Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: veteran arrested and Charged for Legal Open Carry....

  1. #1
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690

    veteran arrested and Charged for Legal Open Carry....

    A decorated Air Force veteran pleaded not guilty this morning to a charge of “trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm,” after being arrested by police in Vancouver, Washington, for legally open carrying an AR-15 rifle.

    Excerpt ... Read more at

    http://www.examiner.com/article/vete...carrying-ar-15

    COMMENTS EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR: It is copyright infringement to paste entire article.
    Last edited by John Pierce; 07-05-2013 at 04:24 PM.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Why are Constitutional law attorney's not signing on to defend this man?

    If fees are the issue, I would think 35% of the settlement plus fees from the Defendants would suffice.

    USCA 42 section 1983.

    File against the state, the city, the PD and the individual morons for deprivation of rights.

    Posting these issues are great, however, follow up with positive results are much greater.

    The tyrants and those that support the tyrants must be held accountable.

    My .02

    CCJ

  3. #3
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    There is a difference in the courts this goes before. I would think that a lawyer would, but then, I've dealt with lawyers before and been far from impressed.

    I have said this before and I will keep saying this each and every time something like this comes up- What's the point of the guy open carrying under the Second Amendment when he's gonna lay down [...] at the first sign of trouble? You're packing the gun for a reason. It's not there to plant flowers for Auntie Sue. It's not there so you can exchange recipes. And it's not there for having tea and crumpets with your grandmother.

    You open carry for what reason? Because it's your "right"? Oh please. You open carry for your protection and self defense. To protect you from the criminal element which includes government agents or agencies that knowingly and intentionally infringe on your rights as an American.

    If some schmuck has a fit over you painting the Second Amendment on the side of your bus, too bad. Give him his baba and binkie. Freedom of Speech.

    But when a cop does not like that paint job on your bus and has a fit over it, well, John Bad Elk had a case on just that. John Bad Elk shot and killed a cop that was harassing him over a non-criminal issue, IIRC. The cop was outside his authority. Is that the answer? Uh, compared to what the cops are doing now?


    And in this case/thread, the man is carrying the AR for what reason? Because it looks chic? Makes him look like a "real man"? Supposed to give the impression of "don't mess with me or else"? Well, guess what happened? The coppers called him on it. You don't pack a firearm "just because", and you don't bluff with a gun. Someone will call your bluff. And it looks like the cops done called him on his. His loss. "Highly decorated" vet? Ok. He's got a chest full of medals. Doesn't look like a lot of anything to me. If he is setting the cops up for a lawsuit, it's a bad gamble. The court will find out if it was a set-up, and if it was odds are he'll lose his gun. Open carrying a firearm with the intent to provoke others is a very very bad idea. Courts frown on that.

    AFAIC if you ain't got the balls to use it, you ain't got no business open carrying it. I have said it before, open carry is an open invitation to anyone that wants to start a fight. And right now the folks starting the fights are those that should be protecting those same rights. Well, they ain't, are they?

    COMMENTS EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Removed vulgarity.
    Last edited by John Pierce; 07-05-2013 at 04:22 PM.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    There is a difference in the courts this goes before. I would think that a lawyer would, but then, I've dealt with lawyers before and been far from impressed.

    I have said this before and I will keep saying this each and every time something like this comes up- What's the point of the guy open carrying under the Second Amendment when he's gonna lay down and suck dick at the first sign of trouble? You're packing the gun for a reason. It's not there to plant flowers for Auntie Sue. It's not there so you can exchange recipes. And it's not there for having tea and crumpets with your grandmother.

    You open carry for what reason? Because it's your "right"? Oh please. You open carry for your protection and self defense. To protect you from the criminal element which includes government agents or agencies that knowingly and intentionally infringe on your rights as an American.

    If some schmuck has a fit over you painting the Second Amendment on the side of your bus, too bad. Give him his baba and binkie. Freedom of Speech.
    But when a cop does not like that paint job on your bus and has a fit over it, well, John Bad Elk had a case on just that. John Bad Elk shot and killed a cop that was harassing him over a non-criminal issue, IIRC. The cop was outside his authority. Is that the answer? Uh, compared to what the cops are doing now?


    And in this case/thread, the man is carrying the AR for what reason? Because it looks chic? Makes him look like a "real man"? Supposed to give the impression of "don't mess with me or else"? Well, guess what happened? The coppers called him on it. You don't pack a firearm "just because", and you don't bluff with a gun. Someone will call your bluff. And it looks like the cops done called him on his. His loss. "Highly decorated" vet? Ok. He's got a chest full of medals. Doesn't look like a lot of anything to me. If he is setting the cops up for a lawsuit, it's a bad gamble. The court will find out if it was a set-up, and if it was odds are he'll lose his gun. Open carrying a firearm with the intent to provoke others is a very very bad idea. Courts frown on that.

    AFAIC if you ain't got the balls to use it, you ain't got no business open carrying it. I have said it before, open carry is an open invitation to anyone that wants to start a fight. And right now the folks starting the fights are those that should be protecting those same rights. Well, they ain't, are they?
    Good post, however, are you suggesting that a citizen that is simply exercising his/her 2A right is doing so simply to file a lawsuit against the tyrants that violate his/her 2A?

    The coppers( Your term) are the bluffers in this case. Coppers stated citizen was not under arrest and was free to leave. The citizen then retrived his personal belongings and tried to walk to his vehicle. Coppers then proceeded to deceive the citizen with unruly commands.Then proceeded to violate the citizen for four hours at the so called copper house. Can you say USCA 42 section 1983 violation for deprivation of rights? I suggest you research USCA 42 section 1983, I will research John Bad Elk, after which we will continue our debate.

    A scenario for you. You pull your vehicle into a hotel parking area and park your car and walk towards the hotel lobby suit case in hand. A couple coppers stop you and and grab your suit case and throw the contents of the suitcase on the hotel lawn, after they coppers determine you have nothing illegal in your suitcase they tell you be on your way. You are visible shaking and head towards the hotel front doors. Ones inside the hotel, you are again confronted by more coppers, however this time, you are tossed and tackled to the ground and handcuffed and arrested for trespassing and carrying an over sized suitcase.
    You are transported to the copper headquarters and you are denied a phone call, a drink of water and you can't go to the bathroom. Okay tough guy, what do you do now?

    I am off to read about John Bad Elk, I love that name.

    Brest regards.

    CCJ

  5. #5
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Good post, however, are you suggesting that a citizen that is simply exercising his/her 2A right is doing so simply to file a lawsuit against the tyrants that violate his/her 2A?
    No. But I know a few people that open carry for that reason (according to conversations with them).

    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    The coppers( Your term) are the bluffers in this case. Coppers stated citizen was not under arrest and was free to leave. The citizen then retrived his personal belongings and tried to walk to his vehicle. Coppers then proceeded to deceive the citizen with unruly commands.Then proceeded to violate the citizen for four hours at the so called copper house. Can you say USCA 42 section 1983 violation for deprivation of rights? I suggest you research USCA 42 section 1983, I will research John Bad Elk, after which we will continue our debate.
    You appear to be offended by my reference to law enforcement as “coppers. What do you prefer? I can’t call them “law enforcement” because they really aren’t enforcing anything.

    Anyhow, I don’t think they are bluffing. Bluffing goes only so far. They are calling the bluff instead. Essentially the same thing as them saying “Are you serious about this?” and literally “I don’t care what you think you have for rights. I get my paycheck. I go home after 8 hours. You and your rights mean nothing to me.”. And yes I have been told that literally.

    We are supposedly only obligated to obey lawful orders. I have to question that. IIRC involuntary servitude was made unlawful, and that copper ain’t my master. There are reasonable requests, of course. Like at an accident scene. As for at the parking lot, no those are not lawful orders. But at that point he obeyed their unlawful orders as it was, and I don’t see this as choosing which unlawful order to disobey. It’s all or none. IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    A scenario for you. You pull your vehicle into a hotel parking area and park your car and walk towards the hotel lobby suit case in hand. A couple coppers stop you and and grab your suit case and throw the contents of the suitcase on the hotel lawn, after they coppers determine you have nothing illegal in your suitcase they tell you be on your way. You are visible shaking and head towards the hotel front doors. Ones inside the hotel, you are again confronted by more coppers, however this time, you are tossed and tackled to the ground and handcuffed and arrested for trespassing and carrying an over sized suitcase.

    You are transported to the copper headquarters and you are denied a phone call, a drink of water and you can't go to the bathroom. Okay tough guy, what do you do now?
    Hmmm. Boy, I dunno.

    • In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

    • In Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

    • "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
    Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    • "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
    Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


    Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
    Byars v. US, 273 US 28


    5th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
    Boyd v. US, 116 US 616


    State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.
    Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035;
    Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032;
    Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.)


    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.


    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.


    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).


    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).


    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).


    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.


    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
    Last edited by Logan 5; 07-05-2013 at 04:43 AM.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Hi Logan5.

    I am familiar with all the case law you posted.

    AS for the term copper, I have no problem with the term. The term was use many times by legendary actor and tough guy James Cagney while depicting a roaring twenties gangster. Circa 1939/1940

    Best regards

    CCJ

Posting Permissions

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