modelo57
Regular Member
imported post
Must be my connection, I'll try later.
Must be my connection, I'll try later.
-
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.
-
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.
And then there were 5 . . . another Dickson Dozen victim heads to court
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
modelo57 wrote:
Try right-clicking on the link and saving the file, then opening it that way.
Also, make sure your Acrobat is updated to fairly recently.
modelo57 wrote:
Try right-clicking on the link and saving the file, then opening it that way.
Also, make sure your Acrobat is updated to fairly recently.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
Case Management Plan available here: http://paopencarry.org/dicksoncity/mgmtplan.pdf
Both cases combined, justice slowly grinds on.
Case Management Plan available here: http://paopencarry.org/dicksoncity/mgmtplan.pdf
Both cases combined, justice slowly grinds on.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Northern-Lights wrote:
Citizens are expected to follow ALL laws and behave accordingly "i didn't know the law" won't get you out of jail.
Police should be expected to function the same way.
Northern-Lights wrote:
I respectfully DISAGREE.
Citizens are expected to follow ALL laws and behave accordingly "i didn't know the law" won't get you out of jail.
Police should be expected to function the same way.
libertyrules
Regular Member
imported post
+1
Leo's should be expected to know the basic gun carry laws in their state. If ignorance of gun rights is so prevalent, then some kind of legislative oversight of Leo training might be in order. Part of the problem is, as was pointed out above, that liberal weenies have been pushing their anti-gun agenda ever since Pres Reagan and Brady were ambushed and shot. We are fast becoming a Socialist country, and the liberal elite will always come down on the side of "gun regulation" & confiscation.
What we are seeing here in America is a resurgence of sovereignty vs governmental bullying, which is a good thing. But we should take heart in the fact that gun owners are closing ranks and resisting the anti-gunners' game, by taking a level-headed proactive stance such as the ones in the restaurant took.
Our liberty must never be taken for granted. We must and will continue to fight for our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When enough battles are waged and won, law enforcement will be forced to re-evaluate their position that they should be the only ones carrying guns.
In this little town where I live in CO, I have taken a stance that I will carry, open or concealed, as I please. It comes at a price, but I have forced the Leos here to back off. Ordinary citizens need to be educated regarding gun rights. By openly carrying my gun on my hip wherever I go, they are slowly getting the message. They know about my little confrontation with the local police here, yet I'm still
oc-ing in town, and the leo's aren't bothering me anymore. That does send a positive message.
First you take a stance, and then deal with the consequences. Choose your battles carefully, then go for it. The "Dickson Dozen" did exactly that. They took their RKBA stance, chose their battle, and faced the consequences. Of curse they knew there would be a confrontation with law enforcement, if not that night, then another night. But they knew, and were prepared to deal with it. By the time this is over, one town will for sure will be well-versed in gun carry laws, from the rank-and-file, to the DA and mayor.
:celebrate
+1
Leo's should be expected to know the basic gun carry laws in their state. If ignorance of gun rights is so prevalent, then some kind of legislative oversight of Leo training might be in order. Part of the problem is, as was pointed out above, that liberal weenies have been pushing their anti-gun agenda ever since Pres Reagan and Brady were ambushed and shot. We are fast becoming a Socialist country, and the liberal elite will always come down on the side of "gun regulation" & confiscation.
What we are seeing here in America is a resurgence of sovereignty vs governmental bullying, which is a good thing. But we should take heart in the fact that gun owners are closing ranks and resisting the anti-gunners' game, by taking a level-headed proactive stance such as the ones in the restaurant took.
Our liberty must never be taken for granted. We must and will continue to fight for our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When enough battles are waged and won, law enforcement will be forced to re-evaluate their position that they should be the only ones carrying guns.
In this little town where I live in CO, I have taken a stance that I will carry, open or concealed, as I please. It comes at a price, but I have forced the Leos here to back off. Ordinary citizens need to be educated regarding gun rights. By openly carrying my gun on my hip wherever I go, they are slowly getting the message. They know about my little confrontation with the local police here, yet I'm still
oc-ing in town, and the leo's aren't bothering me anymore. That does send a positive message.
First you take a stance, and then deal with the consequences. Choose your battles carefully, then go for it. The "Dickson Dozen" did exactly that. They took their RKBA stance, chose their battle, and faced the consequences. Of curse they knew there would be a confrontation with law enforcement, if not that night, then another night. But they knew, and were prepared to deal with it. By the time this is over, one town will for sure will be well-versed in gun carry laws, from the rank-and-file, to the DA and mayor.
:celebrate
S.E.WI
Regular Member
imported post
libertyrules wrote:
libertyrules wrote:
Could you tell us how you managed to get LE to back off? Here in WI we have a state constitutional right to bear arms for security and defense that is being denied. A disorderly conduct charge is the norm if someone calls the police about someone open carrying. (concealed carry for active and retired LE only)The court here has determined that our need for security and defense is at its apex only when in our home or business. Any ideas for us? From everything I have found, it's the state's actors that are violating the law. Thanks in advance.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
You are probably going to have to find a lawyer willing to take it all the way if need be.
You are probably going to have to find a lawyer willing to take it all the way if need be.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
You complain. If that doesn't work, you complain some more. You file a written complaint against the police officer with the police department. If possible, you try to file a criminal complaint against the police officer for official oppression, abuse of office, wrongful arrest, deprivation of civil rights, etc., etc. If necessary, sue the police officers and police department in state court. Fight any disorderly conduct charge made on you for lawful conduct. Attend municipal council meetings and make your objections known, on the record. Get others to complain.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
Statkowski wrote:
I think Federal Court would be better. It keeps it out of the hands of the locals. Knowhutimean?
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
I think Federal Court would be better. It keeps it out of the hands of the locals. Knowhutimean?
+10
1983 cases belong in Federal.
I think Federal Court would be better. It keeps it out of the hands of the locals. Knowhutimean?
+10
1983 cases belong in Federal.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
codename_47 wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
Not if the issue is state law - federal courts cannot directly rule on state law against state government - no jurisdiction. See Chet's case in Virginia pages.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
S.E.WI wrote:
Make it so painful that they want to turn and run away when they see you. It isn't a quick silver bullet, but it works. Use whatever sunshine or FOIA laws you have, take pictures of police misconduct go to town council meetings, write letters to the editor, run for town council, etc.
Police hate paperwork. FOIArequests create huge paperwork nightmares for them. I really think many LEOs fear paperwork more than anything else.
S.E.WI wrote:
Make it so painful that they want to turn and run away when they see you. It isn't a quick silver bullet, but it works. Use whatever sunshine or FOIA laws you have, take pictures of police misconduct go to town council meetings, write letters to the editor, run for town council, etc.
Police hate paperwork. FOIArequests create huge paperwork nightmares for them. I really think many LEOs fear paperwork more than anything else.
jahwarrior
Member
imported post
libertyrules wrote:
libertyrules wrote:
actually, we didn't. according to most of the guys that have attended other OC dinners, this was the first time they got a negative reaction from the public and local LEOs at a get-together. and we weren't "picking a battle," we were picking what we wanted to eat: ham, or ribs. just a little reminder.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Don't be so fast to judge them. First....there are hundreds....no, thousands of laws. They can't possibly know them all.
As a former cop... Those laws you might be expected to commonlydeal with on your post (at least) are second nature. OC is an obviously legal activity in PA that even the average citizen is aware of. Ignorance on the part of the cops is deplorable. This entire incident was deplorable on many levels. IMHO... incompetence and ignorant bias were rampant.
The public is held accountable to obey all laws... ignorance of the 'law'is no excuse.
LEO's should be held to at least the same standards... or find another line of work.
Don't be so fast to judge them. First....there are hundreds....no, thousands of laws. They can't possibly know them all.
As a former cop... Those laws you might be expected to commonlydeal with on your post (at least) are second nature. OC is an obviously legal activity in PA that even the average citizen is aware of. Ignorance on the part of the cops is deplorable. This entire incident was deplorable on many levels. IMHO... incompetence and ignorant bias were rampant.
The public is held accountable to obey all laws... ignorance of the 'law'is no excuse.
LEO's should be held to at least the same standards... or find another line of work.
libertyrules
Regular Member
imported post
No place of business here has ever said a word about me OCing in their store, and that includes the local bank. And I earned respect from quite a few people who know me here.
Behind the the answer to the question of "how?", lies the more important question of "Why?".
I must say, it would be much simpler for me to just CC. But I have to look at it from a wider perspective, one in which our individual liberties are at stake here. The social progressives will literally take everything, unless we fight for our rights. Unless we are willing to fight for our first and second amendments, we had best prepare ourselves for a mind-set which includes being thankful for being allowed to exist in a political reality where the individual is always sacrificed for "the greater good". That rubs against the grain for me.
History provides us with numerous examples of such insanity: Stalin's USSR, Communist China under Mao, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia - and the list grows now to include countries where the Islamists have gained control of the government. Darfur and Somalia come to mind. Gun control and confiscation were among the very first policies carried out by the Islamic governments.
Indeed, that has always been the case.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ24YWOTVrs
I won't get into specifics, but just being firm, without being confrontational, at the right moment(s) may have done the trick. That, plus the fact that I OC here as if it were the most natural thing to do. There are many in this town (thanks to the the anti-gunner's crusade) who are horrified at the thought of me carrying a gun, but I just continue to OC anyway.
No place of business here has ever said a word about me OCing in their store, and that includes the local bank. And I earned respect from quite a few people who know me here.
Behind the the answer to the question of "how?", lies the more important question of "Why?".
I must say, it would be much simpler for me to just CC. But I have to look at it from a wider perspective, one in which our individual liberties are at stake here. The social progressives will literally take everything, unless we fight for our rights. Unless we are willing to fight for our first and second amendments, we had best prepare ourselves for a mind-set which includes being thankful for being allowed to exist in a political reality where the individual is always sacrificed for "the greater good". That rubs against the grain for me.
History provides us with numerous examples of such insanity: Stalin's USSR, Communist China under Mao, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia - and the list grows now to include countries where the Islamists have gained control of the government. Darfur and Somalia come to mind. Gun control and confiscation were among the very first policies carried out by the Islamic governments.
Indeed, that has always been the case.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ24YWOTVrs
S.E.WI
Regular Member
imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
EXACTLY!! You also know the oath you had to take to become a police officer as should they.
The 2A and Article VI of the constitution have been around for over 200 years. "Shall not be infringed" should be very clear to everyone. Article VI is important for LEO's also and has been passed over for too long.
[align=left]ARTICLE VI.[/align]
[align=left]All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The senators and representatives before−mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[/align]
[align=left]As you can see, state legislators, state and federal judges, federal legislators and LE are acting contrary to the supreme law of the land. We the people had better wakeup and wakeup soon.[/align]
[align=left]As far as ignoranceof the law, how can anyone know them all and then when you think you understand it some judge will make a ruling that changes it. We're all in the dark unless you can read minds.[/align]
[align=left]Every victim in locations that have had their rights through acts or legislation needs to sue under USC 42 1983.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
Sonora Rebel wrote:
EXACTLY!! You also know the oath you had to take to become a police officer as should they.
The 2A and Article VI of the constitution have been around for over 200 years. "Shall not be infringed" should be very clear to everyone. Article VI is important for LEO's also and has been passed over for too long.
[align=left]ARTICLE VI.[/align]
[align=left]All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The senators and representatives before−mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[/align]
[align=left]As you can see, state legislators, state and federal judges, federal legislators and LE are acting contrary to the supreme law of the land. We the people had better wakeup and wakeup soon.[/align]
[align=left]As far as ignoranceof the law, how can anyone know them all and then when you think you understand it some judge will make a ruling that changes it. We're all in the dark unless you can read minds.[/align]
[align=left]Every victim in locations that have had their rights through acts or legislation needs to sue under USC 42 1983.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
S.E.WI
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
"The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland"
I found this in part of Article VI of the constitution. IANAL but it seems that state laws can be invalidated by the Supreme Court. When and how to apply this will require a good lawyer. Think of all the gun laws that interfere with the constitution, 2A.
I hope it helps.
Mike wrote:
"The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland"
I found this in part of Article VI of the constitution. IANAL but it seems that state laws can be invalidated by the Supreme Court. When and how to apply this will require a good lawyer. Think of all the gun laws that interfere with the constitution, 2A.
I hope it helps.
Aran
Banned
imported post
Think of all the federal laws that are against the Constitution.
Oops, there goes your argument.
Think of all the federal laws that are against the Constitution.
Oops, there goes your argument.
AFCop
Regular Member
imported post
Aran wrote:
Aran wrote:
Like what?