Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: The Scranton Times-Tribune Attacks both open carry and "The Dickson Dozen"

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...2126&rfi=6

    We ALL need to make persuasive, professional comments on this story followed by letters to the editor.

    Let's roll!



  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The opinion write's weakest logical point is to imply that open carry is in a gray area - that we need a law to say it's OK to OC. Under that logic, one would need a law authorizing walking your dog.

    The 2d weakest link is to underplay brute force tactics by police for lawful conduct - not how the writer omits to mention the arrest threat agsint an unarmed woman filming the incident.

    I guess the First Amendment can take a break too as long as guns are involved.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    There are no laws permitting us to inhale and exhale either- where can I get a license to breath?????

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    MODERATOR ALERT

    Duplicates posting with "Another Idiot Spouts Off"

    MERGE/DELETE AS APPROPRIATE

  5. #5
    Regular Member lprgcFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    My post...

    As someone who open carries, I strongly disagree with your 'wild west' assertions. The vast majority of people either do not notice or do not care. I've had dozens of encounters with law enforcement officers and have always been treated professionally and respectfully - never like the abhorrent actions of the Dickinson PD. I use open carry as an opportunity to educate people by demonstrating that firearms are not the issue - criminal behavior is. Reasonable people can go about their business with an openly carried firearm. Openly carrying a firearm is a statement that I am responsible for my life and liberty. Sentiments that our great state and country were founded on.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I sent the email below. I spend most of my time on thehighroad but follow your forum with interest. Good luck!

    "Chris,

    I'm writing in response to your article about the "gunfight at the O.C. Buffet."

    I am a gun owner and have never openly carried. It's just not something I wish to do and honestly I would prefer to carry concealed. Having said that, I do follow opencarry.org's encounters with interest and strongly support their right to carry their firearms openly. After all, it is only a small step from infringing on their rights to infringing on my own.

    The Dickson City incident was an infringement on rights. The patrons were breaking no law. Why should they have been detained and questioned? Whether or not you agree with open carry is irrelevant. The police were wrong and their actions should be viewed by all citizens as disturbing.

    Thanks for your time.

    Superpsy"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    lprgcFrank wrote:
    My post...

    As someone who open carries, I strongly disagree with your 'wild west' assertions. The vast majority of people either do not notice or do not care. I've had dozens of encounters with law enforcement officers and have always been treated professionally and respectfully - never like the abhorrent actions of the Dickinson PD. I use open carry as an opportunity to educate people by demonstrating that firearms are not the issue - criminal behavior is. Reasonable people can go about their business with an openly carried firearm. Openly carrying a firearm is a statement that I am responsible for my life and liberty. Sentiments that our great state and country were founded on.

    I agree, I've only recently began to Open Carry instead of Concealed Carry. Mostly since meeting a few others who do at the PA Open Carry Dinners / Lunches. As a legal gun owner I have nothing to fear from Open Carry except for the ignorance of others, education is the key.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Any particular reason why we can't post comments over there?

    User Authentication Failed the correct answer was not received.

    Posting what I attempted to post, in response to Joseph from Dania Beach, FL

    A little clarification from Harrisburg would be appreciated on this matter. In the meantime, do you think you could just carry it WELL CONCEALED as to not cause alarm to a public that is not accustomed to this type of open display?
    Joseph, Dania Beach FLA


    There's no clarification to make. Laws as a general rule do not give someone permission to do something unless there's a general prohibition and you do something/possess something that exempts. Concealed carry on your person, and carrying a pistol in your car unless you're doing some sort of specific trip, is unlawful unless you fall into one of the exceptions. A possession of a PA License to Carry Firearms exempts you from these prohibitions. Ergo, if something is not unlawful, it is lawful to engage in. Under what the editorial suggests, you walking your dog should be unlawful unless the Commonwealth gives you permission to do so by law. That's not the way American jurisprudence works.

    As for "can't you just carry it well concealed" comment. From one former Floridian of 13 years to another current resident Florida, what your suggesting is a "chicken and the egg" scenario. Your "members of the public" will NEVER be used to seeing it unless people start doing it anyway. Since you live in Florida, you're in one of the six states that completely ban open carry entirely, so it's elementary for you. Go north of the border into Georgia, and you'd be in a state which makes it legal to carry openly or concealed with license. Alabama's the same way too, and so's Louisiana.

    "Bearing" arms is not concealed carry, it is open carry. From the US Supreme Court decision of Robertson v. Baldwin: ""...the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;...."".

    Thus is the reason why open carry is lawful without license in a lot of states, whereas the only states that allow concealed without license is Alaska and Vermont.

    Pennsylvania's constitution is stronger on this subject:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. A1 S21.

    Questioned by government, anyway. Reporters and other regular citizens can question it all they want.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...2126&rfi=6

    We ALL need to make persuasive, professional comments on this story followed by letters to the editor.

    Let's roll!

    For what it's worth, I find using the language and logic of liberals (as most gun grabbers are left of center politically on most issues) against them to be very powerful.

    For example, why should law abiding gun owners be force to "stay in the closet" or "ride at the back of the bus" simply because of the "phobias and bigotries" of others. Subtly (or explicitly) invoking images of gay rights parades (or even the civil rights movement) puts things into terms that are more difficult for the typical liberal gun grabber to attack.

    It is also interesting to note how 5, 10, 15 years ago CONCEALED carry was being attacked as somehow nefarious when the hoplophobes were trying to prevent passage of shall issue laws for issuance of concealed weapons permits. Now, in many cases, the very persons and institutions that so recently opined AGAINST concealed carry are now demanding that we hide our self defense so as not to offend sensibilities. One wonders how they reacted a generation ago when certain persons suggested that large black men ought not share classrooms with lovely young white maidens.

    Not only does pointing these things out and using the language of the left make it more difficult for them to attack us, but it also makes clear to the anti-OC members of the RKBA community that OC provides a bulwark against infringement of CC and other rights, just as Class III and 50 cal and CC provide a bulwark against having Deer and Duck guns seized. We can hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Left a comment too.

    TJ

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    For what it's worth, I find using the language and logic of liberals (as most gun grabbers are left of center politically on most issues) against them to be very powerful.

    For example, why should law abiding gun owners be force to "stay in the closet" or "ride at the back of the bus" simply because of the "phobias and bigotries" of others. Subtly (or explicitly) invoking images of gay rights parades (or even the civil rights movement) puts things into terms that are more difficult for the typical liberal gun grabber to attack.

    It is also interesting to note how 5, 10, 15 years ago CONCEALED carry was being attacked as somehow nefarious when the hoplophobes were trying to prevent passage of shall issue laws for issuance of concealed weapons permits. Now, in many cases, the very persons and institutions that so recently opined AGAINST concealed carry are now demanding that we hide our self defense so as not to offend sensibilities. One wonders how they reacted a generation ago when certain persons suggested that large black men ought not share classrooms with lovely young white maidens.

    Not only does pointing these things out and using the language of the left make it more difficult for them to attack us, but it also makes clear to the anti-OC members of the RKBA community that OC provides a bulwark against infringement of CC and other rights, just as Class III and 50 cal and CC provide a bulwark against having Deer and Duck guns seized. We can hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

    Charles
    *nods* This is also one of the reasons why members of this community who are the typical "left of center" are the best arguers for our cause. When you send someone into the lions den, to argue in debate with an anti-gunner, you don't send the flannel clad (no offense to those who wear it) conservative, you send someone like me in there. Hard to argue against another liberal who won't back down from the bulwark, as much as many of them argue 4th amendment and 5th amendment personal rights as strongly.

    I once had a debate/argument with a gun owner who moved up here to Washington from California. *cue eye roll Unfortunately, he's not as "pro-gun" as I am, and suggested a handgun licensing scheme to require a license possessed in order to transfer handguns, buy them, and even possess (with fees, mind you).

    I told him three things.

    1) California does not require a license to possess anyway, so your idea is beyond your former state's requirement.

    2) A carbon copy of this proposal was put on the ballot back in 1997 and voted down by a 71 percent no vote (with subsequent news blackout). My understanding is that there was already a lawsuit waiting to be filed against it the minute it was declared a win, but luckily it didn't get that far.

    3) He would do best to remember that Washington has a state constitution that states "The right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired". California has no provision in it's state constitution. If he wants to be more in tune with the populace, stay out of the gun control business entirely, as it's easy for an ex-Californian to suggest it. I basically told him to stick to some of his other ideas, such as allowing private sales of hard liquor outside of the state owned stores.

    The anti-OC people of the RKBA community generally make me violently ill. They slit their own throats and don't even realize it. I've seen a huge amount of that in Washington due the 270 effect here, and we've finally turned the tide.

    It is open carriers, not concealed carriers, who find out first about localities and authorities that violate state preemption statutes with impunity, while concealed carriers just carry concealed and never take even a token effort.

    Typically (I don't mean all of them), the concealed carry only crowd will token contact the parks department or the city/county and ask them about the law. They'll get the response back saying "Ok, we know it's invalid, just carry concealed and no one will know anyway". That's not good enough.

    In terms of sounding the alarm over harassment, intimidation, and threatening by "opinion enforcement officers", we are the bigger canaries in the coal mine in terms of gauging the respect of the officers towards civil liberties of law abiding citizens, because we, as a group, want to do something that can commonly do without a question.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    I wanted to stangle my monitor after reading that. For a CCW holder he sure is anti-gun.
    AD1(AW) USN (ACT) 12/07/1997-10/02/2011
    TSgt USAFR 10/03/2011-?
    Owner-Bullbuster Taxidermy
    Kids who hunt and fish, don't steal and deal

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    The opinion write's weakest logical point is to imply that open carry is in a gray area - that we need a law to say it's OK to OC. Under that logic, one would need a law authorizing walking your dog.
    Yes,

    Is there a law that allows you to breathe air? How about a law that allows you to drink water? Is there a specific law that gives you authority to sit in a chair? To write using blue ink instead of black ink?

    To say that because there is no law authorizing something it is a gray area is to invite the police state, and bureacratic tyranny on an unprecedented scale.



  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    jpierce wrote: For what it's worth, I find using the language and logic of liberals (as most gun grabbers are left of center politically on most issues) against them to be very powerful.

    For example, why should law abiding gun owners be force to "stay in the closet" or "ride at the back of the bus" simply because of the "phobias and bigotries" of others. Subtly (or explicitly) invoking images of gay rights parades (or even the civil rights movement) puts things into terms that are more difficult for the typical liberal gun grabber to attack.


    Not only does pointing these things out and using the language of the left make it more difficult for them to attack us, but it also makes clear to the anti-OC members of the RKBA community that OC provides a bulwark against infringement of CC and other rights, just as Class III and 50 cal and CC provide a bulwark against having Deer and Duck guns seized. We can hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

    Charles
    I strongly agree with this point. At the risk of boring the old members of this board who have heard this from me before, I have gotten "deer in the headlights" looks from liberals when I complain about their "anti-2nd amendment bigotry", or point out how "intolerant" they are in their views, or how they "limit diversity of opinion" when they attack us for our views, or how we've struggled for 20 years to "democratize" the concealed carry laws by eliminating the "racism and elitism" in them. Despite being sarcastic, these comments are in fact correct. Using their own buzzwords to bite them in the butt can be an effective way of (briefly) snapping them out of their intellectual torpor long enough to make a salient point.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote
    :I strongly agree with this point. At the risk of boring the old members of this board who have heard this from me before, I have gotten "deer in the headlights" looks from liberals when I complain about their "anti-2nd amendment bigotry", or point out how "intolerant" they are in their views, or how they "limit diversity of opinion" when they attack us for our views, or how we've struggled for 20 years to "democratize" the concealed carry laws by eliminating the "racism and elitism" in them. Despite being sarcastic, these comments are in fact correct. Using their own buzzwords to bite them in the butt can be an effective way of (briefly) snapping them out of their intellectual torpor long enough to make a salient point.
    A variation on this theme works well for States that move from discriminatory (note that I do NOT generally use the term "discretionary") issue to shall issue and then suddenly start to have concerns about where people can carry.

    I've made the point that the local (liberal) media had NO problem with permit holders carrying guns into schools, onto college campuses, or even into churches and hospitals and libraries back when most permit holders were rich and/or politically well connected white males. Only since we eliminated discrimination in the issuance of who can get a permit so that all law-abiding, mentally competent adults qualify and the number of poor, women, or racial minorities getting permits increased dramatically did the media get concerned about "where" people could carry. Clearly, I argue, their concern has far less to do with where guns can be legally carried than with who is allowed to carr them. And since the only material thing that has changed is the practical likelihood of poor people, women, and racial minorities getting permits, I have to conclude that the media's feigned concerns about where guns are carried really amounts to nothing but bigotries based on race, sex, or income level.

    It tends to shut them down pretty quickly as you ask for links or citations to editorials, opinion pieces, or even testimony before the legislature dealing with off limits locations back when most permit holders were rich white men.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    *nods* This is also one of the reasons why members of this community who are the typical "left of center" are the best arguers for our cause.

    Often times yes. It has always amazed how so many members of the political factions that tend to call police officers "pigs" and members of the military "baby killers" can then turn around and suggest that only the police and military should have guns.

    Of course, the real answer to that is best illustrated by the old story about the Clinton supporter who was so very offended at the air force fly over during one of the innaguration events back in '92. After all, the peace and love crowd had just won the election and how dare the military be present. THEN she realized that with their guy in the White House, these were "their" planes and tanks and soldiers and suddenly they were far less offensive. Most of those left of center are nearly so opposed to military power, or the use of force (as evidenced by their silence or even cheering during numerous Clinton military actions). They are simply opposed to not being in control of such things.

    I will often ask hoplophobes (or all political stripes) who suggest only the government needs guns to imagine the worst president possible, be in Reagan, or Clinton (either one), Nixon, Bush, Jerry Falwell, or Teddy Kennedy. THEN, imagine that such a president somehow ends up with a majority of supporters in both houses of congress and a majority of the Supreme Court. It is possible tha such a situation could exist at some point in our or our children's lifetime.

    Under such a situation, who would ever want the government to have a monopoly on weapons?
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I'm sitting here nodding my head over the last several posts in this thread.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Hit one button and inadvertently made 2 posts ... apparently now the BATFE is going to seize my computer and charge me with manufacturing a "machine laptop".
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    My post on Chris's site.

    ----------------------------------

    Guns at OK Buffet
    Chris,

    I'm writing in response to your article about the "gunfight at the O.C. Buffet."

    As I was born in Harrisburg, and raised in a small town in PA (Halifax), I follow PA gun laws when I can. I am a gun owner and hardly ever openly carried. It's just not something I wish to do and honestly I would prefer to carry concealed. Having said that, I do follow PA's gun encounters with interest and strongly support their right to carry their firearms openly. After all, it is only a small step from infringing on their rights to infringing on my own.

    The Dickson City incident was an infringement on rights. The patrons were breaking no law. Why should they have been detained and questioned? Whether or not you agree with open carry is irrelevant. The police were wrong and their actions should be viewed by all citizens as disturbing.

    Having grown up in that area, I wonder if a "Person of color" was seen eating their, and someone felt "Uncomfortable", would the police have been so quick to demand proof of who he was, and detain him if he said No, or I don't have it? On what grounds??? He was doing nothing wrong.....
    The people in question also were doing nothing wrong, and were within their rights and the law...
    Yes the cops should have responded, and checked the people. Having seen NO crimes being committed, they should have said thanks, and left.

    Thanks for your time.

    Tracy

    Tracy Laudenslager, Ocala, Florida

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Hit one button and inadvertently made 2 posts ... apparently now the BATFE is going to seize my computer and charge me with manufacturing a "machine laptop".









    Anyhow, it's funny that racism is being brought up here, because it was brought up by a PAFOA member at the city council meeting, and the subjects of Dickson City were not at all impressed by the connection...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Easy to say.

    I'm from a town not to far from there.

    My wife, when we go "Home to PA", Never leaves my side. No she is not white, and not all of my family has accepeted her yet. But it's only been 22 years of marrage so far, so their is still hope on our part.....

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Tracylaud83, it's not racism, or skin color. I've been living here for 13 years and we're just now starting to be considered as locals. When I was elected as Borough Council President, we heard via the grapevine that the Outsiders were taking over the town.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    Tracylaud83, it's not racism, or skin color. I've been living here for 13 years and we're just now starting to be considered as locals. When I was elected as Borough Council President, we heard via the grapevine that the Outsiders were taking over the town.
    That will make my Chinese wife , and our 5 kids feel better.

    It's not that your different honey, it's , well, it's, ah, Your NEW.

    That's it........ Even tho youve been married 20+ years, and have 5 kids, She's just toooooo NEW........



    Riiiiiiiiiight

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    After reading some of those comments on the story from people who think that open carry is evil/childish, and who insist on denigrating OCers, I think I've been completely persuaded to OC at least two matching guns on any occasion. Possibly sawed-off shotguns, if I decide to play along with the BATFE.

    Take that, [descriptive but derogatory word]!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    MODERATOR ALERT

    Duplicates posting with "Another Idiot Spouts Off"

    MERGE/DELETE AS APPROPRIATE
    I'll second that

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/11023.html

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •