Loveland OCer speaks HIS piece

imported post

Yesterday, Isent tonews@reporter-herald.com. the following in response to thetheir article on the Police chief's response.


[align=center]http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=24014[/align]
I see that it is not in their website edition (http://www.reporterherald.com) this morning. If you think as I do that they ought to putmy letterin the same position of prominance, both in their paper edition and on their website, as were the other two articles about this case, perhaps you will email them at news@reporter-herald.com.


[align=left]"7/22/09[/align]
My fellow Lovelanders:



Since the Friday July 17, 2009 Reporter Herald report by Jon Pilsner, many opinions have appeared in public forums like the Reporter Herald and opencarry.org, both pro and con, about guns and those who carry them.

As there will certainly be a law suit, I cannot discuss specifics. But, I would like to put in my two cents worth for your perusal, if you will allow.

I must tell you that, contrary to the impression some have got, I was not carrying my gun that evening in order to make a point, although, since then, having discovered good folks like those whose thoughts I read on opencarry.org, I do say that I am proud these days that that is now among my reasons.

As for Jon’s words that I want to “teach a lesson,” this is apparently an abbreviation of what I did say, and the connotation suggested by his words has made it easy for some to suspect some motive on my part that did not exist. (No fault to Jon. Journalists must save space. Jon is an excellent reporter even if he does write like I shoot. The Reporter Herald is lucky to have him and the town is lucky to have the Reporter Herald.) Jon asked me what I would like to see come out of all this. After much verbal wondering, I said that I would like it if all police officers were to come to know that they must protect all of the rights of all of the people and that if they were to think about all those brave Americans who have died, and all those countless others who have suffered terrible injuries to establish and preserve for us our constitution they would quit their national mantra, “officer safety” as their reason to trample upon the constitution. (Please correct me if I am wrong, Jon.)

And, now, if I may, here is what I think is the important thing:

“We are a nation of laws, not of men,” said many of our leaders from John Adams to Edward M. Kennedy. No matter how we might feel about guns or the people who carry them, we are called, I suggest, as Americans, to respect the constitution and laws of this land, and the decisions that the courts have made based upon them, and the rights of all people who choose to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the constitution.

Our option, if we do not like the wording of the laws and the constitution is to convince our representatives to change those words, or, if they will not, vote them out of office or petition the courts to strike down those laws we do not like. We are not allowed to deny the our neighbors their rights based upon opinions we may hold that differ from the rule of law. And, whenever a government official tries to do this, we must all, even if we agree whole heartedly with the opinion of that official, insist that that official confine his or her actions to that which is written in the law. We must not allow fears, “common sense,” or concerns for safety to dissuade us from these principles.

President Obama said, referring to our founding documents, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is just as true for our city streets and country roads as for our national boarders. We, civilians and public servants alike, must not allow our personal fears to cause us to forget the sacrifices of all those who established and preserved for us our constitution and the institutions by which we, through our representatives, write the laws by which we all must live.

We must all be free to exercise our rights and we must all respect and protect the right of others to exercise the rights they may choose to exercise. But, only those rights guaranteed by constitution and laws. So far, neither constitution nor law guarantees anyone the right to be free from fear upon seeing another exercising his or her constitutional rights. If the people want that, they will prevail upon their representatives to write and pass it into law and to change the constitution.





Thanking you for your kind attention, I am





Bill Miller

Loveland





(To the Reporter Herald: Please publish the above exactly as I have written it or do not publish it in whole or in part. I have chosen my words carefully. I do not want their meanings or the tone or flavor of the piece to suffer for the sake of the saving of space or other editorial concerns. We have already seen how that can happen. As this piece is too long for your Open Forum, perhaps you will consent to publish it as a guest column or feature or something. Should there be need for voice communication, Mr. Pilsner has my phone number. I would be pleased should he call me. I want to be sure I don’t offend him with my comments about his writing )



(Attached is a picture of me in case you might think it fair to include it with the article as you do in so many instances.)"








[align=left][/align]

imported post

Please join me in congratulating Mr Miller for pushing this caseso far, and thank you to all who have worked so hard to keep our rights in tact. While following this story I see a few points I would like to mention. First, we do not live in a Police State. Not yet. The police work for us and have taken an oath to "serve and protect". That oath does not include the words intimidate and dominere. A citizen carrying a weapon legally is not a criminal, and does not deserve to be treated as a criminal. I know a lot of officers read this forum, so I ask you the LEO to do a little soul searching and ask yourself the following questions.

Am I a good neighbor? Do people in the community respect me? (notice I did not say fear me) Do children willingly approach me? Are troubled teens willing to come and talk to me? When I approach peple on the street, do they smile or act afraid? If you answer negative to any of these simple questions, may I suggest a month of retraining by watching Andy Griffith, or another line of work. Since when should we be afraid of contact with the people we hire? And why do people we hire feel it is OK to harass law abiding citizens who pay theiir salary? When this happens to you, Please follow the lead of Mr Miller and so many before him. Take them to task. Exercise your rights. And never let the issue drop when you are told, "officer safety dictated they you be disarmed." This implies you are a danger to officers. This makes us all criminals if we are a danger to officers. I personally am sick of department management hiding behind "officer safety" to defend their illegal actions of disarming people. Allow me to rant one more time, Leagally armed citizens are NO danger to anyone, exect bad guys. Each time a LEO states that one of us was disarmed for officer safety, they place us in the same category as criminals.

My next point. Carry your weapon. (legally of course) It is your God given right as an American. Do not allow power hungry people to take that right from you. If we let them win, and each time any of our rights are lessened, we embarass our founding fathers and veterans who sacrificed so much for us.

imported post

O-C Billy, I am glad you have support forthe wrongful violation of your rights by these officers and you are speaking out against them.

But I do have an issue with one sentence in your letter to the paper;

"I would like it if all police officers were to come to know that they must protect all of the rights of all of the people"

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that with the protectionslisted in the bill of rights are there are to protect ourselves against the police.
And it is the duty of the police to try and violate those rights every chance they get.

We are not "granted" those rights, but instead born with them as a US. And our founding fathers had the foresight to make sure we are guaranteed those inalienable rights by specifically limiting police, judicial, and executive powers.

Anyways, thank you for standing up to the Loveland PD and not just accepting thier trampling of your rights.

imported post

Just registered. I heard of this incident as a Lakewood resident and former police officer. All of the links took me to the Loveland paper (online) but I believe the link is general and it just depends on what is currently posted online.

Is there any way to read the original story published in 2008. Instead of having to read references to the story I would rather read it first hand--I spent a career listening to at least two sides of the same story.

I have discovered that beaurocrats (remember I was there) have a whole different perspective of things than citizens (their bosses). Rather than cut back when taxes don't flow-- like anybody else, they figure some way around the law. An example is what it costs in the form of a "fee" to register your car. People won't vote for taxes--which takes food off their table and puts it on Ritter's table.

Please take note that not every police officer reacts like those in Loveland. We have to be certified by a state board called POST or Police Officer Standards and Training. You can find them in the blue pages (with some difficulty). US Constitutional rights cannot be overriden by States and state statutes cannot trump Colo's Constituional either.

So of the comments I read urging citizens to twist the arms of their representatives to the Colorado General Assembly to change the law are meaningless. Can't be done. What can be done is to contact our state legislators (just Google the Colorado website--on it will provide email addresses and snailmail address for all of them--it also has a link to a Colorado state statutes). Make them include specific training regarding open carry in the POST program. Use the Loveland incident to back your case.

Open carry puts everyone on notice that the carrier has a weapon. Not rocket science. If the cop feels it necessary to disarm the OC subject for his own safety I think few will object.Although I stopped plenty ofsuburb cops for traffic violations and I assumed they were armed--I cited them regardless.

It sounded like the cops demanded Bills drivers license. That issue has been appealed to appeal courts and they have found that cops CAN'T demand a drivers license from a non-driver. Go to the State site and search for it under drivers licenses. The reason is that the person is not driving. If you are a passenger in a car that gets stopped for any reason cops cannot demand a drivers license. ID is something else. Most people think of a driving license as ID for cashing checks, buying booze, etc. Use something else like your library cardor anything except your DL. Can't legally be demanded.

You can go the Colorado State side, click statutes, and if you search for Colorado Criminal Code check for allowances under "identification". Search annotations and the court cases will be there. Print that out, fold it or cut it to fit your wallet. When you hand over your library card hand that over as well. It will be the first time the cop has seen it and he will be pissed. Ask for a supervisor. Keep moving up the chain. Smile when you win.

Now about the 2008 original article. Where is it. Thor

imported post

ThorOdinson wrote:

Please take note that not every police officer reacts like those in Loveland.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is different in your town. So far, I have not heard or seen any reason why I should not judge all LEOs by the actions of the few. There were three who violated my rights that evening. One was a sergeant. Not only did the two fail to stop the one, they actually conspired with him in the offenses. And, as you may know, the newspaper article of 7/18/09 quoted their chief as praising the three of them for their actions.

Maybe the good LEOs here in Loveland have gone as a group or individually to their three brothers to chide them and demand that they make reparations to The People and to me. Maybe they have demanded of their chief that he change his public position from praise to condemnation of the offenses. If they have, I have missed all the reports. Perhaps someone can tell me where they have appeared.

imported post

You all are invited to join me at Lake Loveland for sterile carry picnic . . .

Wednesday, August 26 5:30pm (or when you can get there) at the Statue of Liberty.

Potluck - bring food, plan to share. Video cameras encouraged, as are chairs, etc. There's not much there, from what I remember.

I'm sure that you all wouldn't even think of it, but just in case, soft drinks only, please.

I'll be wearing the Libertarian Party of Washington shirt and Taurus Titanium .38. (And probably blue jeans and shoes. ;o)

Rachel H.
Seattle area, but Colorado Front Range homegirl

imported post

We have the right to carry guns. We also have the right to express our opinions. On guns, there are many opinions expressed. We are a nation ruled by laws, not by men. When our public servants venture beyond the law to enforce opinions, we must all demand they be sanctioned.

imported post

I don't follow the Colorado forum much, but is this story the result of the sterile carry invitation?

I was disappointed by the statement: Where does he get off deciding to "allow" people to exercise their rights?

imported post

Tess wrote:

I don't follow the Colorado forum much, but is this story the result of the sterile carry invitation?

I was disappointed by the statement:

Code:

“As long as this group is going to be peaceable, we will allow them to 
exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” said Loveland 
Police Chief Luke Hecker. “I think it’s that simple.”

Where does he get off deciding to "allow" people to exercise their rights?

Click to expand...

Yes. The Reporter Herald newspaper did report this as the Chief's statement about the sterile carry at the Statue of Liberty. Can we think that a person who has risen to his position doesn't mean what he says? Is he so ignorant of The Constitution and the laws, or is he that contemptuous of them, and of The People?

I am bringing suit against the Chief and his three "officers" for their offenses against me AND THE PEOPLE on October 7, 2008. It was in response to this incident that RayeHawk organized the picnic.

Help is needed for this suit. The ACLU is not able to represent me further. We need to find an outside attorney. I have got much good advice as to where to look. I have followed all of it. I have emailed all of the attorneys listed on Cobar.orgas practicing Constitutional law/civil rights in the Denver area. Some would seem willing to take the case if they could get paid. We have three choices, raise funds, find a lawyer who will work pro bono or on a contingency fee basis, or quit. I have tried the pro bono/contingency fee thing with no luck. I do not know how to do the other two.

Please. Ifanyone can raise funds to support this case,do it FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE. Ifanyone can find a lawyer for this case, please do it for the sake of THE PEOPLE.

Don't quit!! I swear that I shall not. But, I need your help. And, please do not give me any moreadvice. Roll up your sleeves - for the rights of The People!

Thanks.