failed... The internets hates me LOL!

Everybody better keep an eye on solus. solus is known to say things on this forum. Don't tell me that I didn't warn you all.......

SHOTGUN285 said:

Do some research on this guy, he is a world class **** with numerous run ins with authority. This is NOT the guy you want to be the poster child in your struggle for gun rights.

Click to expand...

You forgot to put "authority" in quotation marks.

SHOTGUN285 said:

Do some research on this guy, he is a world class **** with numerous run ins with authority. This is NOT the guy you want to be the poster child in your struggle for gun rights.

Click to expand...

What's your badge number? :question:

Interestingly enough, the officer, after later in the video claiming the fellow's gun was "concealed", at the beginning of the tape he mentions the gun!

it's alive...the thread is alive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuoKNZjr8_U

whose brain did i put in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q

ipse