• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Article I $ 21 Defense Fund for Greg Rotz's appeal of his Orwellian LTCF revocation

skip

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
7
Location
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

After reading this in the paper today I have thought and thought about this and me carring my gun. Point is you never know where you can and can't carry your gun. Instead of just saying no they would rather give you some B.S. story and then try to make you pay later in the future. I honestly think the law should be that they have signs that say no guns or something like that then just having somebody say its a bad idea.
 

chesire17201

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
92
Location
Chambersburg,Pa, ,
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
I don't know if this is distasteful or a good idea, so I'll post it anyway.

Since the hearing is going to be Jan 8th, and since some of us would like to get out there to support Mr. Rotz, and since Chambersburg is in a fairly central location, would it perhaps be a good idea to combine this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/6405.html OC dinner with a show of support at the hearing? We could keep the courthouse's gun check busy, and maybe bring some media attention to both the case and the OC cause... not to mention send a clear message to the local law enforcement about what the law is that they are supporting.

Just an idea...
Awesome idea, IMO.
It's a long drive for me, I'll want some food in the boiler before my return trip ;)
And I too plan on OC'in to/fro the courthouse. Hope they have lot's 'o lockboxes.


Oh, I am so all over this idea, and the best thing is the Elks is right across the street, and it's where all the court employee's, attorney's, etc, etc go for lunch, and during lunch it's open to the public...............
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

skip wrote:
After reading this in the paper today I have thought and thought about this and me carring my gun. Point is you never know where you can and can't carry your gun. Instead of just saying no they would rather give you some B.S. story and then try to make you pay later in the future. I honestly think the law should be that they have signs that say no guns or something like that then just having somebody say its a bad idea.
The only places you can't legally carry are courthouses (per Title 18 Section 913, PA consolidated statutes) and some federal lands (per the federal government). Even K-12 schools are allowed for carry as long as your self-defense is a "lawful purpose", although this has yet to be absolutely confirmed through a test case.

Any place else can post "no guns" signs 'til they're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it law. The only way that you can be charged with a crime in PA for carrying in an area where guns are not preferred is if you are asked to leave the property and you refuse... then you'd be charged with trespassing.

There's a big difference in PA between what people think the gun laws are and what they actually are. What is happening to Mr. Rotz is (hopefully) a legal hiccup, that will be swiftly corrected. The law is unequivocally on his side, and what the sheriff is doing to him is akin to an anti-gun "L"EO arresting you for brandishing a firearm because you're loading a rifle into your car's trunk in your driveway... even though it's your property and there's no PA law regarding "brandishing".
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Chambersburg Pulc Opinion article appears to have been updated:

--

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_7706118


Man who took gun to polling place will have day in court

A Chambersburg man who went to the polls on Election Day while wearing a handgun has appealed the revocation of his permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Gregory R. Rotz of 1508 Guilford Station Road is to have his day in Franklin County Court on Jan. 8.

"I think the whole sequence of events is unnecessary," Rotz said. "I'm only looking forward to (my day in court) in the respect that it's the only means I have to right a wrong."

Rotz walked up to the New Franklin voting precinct on Nov. 6 wearing his gun in a side holster, according to Franklin County Sheriff Robert Wollyung. A constable cautioned him not to be armed around the polling place.
"He was cautioned it was best to leave (the gun) outside," Wollyung said. "Instead of taking the easy way out, he has to take the arrogant stand."
"My actions were within the law," Rotz said. "I carry my firearm every day. I believe first and foremost it's my responsibility to protect myself and my family."

Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of the online discussion forum OpenCarry.org, today called for a criminal probe into an "apparent conspiracy" between Wollyung and the constable to deny Rotz's "voting and gun rights."
Discussions on OpenCarry.org focus on the open carrying of guns. The forum's motto is "a right unexercised is a right lost." The 3-year-old group has more than 3,500 members, an estimated 200 from Pennsylvania.
Members donated money for Rotz's legal fees, according to Stollenwerk.
"Let's hope Sheriff Wollyung has plenty of gun lockers ready on Jan. 8 at the Chambersburg courthouse," Stollenwerk said. "Pennsylvania gun owners are very interested in Rotz's case and some may decide to drop by to sit in on Rotz's hearing."

Sheriff's Department employees check courthouse visitors at a metal detector. Guns are not permitted in the courthouse.
Franklin County President Judge John R. Walker is scheduled to hear the case at 2 p.m. Jan. 8 in Courtroom One.

The case "may speak as to how broad the sheriff's discretion is," Rotz said. "I did not break a law. I have not been charged with any crime."
"I'm sure the court is going to agree with him," Wollyung said.

Wollyung notified Rotz in a letter dated Nov. 7 that Rotz was required to surrender his license to carry a firearm, according to court documents.
Wollyung referred to a section of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code: A license shall not be issued to, or be held by, a person "whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."
The right to carry a firearm is not the right to annoy, harass, intimidate or alarm others, Wollyung said.

"I personally believe he violated the spirit of the law, if not the law itself," Wollyung said.
Rotz denies he did anything to call into question his character or reputation or to demonstrate he would endanger public safety, according to a court petition filed Nov. 21 by Steve Rice, a Gettysburg attorney representing Rotz.
Wollyung failed to adequately investigate the incident and abused his discretion in revoking Rotz's license, according to Rice.
In Pennsylvania, the county sheriff's office issues permits to carry concealed weapons. Nearly 8,000 people in Franklin County have the five-year permit, according to Wollyung. His office issues almost 2,000 a year. The permit fee is $30.
When a person applies for a permit, his office has 45 days in which to conduct an investigation, including a check of criminal, military and mental health data bases.
The incident at the polling place is a matter of common sense, according to Wollyung, who was preparing his official response Wednesday to Rotz's petition.
"You can't treat your privilege of being able to carry a firearm as a bully threat," Wollyung said. "There are some places you don't carry a firearm -- bars and churches. It's common sense. Would I walk into a bank with a gun showing? I don't think so. I wouldn't walk into a big crowd with a gun showing, if I wasn't a police officer."

Federal law prohibits carrying a gun into a post office.
Pennsylvania law allows a person to carry a handgun in the open, but once the person carrying the gun gets into a vehicle, the gun is considered a concealed weapon, Wollyung said. A permit is then required.
State law prohibits constables and other law enforcement officers from wearing weapons at polling places during an election.
The constable at New Franklin, whom Wollyung declined to identify, was aware of the law, Wollyung said.
The constable asked other authorities whether Rotz could carry a weapon, according to Wollyung and Rotz. Rotz declined the constable's suggestion to leave his gun in his vehicle. Rotz voted wearing his side arm.
"I think the election board was aware of what was going on and was concerned," Wollyung said.
The three members of the county election board did not return telephone calls on Wednesday.

Wollyung said he heard about the incident election night as election officials delivered ballots to the county Administrative Annex on North Second Street.
He suggested that the election board post signs at polling places on Election Day prohibiting entry to people wearing firearms.
Rotz said that would present another problem: Pennsylvania law precludes any municipality from enacting laws regarding the use and carrying of firearms.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
Would love to be there to sit in and show my support for Mr. Rotz, too bad its so far away...:?
Oh, it's only... two states away... Unfortunately I don't have very many Marriott rewards points left, or else I'd donate some to out-of-south-central-PA-ers.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
openryan wrote:
Would love to be there to sit in and show my support for Mr. Rotz, too bad its so far away...:?
Oh, it's only... two states away... Unfortunately I don't have very many Marriott rewards points left, or else I'd donate some to out-of-south-central-PA-ers.
Yeah, I just used all the Choice Hotels points I had left, last weekend. Nonetheless the drive is so long... I've never been to PA though.

Are you going?
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

gnbrotz wrote:
There is a new thread at PAFOA tallying a head count, carpool options and plans for meeting up before and after the hearing. Anyone considering making the trip to Chambersburg may want to check it out.

Link to thread.
I'll have a definate answer tomorrow when I request the following Tuesday off (they don't like making advance schedules in my office).

Unfortunately, I'm not a PAFOA member, though maybe I'll make an account later so I can post on that thread.

Just out of curiousity, how big are the lockboxes at the courthouse? My carry piece is a bit, ahem, larger than a standard handgun, but it fits in my locking glovebox, so I could always use that as a backup plan. It just would be useful to plan ahead of time...
 

gnbrotz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
247
Location
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

If you don't need or want to arrange ride-sharing, etc via PM or post, I can PM the thread owner myself and have your name added to the 'official list' if you wish.

Not sure how big the boxes are. Give the Franklin County Sheriff's Office a call and ask! ;)

[font="Verdana,Arial,Geneva"][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"](717)261-3877[/font][/font]
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

gnbrotz wrote:
If you don't need or want to arrange ride-sharing, etc via PM or post, I can PM the thread owner myself and have your name added to the 'official list' if you wish.

Not sure how big the boxes are. Give the Franklin County Sheriff's Office a call and ask! ;)

[font="Verdana,Arial,Geneva"][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"](717)261-3877[/font][/font]
I'm good to go.

I'm coming from Lehigh county, and I'll have at least two open seats. I have a nice big (albeit 13-year-old) sedan, so having enough space shouldn't be an issue.
 

gnbrotz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
247
Location
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Finally got my copy of the Sheriff's formal response to my appeal. I intend to scan and make available for review all documents related to my appeal, but for now, here are the points which seem to be in disagreement:

Petition
9. The notice of revocation fails to state the specific reason for the revocation:

a. It contains a conclusion of use of a gun in an illegal manner, which was "apparent"; but does not provide notice of the "manner" supporting such conclusion or how such "manner" was in violation of the law;

b. It merely indicates that the license was being taken pursuant to section 6109(e)(1)(i)
Response
9. Denied in part. The License to Carry was revoked by the Sheriff under Section 6109(e)(1)(i) which states in part "A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit."...The revocation was made pursuant to 6109(e)(1)(i) in that the individual ignored a caution given by a Constable at the New Franklin Polling Place for elections on November 6, 2007 when he entered that place with an obvious firearm carried on his belt that was not completely hidden by his coat. The Appellant's actions were an alarm to others present at a voting precinct and thereby became evidence of a deficiency of character. The subsequent notice made to the Appelant gave the notice required by law of the reason for the revocation, ie: Section 6109(e)(1)(i).

Petition
11. Petitioner denies that he has used a gun in an illegal manner, as alleged; or that he has done anything to call into question his character or reputation, or to demonstrate that he would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety, as required under section 6109(e)(1)(i)
Response
11. Denied. Appelant's action as described above constituted a violation of the law in that he..."with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person...engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose...(Section 2709(a)(3) Harrassment. The Apellant also could be considered to have violated Section 5503 (Disorderly Conduct) in that he engaged in action that..."created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose..."

Petition
13. Respondent failed to adequately investigate the basis for the revocation.
Response
13. Denied

Petition
14. Respondent abused his discretion in revoking such license.
Response
14. Denied

Petition
15. For above reasons and/or facts, Petitioner appeals Respondents revocation decision and petitions the Court:
a. For review of the revocation of his license to carry firearms;
b. To schedule a de novo hearing and argument on this matter;
Response
15. Wherefore, the respondent respectfully requests the Court to uphold the action of the Sheriff in that the Apellant did display poor judgement in carrying a firearm into a Polling Place which caused alarm, at a minimum, to the Constable and members of the election team at that location.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

:cuss:

I notice he omits to assign responsibility to the correct people for theirattitude that guns are scary.

How did they come to this attitude? Too much Oprah?

Sorry, anybody scared by a holstered gun is responsible for his own emotions. The gun doesn't emit fear waves. That person accepted the garbage he was fed over the years about guns without inspecting the full story. His problem, not Rotz's.
 
Top