MTN Jack arrested

imported post

As one who has worked inside of Secret Service protectee secured areas, there is no question or ambiguity as to when you have ingressed or egressed one. MTN Jack would have known and security personnel would have prevented or allowed his entry at an established checkpoint. Hence secure.

If the SS says he did not enter the event area then he did not enter a secured area. They're pretty good at what they do. They know whether or not MTN Jack was a threat, most likely long before the events of that day. They would have been negligent had they not interviewed someone detained by local authorities, but responsibility for the detainment/seizure clearly rests with the State Police. IMO from the information set forth previously on this site.

imported post

Neither is riding on a bus or sitting at a lunch counter.

Click to expand...

Both of those actions, under prevailing circumstances, violated a law or ordinance. It can't be civil "disobedience" if you're not "disobeying" anything.

imported post

The obvious logical fallacies are rampant in some of this:

Either he was or was not within the secured perimeter.

If he was not then his rights were clearly violated.

If he was then:

1) How does a 6'3" 280lb man "sneak" by security to get inside a secured perimeter? Or how would security personnel not notice him? His size harped on by the media and a few posters lays aside any idea that he did anything but just walk into the area.

2) If he just walked into the area, if it was a secured perimeter why was it so insecure that an armed 6'3" 280lb man just wandered past security.

3) If it was a secured area and he just walked right into the area where is reprimand for the state police and local authorities for having such an insecure secure perimeter?

In short, either MTN Jack was not inside a secured perimeter or the PA state police and local security details were incompetent and ineffective. Or maybe they are just too used to showing up after the fact . Seriously though, they can't have it both ways. I would ask why the media doesn't have the logic ability to figure out that one of these has to be true and to ask these questions directly and loudly to the PA state police who are making accusations against him re: being within a secured perimeter, but I think the reasons for the medias bias, er deficiencies are well known and documented.

imported post

As this situation stands right now, who do ya'll feel got their point across and is in control of the scenario? Mtn Jack or the state of Pennsylvania.. Mtn. Jack or the Feds.?

Could Mtn. Jack have got his point across to the multitudes just handing out fliers unarmed ?

Has this scenario helped to progress the freedom to OC, or has it caused a setback on the numbers ofHandgun owners that will OC at will due to the ever vigilant eye of the antis trying to get someone elsessidearn confiscated?

Although I truelyunderstand Mtn. Jack has a right to OC, was this really the right scenario to put it to the test?

Seriously,aside from walking up the Commander in Chief himself armed, this scenariohas got to be the next most paranoid type of event that he could have picked to visit armed with a sidearm. I'm not saying he broke any laws/went beyond any secure zone/oracted in any threatening manner what so ever, but one has to know that given the perfect opportunity every Cop within a mile of this kind of event is gonna try to earn theBLUE RIBBON of the day..

imported post

Where legal, OC is always appropriate.

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

As I posted on another board:

The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.

The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
​

I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?

If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.

Ken

Click to expand...

How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

joe15003 wrote:

He was not in the Security zone

Click to expand...

I just quoted what was reported as being released by the State Police.

They don't always tell you how big the "security zone" is and the qoute was "a secured perimeter of a presidential candidate political rally." My understanding of Secret Service procedures is that this is always larger then the apparent "security zone."

Ken

Click to expand...

Cowboy Ken,

This reminds me of reading Catch -22. Could you imagine?

SS: Sir, you are under arrest for breaching the security perimeter.

MTN Jack: No that is across the street where there are signs and metal detectors.

SS: No, that is the apparent security zone. Our actual securityperimeter is quite a bit larger.

MTN Jack: Look I stayed outside of your signs. If your actual securityperimeter is bigger, then how do we know where our constitutional rights are stripped from us so that youmay protect the ruling class?

SS: You will know when we arrest , shackle and handcuff, kidnap and interrogate you and steal your weapons. Why did you open carry again?

MTN Jack: Because I'm an American.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

This reminds me of reading Catch -22. Could you imagine?

Click to expand...

It is quite likely the result of a 'generation gap' from the generation of print textbooks and literature for the sake of literature to the virtually educated generation. Hypothetically and generally the next word after 'virtually' is a lie.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

CowboyKen wrote:

As I posted on another board:

The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.

The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
​

I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?

If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.

Ken

Click to expand...

How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?

Click to expand...

I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.

People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.

Ken

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.

People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.

Ken

Click to expand...

One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.

Is this correct?

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

CowboyKen wrote:

I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.

People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.

Ken

Click to expand...

One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.

Is this correct?

Click to expand...

OCing is alright if we use "common sense." We must also constantly be alert to threats for expressing our freedoms and even though these threats may be illegal, they may be carried out and are therefore best to be avoided. Doesn't the safety of of a politician make any action to warrant that acceptable? Note: Major sarcasim.

Thank you mtn jack for standing up for our rights and in a pefectly acceptable manner.

Yata hey

imported post

Fly by night OC??

That must be me too. mine is usually carried just during hunting trips, due to the fact that I've not taken the time to buy a lefty holster, Other thanthat their either in the house in various locations, or in the vehicle. once I find the holster I like OC will be more obvious to those I cross paths with.

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

CowboyKen wrote:

As I posted on another board:

The Secret Service decided that he didn't represent a real threat and, as long as he was kept from the event itself, they let him go.

The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN. Again, this is only my opinion but, I think they charged him to justify confiscating the gun. It may be wrong but I'm guessing that it will cost him more then it is worth to get it back (who knows they may give it back if he asks really nicely).
​

I guess you are left not knowing exactly where the perimeter is and you may, completely by happenstance, be unlucky and get caught up in something completely unexpected. But I have a question, is this what happened to Mr. Noble, or was he there because he new Obama would be near where he was?

If you stick your finger in the face of authority you may get bitten. This is what civil disobediance is all about and I am for it, but I am not surprised by the outcome.

Ken

Click to expand...

How do you justify accepting Mtn Jacks actions as 'disorderly conduct' when there are very clear cut judicial precedents that specifically declare that the mere open carrying of a handgun is not disorderly conduct? Do court cases and laws not pertain to law enforcement when national political candidates decide to tour the area?

Click to expand...

I didn't and I don't. I said IMO, "The locals decided to charge him. Using “(Noble’s) actions created a clear public alarm," to charge Disorderly Conduct and CONFISCATE HIS GUN." The implication is that this was an excuse to confiscate his gun.

People here seem to think that I am anti-open carry. I am not. Some here are such zealots that they completely ignore logic and propriety, IMO, just like a four year old would. Again, IMO I don't think their approach does us any big favor.

Ken

Click to expand...

Cowboy Ken:

I'm going to agree and disagree with you. In the agree column I'll say that I would never have done what MTN Jack did as I would expect to be at least hassled, if not arrested. At best an inconvenience, at worst an expensive defense and possible permanent black mark on my record that could have far reaching effects. I tend towards non-confrontational, quiet carrying and am quit adverse to being embroiled in a legal problem for numerous personal reasons that effect more people than myself.

On the other hand, what of the "zealots" as you call them? Where would we be without those who provoked the so-called Boston Massacre which was really more of a mob act against soldiers trying to retreat until they were literally backed up against a wall? Or without those who led and acted in the Boston Tea Party? Or without Rosa Parks refusal to sit at the back of the bus? Many people saw those overt acts as less than helpful to the cause. Many people, even those supportive of the end goal, disagreed vehemently with the tactics used. One man's zealot is sometimes another man's patriot.

I'm not suggesting that MTN Jack was acting in such a radical manner, however, he was certainly running a significant risk of a negative LEO encounter and I think he was certainly well aware of that. But he was to the best of his knowledge acting fully within the law. Whether or not the state agrees with that will be found out as this winds its way through the legal system.

imported post

Double tap -- site hung up.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I would never have done what MTN Jack did as I would expect to be at least hassled, if not arrested. At best an inconvenience, at worst an expensive defense and possible permanent black mark on my record that could have far reaching effects. I tend towards non-confrontational, quiet carrying and am quit adverse to being embroiled in a legal problem for numerous personal reasons that effect more people than myself.

Click to expand...

So how big of a self-imposed exile zone do you give yourself when a major political event is held in a park?

Jack was in an adjacent park. Would you go to the park at the other end of town? In the next County? Next state?

And recall that nobody has profferred a rule of law that would make carry unlawful even at the Obama event per se.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

One, I'm not accusing you of being anti-open carry. Two, it seems to me (and alot of others here probably) that you are condemning mtn jack because he didn't use common sense, at least in your opinion, because of a totality of circumstances surrounding Obamas visit. This suggests that you might be just a fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter, only when it's not going to offend others or cause alarm.

Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Does it matter what I personally do or don't do?

And I have notcondemned Mr. Noble.

I have commented on the actions, and the legality or lack thereof, of the police and the Secret Service. I have looked up, and commented on, the law that the Secret Service operates under. I have noted the circumstances surrounding Mr. Noble's situation.

I have not called anyone any names.

I am not alone in thinking that this situationmay not help those of us that carry firearms for self protection, either openly or concealed. Some quotes from things posted on other boards:

I can't speak for the actions of the State Police, but I can tell you that the primary objective of a Secret Service Protective Detail is to keep their protectee alive at all costs. They don't give a rat's ass about your 'rights', nor should they.

I doubt that anyone here would be outraged about citizens of another country being disarmed in order to be allowed within proximity of our President or other senior U.S. official.

Click to expand...

[/quote][/quote]

Anyone that is going to be in same environment of a presidential candidate, regardless of political party, and is packing without an official assignment, is not thinking too well. The potential for problems is there. No matter what political party the candidate belongs to. Period. That is simply the way it is today.

Click to expand...

If this makes me, in your eyes a"fly by night 2nd Amendment supporter," so be it.[/quote][/quote]

Zealots in almost any area scare me.

Ken

imported post

Ken, i'm not calling you any names either and I am only expressing my opinion on what i see in your posts. If i'm off base, tell me so and how I am off and I'll be happy to apologize.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, well not too much anyway, but I'm just trying to see how not forcing all sides to follow the law is the best path to take.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

Ken, i'm not calling you any names either and I am only expressing my opinion on what i see in your posts. If i'm off base, tell me so and how I am off and I'll be happy to apologize.

Click to expand...

Not for me to say, friend. IMHO each of us must set our own standard for how we conduct discourse with each other. I am sure that your opinions have merit too.

imported post

'Seems the SS has been busy gettin' honest people locked up. First Denver... now this.

"...the primary objective of a Secret Service Protective Detail is to keep their protectee alive at all costs. They don't give a rat's ass about your 'rights', nor should they."

'Because they're sworn to support 'n defend the Constitution is why. Their 'protectee' has too. This isn't something that comes and goes as is convienient for THEM. They ain't Royalty, We fought a Revolution over that kind'a crap. They keep pushin' the 'privledged personage' envelope 'n they'll liable to have another one. This is about the CONSTITUTION. If it means anything or not... All the time... Everywhere. Otherwise we may as well bend over for the JBT's 'n grease up! :X

imported post

Anyone local to Pittsburgh or Beaver Co. that is interested in speaking in person to a local print media concerning open carry. Please PM me.