Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110

Thread: Dickson City Police Chief Stadnitski works to encourage businesses to ban gun carry!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Here I my quick observations on the article:

    Good points: There appears to be some acceptance by the police chief that gun carry is not a crime, and the City Attorney recognizes that localities have no power to regulate guns, and state legislators want nothing to do with banning open carry or enacting gun registrtation.

    Bad points: Police chief is encouraging businesses to ban all gun carry, concealed and unconcealed, and post their premises. Sounds like a violation of preemtion at least in spirit. "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammuni­tion components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth." 18 Pa. C.S. 6120(a). Further, by stating that the police will not respond at all to 911 calls about a man with a gun unless a specific law is alleged to be broken, the police chief seems to conflate "sending a police unit to check out a 911 call" with "violations of gun owners rights by officers on the call." This misses the point that there was nothing wrong in dispatching the police to the Old Country Buffett - the officers should have responded, once dispatched, investigated by taking a look around, talked with a few folks, and left.

    NOTE: As far as I know, Dicks Sporting goods and Home Depot corporate policy does not allow posting against gun carry and assimilates state law for customers. So let have some Scranton area folks scout out these businesses and report back if they are posted.
    --

    http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...5898&rfi=6

    Businesses banning guns

    BY CHARLES SCHILLINGER
    STAFF WRITER

    05/25/2008

    DICKSON CITY — Police Chief William Stadnitski opened a letter Friday from Long John Silver’s and read again the same business policy he has seen two dozen times since a May 9 incident in his borough.

    No guns allowed.

    The Police Department has been querying businesses to see where people are allowed to carry weapons, and where it is prohibited by company policy.

    The query follows an incident in which a dozen customers at Old Country Buffet were questioned by police for openly carrying guns. One person was detained and his gun confiscated.

    To Chief Stadnitski’s surprise, the response from business owners has been overwhelmingly against allowing gun-carrying patrons in their establishments.

    “And many, they’re not just saying ‘no.’ They’re very vocal about this,” he said. “We expected more businesses to allow it.”

    The only Dickson City business that has said it will allow customers to carry firearms to date is Cartridge World, said Chief Stadnitski.

    Dickson City solicitor William Jones said guns are also not allowed in schools and courthouses. He said municipalities have no power to regulate or restrict gun use.

    “Any redress would have to come from the (state) Legislature,” Mr. Jones said.

    State legislators largely did not return calls for comment on the gun-rights issue in Dickson City.

    State Sen. Robert Mellow, D-Peckville, said any change in the gun legislation would be difficult, and he would not be in favor of it. Rep. Ed Staback, D-Archbald, who also represents Dickson City, made similar statements recently.

    “Guns are not the problem. It’s some of the people who have them,” Mr. Mellow said. “If we were to restrict them further, then those who shouldn’t have guns would be the only ones who have them.”

    Sen. Lisa Baker, whose district includes parts of Wayne, Luzerne, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike and Monroe counties, did not return a call, but released a short statement saying she supported the right of citizens to bear arms.

    Almost a year ago, a Philadelphia state representative introduced a bill that would require strict gun-registration measures and require a $10-a-gun yearly tax.

    The protests were immediate and, for fellow Democrats like Rep. Tim Seip, D-Schuylkill, uncomfortable. Mr. Seip’s district is often referred to as the “Cabela’s District” since it is home to the state’s only Cabela’s retail store. The business is one of the largest suppliers of hunting, fishing and other outdoor supplies.

    “I think there is an overwhelming sentiment from my constituents ... to have them be less restrictive,” Mr. Seip said of existing laws.

    He called a recent incident in which a Philadelphia police officer was shot “terrible,” but said more laws wouldn’t solve the issue despite people lobbying for just that.

    “There are people in the commonwealth, constituents of my colleagues, who are very desperate to find an answer to the remedy of these acts by terrible, habitual criminals,” Mr. Seip said. “But those terrible acts won’t be remedied by more laws.”

    The law states people have a right to openly carry weapons in public. But Chief Stadnitski said it is a business’s right to kick those people off the property if carrying a weapon there violates policies. He is encouraging businesses to post such policies for customers.

    Anyone refusing to leave a business when asked by the owner can be arrested for defiant trespass.

    Chief Stadnitski said the list of businesses that have opted to prohibit guns includes the entire Viewmont Mall and many larger chains, such as PetSmart, Borders, Sleepy’s, Home Depot and even Dick’s Sporting Goods, which sells gun-related products.

    Because many of the larger chain businesses are waiting for responses from corporate headquarters, police have not finished compiling the list.

    Chief Stadnitski said the police wanted that list so they know where in the borough they should respond should someone be openly carrying a gun. Otherwise, unless another law is broken, police will not respond to a report of a person carrying a gun in those businesses.

    “Nobody wants trouble. They don’t want trouble, and certainly we don’t trouble, either,” he said.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    Simply amazing...this Chief has admitted to spending citizen’s tax dollars in a direct attempt to prevent lawful citizens from taking advantage of our God-given right to self defense.

    Here is my opinion:

    A privately owned house is private property and the owner decides who may visit his property.

    Pubilically owned property belongs to all of us - federal and state laws apply.

    If any business is open to the general public how on earth are they able to restrict rights? How about a business that posts a sign proclaiming that "only white Christians allowed" and if any others dare to enter the business owner calls the police and the folks are escorted out complete with trespass papers?

    Or, maybe the business should post a sign stating that "all whom enter are subject to unreasonable search and unlimited seizure." If the owner wishes, he may perform a cavity search upon anyone who happens to enter the store - and maybe of they hit it off he can call Chief Stadnitski to let him know that "this is a keeper!"

    I just fail to understand how a business open to the public can restrict rights. And privately owned is used far too loosely - if the business is available for public trading of stock - I don't necessarily consider that a "private" business as much as I consider it a non-governmental one.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Wonder if patrolling in front of these victim disarmament zone businesses with gun rights fliers and politely intercepting customers would help?

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    As much as I hate to say it, a business is still private property. And the owners of such do have the right to say "No" to guns. We also have the right to do business else where.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

    Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

    This doesn't sound right....

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    tracylaud83 wrote:
    But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

    Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

    This doesn't sound right....
    Exactly, as Mike points out, the Cheif is now "encouraging" businesses to post against guns. Clearly a violation of 18PACS6120

    Way to go Stadnitski. The only thing he definitively knows how to do is garner lawsuits for his department. Just as well, the citizens of DC deserve to pay the taxes needed to fill these lawsuits. As we found out from the city council meeting, they blindly support this idiot and his band of under trained officers that he give badges to.


  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    tracylaud83 wrote:
    But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

    Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

    This doesn't sound right....
    Exactly, as Mike points out, the Cheif is now "encouraging" businesses to post against guns. Clearly a violation of 18PACS6120

    Way to go Stadnitski. The only thing he definitively knows how to do is garner lawsuits for his department. Just as well, the citizens of DC deserve to pay the taxes needed to fill these lawsuits. As we found out from the city council meeting, they blindly support this idiot and his band of under trained officers that he give badges to.
    Typical bureacrat tactic, I guess it should be expected as a scapegoating technique when when the goon squad tactics were revealed to be illegal.

    It is almost like a protection racket in reverse, when you think about it. We won't protect your business if you dare allow a citizen to defend themselves.

    Do the businesses also have to put up signs saying robbery is not allowed before they will respond to a robbery call? Or is it only LEGAL activities that this chief is spending his time trying to stop?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Renegade wrote:
    Simply amazing...this Chief has admitted to spending citizen’s tax dollars in a direct attempt to prevent lawful citizens from taking advantage of our God-given right to self defense.
    Explain. I saw nothing that changes any law. As for not responding to a report of open carry (absent something else). Isn't that what we want?

    Here is my opinion:

    A privately owned house is private property and the owner decides who may visit his property.
    So far so good (there are a few exceptions).
    Pubilically owned property belongs to all of us - federal and state laws apply.
    Not really. An individual citizen has no property interest in public buildings (generally speaking). State law may or may not apply to federal property (but usually do by assimilation by the feds).

    If any business is open to the general public how on earth are they able to restrict rights? How about a business that posts a sign proclaiming that "only white Christians allowed" and if any others dare to enter the business owner calls the police and the folks are escorted out complete with trespass papers?
    "Open to the General Public" in this context means that the owner has issued a blanket invitation for anyone to enter in contemplation of doing business. You can't enter for the purpose of setting upa three-card Monte table, making a political speech or price checking for the competition. Discrimination on the basis of race or religion in this context violates federal (and probably state) law. There is no law that states excluding otherwise admissible members of the public on the basis of carrying a weapon, minority age, dress, smell etc. is prohibited (except in some weird localities).

    Or, maybe the business should post a sign stating that "all whom enter are subject to unreasonable search and unlimited seizure." If the owner wishes, he may perform a cavity search upon anyone who happens to enter the store - and maybe of they hit it off he can call Chief Stadnitski to let him know that "this is a keeper!"

    I just fail to understand how a business open to the public can restrict rights. And privately owned is used far too loosely - if the business is available for public trading of stock - I don't necessarily consider that a "private" business as much as I consider it a non-governmental one.
    Well, I just tried to explain the concept. I hope it helps. Here, private does mean non-governmental or non-public (as in public schools). Whether or not an implicit invitation is made to the general public (Wal*Mart), Old Country Buffet, etc. or an explicit invitation to specific people (your home) does not determine whether or not a business is private. If you held an "open house" as part of trying to sell your home, would you have waived your right to exclude any person?

  9. #9
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Are there any business owners out there willing to post their business "gun free". Then threaten the first police officer that comes in, not acting in his official capacity, with trespass is he does not leave immediately. After all it is private property and the owner/operator is within his rights to do so.
    What would happen if the only donut shop in town did just that?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    That wouldn't work, according to federal law LEO can carry where and when they want with few exceptions, business owners have no say in it whatsoever.

    I think that this totally makes sense in PA, after all everyone in the state is depressed and angry so they kling to their bibles and their guns,accordingly only angry crazy people own guns... it all makes sense if you really think about it.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Shy_Panda wrote:
    That wouldn't work, according to federal law LEO can carry where and when they want with few exceptions, business owners have no say in it whatsoever.
    Huh? Cite?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in PA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    LEOSA states LEO's must adhere to state (not local) laws that gives private property owners the right to limit the carrying of weapons.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Steve in PA wrote:
    LEOSA states LEO's must adhere to state (not local) laws that gives private property owners the right to limit the carrying of weapons.
    There is really no difference between local and state laws - localities are mere creations of a state. What is the precise immunity text for LEOs set forth in federal law that puports to override state law? I have a feeling it is either unconstitutional or requires state action to keep a subsidy.

  14. #14
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    I don't know about PA law, but IL law has specific exemptions for LEO's and others, as to who can or can't carry firearms, concealed or otherwise. I would hazard a guess that most state's have similar exemptions.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in PA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post




    ‘‘§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified


    law enforcement officers


    ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law


    of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an indi


    vidual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who


    is carrying the identification required by subsection (d)


    may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or


    transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to


    subsection (b).


    ‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede


    or limit the laws of any State that—


    ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro


    hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms


    on their property; or


    ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire


    arms on any State or local government property, in
    stallation, building, base, or park.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    IOW: 926B alows LEO to carry in all 50 states but it does NOT override the rights of private property. ...Just like Steve posted originally.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    IOW: 926B alows LEO to carry in all 50 states but it does NOT override the rights of private property. ...Just like Steve posted originally.


    It depends upon what you mean by "private."

    Let me say first that I think LEOSA is unconstitutional. If any state or city took the time to litigate, it would go away. However, since it is in force now, let us consider the various cases. And note that it applies only to concealed carry. Open carry restrictions are not impacted.

    LEO carrying privileges are, by and large, controlled by state law, city ordinances and departmental policy. Federal law comes into play on federal facilities. LEOSA does not negate departmental employment rules. A LEO can be fired for carrying in violation of departmental policy (although not prosecuted) and then would not be covered by LEOSA. Municipal law would come into play only if state law provides for its application.


    [/b]STATE LAW APP LEOSA SEC RESULT

    [/b]PERMITSNOT APPLICABLE CC PERMITTED[/b]

    [/b]PROHIBITSGEN PROVISIONS[/b]CC PERMITTED
    [/b]

    [/b]SILENTNOT APPLICABLE CC PERMITTED
    [/b]
    [/b]PROHIBITSb(1) or b(2) CC [/b]PROHIBITED
    [/b]

    [/b]So whether or not a LEO may carry on private property (or b(2) government property), is determined wholly bylocal law, EXCEPT a “qualified” LEO may carry concealed, state law notwithstanding, in any non-b(1) or b(2) situation. This would be a case where there is no local law prohibition (not likely). Here “private property” is meant to be non-governmental property, generally open to the public (Wal*Mart). [/b]


    Although not specifically addressed, established constitutional law says that this section would not permit a LEO to carry (in other than an official capacity) on truly private property (e.g. your home) against the owner’s wishes even in the absence of local law covered under b(2). Thus if there were no local laws covered by b(1) or b(2), LEOSA would enable a LEO to carry in Old Country Buffet but not your new country home (unless you consented). The same analysis would be applicable to retired LEO's who are eligible under 18 USC 926C.

    [/b]
    [/b][/b][/b]

  18. #18
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    If Chief Stadnitski is implying less than normal police response when the caller is on the list of businesses that allow open carry then he is guilty of coercion and should be arrested and put on trial just as any other criminal would be. Does anyone know how a citizen can cause the Chief to be arrested for his crime? I presume that Pennsy residency would be required.

    MD

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    OK, so, is this act called "POPA"?

    --


    §926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    921 of this title); and
    921 of this title).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    If Chief Stadnitski is implying less than normal police response when the caller is on the list of businesses that allow open carry then he is guilty of coercion and should be arrested and put on trial just as any other criminal would be. Does anyone know how a citizen can cause the Chief to be arrested for his crime? I presume that Pennsy residency would be required.

    MD
    Why? Consider this hypothetical call:

    1. Citizen: I'm the manager at the Choke 'n Puke Restaurant. There is a man with a gun at the counter!

    2. Chief S.: What is he doing? Where is the gun?

    3. Citizen: Quietly eating clam chowder. The gun is holstered.

    4. Chief S.: My information indicates that the C 'n P does not prohibit firearms.

    5. Citizen: Yes, that is our policy but I'm afraid he scare off the old ladies who come in for the early bird special.

    6. Chief S.: Well, you would have to change your policy and post in conformance with the law. If he threatens anyone or pulls the gun out, give us a call back. Otherwise - have a nice day.

    Now suppose that line 3 is changed to one of the following:

    Swearing at the other customers and twirling the gun on his finger.

    Demanding cash from Betty the cashier. Pointed at her head.

    Urinating on the bar. Scratching his private parts.

    Do you really think the Chief is going to say "Tough luck, you should have prohibited firearms in your joint!" I think he is saying, rightly so, that his department is not going to respond to legal carry (by itself). I consider that a win. Can't you guys take Yes for an answer?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    OK, so, is this act called "POPA"?

    --


    §926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    921 of this title); and
    921 of this title).
    No, LEOSA.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:

    It depends upon what you mean by "private."

    No. Your reading the statute incorrectly. There need be no law stating that you can prohibit behavior on your property. (laws prohibit, not allow). So since PA allows private pprperty to prohibit carry (by the lack of a law saying they can't) the LEOSA can not override that.
    Regardless, it's a point not really relevant to the discussion.



  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    Do you really think the Chief is going to say "Tough luck, you should have prohibited firearms in your joint!" I think he is saying, rightly so, that his department is not going to respond to legal carry (by itself). I consider that a win. Can't you guys take Yes for an answer?
    No, it is not a win. They are imposing a tiered system of responding to man with a gun call based on the "list" of businesses that have no gun policies.
    This is bad because this implies they can do something to an OC'er if the biz is on the no guns list. They can't by law. They should be handling the call the same regardless of the company policy.
    If the property owner wants the person to leave they need to tell them. The police can not act on behalf of the property owner or agent without being asked to.

    The list is also possibly being used to intimidate businesses to put up no guns policies or face reduced police response.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    apjonas wrote:

    It depends upon what you mean by "private."

    No. Your reading the statute incorrectly. There need be no law stating that you can prohibit behavior on your property. (laws prohibit, not allow). So since PA allows private pprperty to prohibit carry (by the lack of a law saying they can't) the LEOSA can not override that.
    Regardless, it's a point not really relevant to the discussion.

    This law PROHIBITS the PROHIBITION (= allows) of concealed carry by qualified LEO's unless state law allows for such PROHIBITION under b(1) or b(2). Again (or for the first time if you missed this) this law does not override the (constitutional)right of an owner of private property, not generally open to the public to prohibit carry. It does PROHIBIT a business from PROHIBITING (= allows) concealed carry if a b(2) law is not enacted.

    There are no laws that "allow" blacks to eat at Denny's. There are laws that PROHIBIT restaurants from PROHIBITING (=allow) people from entering on the basis of race, religion......

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    apjonas wrote:
    Do you really think the Chief is going to say "Tough luck, you should have prohibited firearms in your joint!" I think he is saying, rightly so, that his department is not going to respond to legal carry (by itself). I consider that a win. Can't you guys take Yes for an answer?
    No, it is not a win.
    Hmmm. Not responding because there is no illegal activity alleged. Sounds like good management of resources.
    They are imposing a tiered system of responding to man with a gun call based on the "list" of businesses that have no gun policies.
    If a "no gun" policy is relevant then it makes sense.
    This is bad because this implies they can do something to an OC'er if the biz is on the no guns list. They can't by law.
    They can't? Well - perhaps I do not understand PA law. If a business has a no gun policy and they post or notify as required by statute, then I think entering with a gun could result in a charge. What law are you referring to?
    They should be handling the call the same regardless of the company policy.
    If the property owner wants the person to leave they need to tell them. The police can not act on behalf of the property owner or agent without being asked to.
    If there is a no gun policy and the OC'er ignores it, I would not want to confront such a person. I probably wouldn't confront an unknown, armed individual regardless of the policy. If I want the person to leave (and I have that authority), I might call the police for assistance. How the PD responds should be based upon the situation, if the caller is just another customer or a passer-by, there is no reason to respond. Isn't that the Old Country Buffet group's position?
    The list is also possibly being used to intimidate businesses to put up no guns policies or face reduced police response.
    Nonsense. A deliberate withholding of police services under those circumstances would be actionable. The chief is not that stupid. If the situation is just uncomplicated open carry - there is no reason to respond. If the situation involves robbery, assault, even simple trespass - restricting response on the basis of the enterprise's business policies would get people fired, sued and possibly jailed. It really appears that some folks here want to have a bitch - no matter what. If this kind of position is maintained - the chief is going to start to look sympathetic - and ain't that a creepy thought. If a business doesn't want OC - there is a way to accomplish that objective. If a business doesn't care - it doesn't care and wouldn't be calling the PD in the first place.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •