WTOP Report: Virginia CHP-holder arrested in Frederick, Md

Repeater said:

And by the way, those of you who suggest carrying "concealed" instead of carrying openly so as not to "offend" or cause an "incident" need to understand that is analogous to "passing for white."

Click to expand...

Sadly some see obedience to the law as a virtue into itself, it is not.


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

"Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

ProShooter said:

Civil disobedience can be accomplished, and it comes in many forms....but I do not see knowingly breaking the law to be one.

Click to expand...

Indeed so, Jim. It would seem also that some need to be reminded of OCDO rule #15 WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

There may well be sites where hints or threats of breaking the law may be welcome - this is NOT one of them.

So just to be clear... OCDO's official position at the time would have been to tell Rosa Parks to "get to the back of the bus...?"

I can't see any other way to interpret these past few posts. Not saying they should change their policy, but just wanted to state the obvious.

TFred

TFred said:

So just to be clear... OCDO's official position at the time would have been to tell Rosa Parks to "get to the back of the bus...?"

I can't see any other way to interpret these past few posts. Not saying they should change their policy, but just wanted to state the obvious.

TFred

Click to expand...

I believe that a more accurate statement would be that OCDO's official position re: Ms. Parks would be to tell her to either get to the back of the bus or get off the bus, and to work towards changing the law requiring her to do so.

As much as it may surprise some, I believe that there is noone who despises onerous and unjust laws more than I do. I have had the opportunity of personally observing governments enforcing such laws that make what we are here complaining about (not just the instant Maryland ones but the general "that's unconstitutional!" ones) seem both petty and benign. I have personally seen citizens of those countries attempt to change them through both the limited lawful means at their disposal and through unlawful (at the time) rebellion. I have personally seen the short- and long-term results of the sucessful rebellions to be nothing but the creation of governments even worse than the one just overthrown, and when rebellion was unsucessful the addition of even more harsh policies and practices that were the cause of the attempted rebellion. Thus, my propensity to advocate for lawful attempts to change the laws as opposed to other means until such time as there is no question but that the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism". I do not believe we are yet at that point and thus cannot support anything but lawful attempts to effect the changes we are all united in seeking.

stay safe.

Grapeshot said:

Indeed so, Jim. It would seem also that some need to be reminded of OCDO rule #15 WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

There may well be sites where hints or threats of breaking the law may be welcome - this is NOT one of them.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot,

You know, in an ealier post on another thread I graciously gave you a hint about moderators being able to distinguish between discussing sedition and rebellion in the theoretical and actual advocacy of the same, rather than out-and-out telling you that you were off base. You even picked it up and acknowledged the moderators could make that distinction.

Yet, here again we have a moderator--a moderator, dammit!--accusing forum members, unnamed, of doing something they clearly are not doing.

No one is actively telling others to ignore the law. No one is telling others they should violate laws. We are discussing whether the negative comments against the arrestee in the newstory are properly placed and include all considerations. We are discussing these things in the abstract and theoretical. Not one poster has told or urged anyone to do something illegal.

You even have to resort to obliquely characterizing their comments as "hints" and "threats" of lawbreaking. As though "hinting" and "threats" (not made in this thread) are also a violation of Rule #15. As though you are now writing additional rules or corollaries to rules.

If there is going to be moderation, then we deserve better moderation. Not vague accusations against unnamed forum members. And, certainly not make-it-up-as-you-go rule making. You want to prohibit "hints" and "threats" of lawbreaking, fine. Publish the rule: "No discussion in any way..."

You can resort to exercising your reserved right to remove any posts for any reason, but it would be tantamount to taking your ball and going home, because you don't like when others are playing the game by your own published rules. Otherwise, I expect better moderation. We deserve it.

Citizen

PS: Just in case there is any misunderstanding, my biggest beef is the accusation against forum members. And, that it does not name those members. The rest is bad enough, but that one frosts me when it comes from a moderator--a moderator.

It is simple Citizen - it is better to serve a cautionary reminder than to see a thread go too far down that road. It would seem that there is some resistance to any reference to rules and the application thereof. It is obvious that the preferred moderation style is accomplished with a light hand (that is what reminders do) rather than a heavy handed authoritative response. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but it is effective and will continue on a case by case basis.

I see absolutely no need to take offense or be disappointed. No one was pointed out, taken to task, accused or otherwise censored. Indeed, the preference is to avoid that.

Please do not read too much into such comments.

Citizen, what Grapeshot and Skidmark are trying to do is prevent the discussion from going downhill. I also think that's what the board rule is intended to do since we do often stray into the shadows here and not much is said.

I haven't been to AR15 General for years but that is a good example of what we want to avoid.

There are places for those discussions. Had I made it to breakfast this morning, it would have been high on the topic list.

As Ed pointed out recently, I'm hardly a shining example of following the masters commands and the one question I asked in this thread should give a hint about what I think he should do assuming he isn't trying to test the law. Nuff said about that.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Proshooter about this but he is both a friend and I understand why he feels that way. A heated discussion on this board is not the way to either maintain a friendship or convince him he has tunnel vision (Couldn't resist Jim).
There is also a world of difference between how Proshooter really sees things and someone like Novacop.

Anyway....just my 0.02. I have to go scrape about 20 pounds of mud off.

"Expendable" pistol...

I think several posters alluded to something earlier...
The "violator" in this case may have thought long and hard about what he was doing when he did it.

He admitted to being aware of MD laws.
He is from an area where OCing is commonplace.
He was carrying what most of us would consider "junk".

I may be reading far too much into it, but I believe a little more "thought" went into his fateful decision than many of us believe...

The area in which he was arrested isn't exactly a "poverty-stricken" area.
It is likely he has highly supportive friends and/or relatives in the immediate area.

I'm almost willing to bet the "weapon" seized from is from the lower-end of his collection...
Ranking just above the cap-guns, Red Ryders and Crossmans and immediately below the Remington and Ruger 22's.

IF I was going to OC in Communist-Held Marylandistan, I certainloy would NOT OC a Kimber Ultra Crimson Carry II.
IF I was going to carry in Maryland, I would most likely CC and make darn sure I was "doing it right".
I am not advocating breaking any laws, I am simply stating my opinion...

Grapeshot said:

It is simple Citizen - it is better to serve a cautionary reminder than to see a thread go too far down that road. It would seem that there is some resistance to any reference to rules and the application thereof. It is obvious that the preferred moderation style is accomplished with a light hand (that is what reminders do) rather than a heavy handed authoritative response. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but it is effective and will continue on a case by case basis.

I see absolutely no need to take offense or be disappointed. No one was pointed out, taken to task, accused or otherwise censored. Indeed, the preference is to avoid that.

Please do not read too much into such comments.

Click to expand...

I'm not buying it.

I let your similar reply in that earlier thread slide without comment last time because it seemed that the message got across.

It is clear from your comments in this thread that there was more intended than a cautionary statement because you were concerned it might get out of hand as compared to actually gotten out of hand. Certainly you did not phrase your concern as giving a reminder to prevent anything getting out of hand.

Even if we use your explanation, you are rather specific in that "some" "need reminding"--meaning you can't really evade that you fully expected whoever those "some" are would violate the rules. Who are those posters you were so sure would get out of hand you were convinced a reminder was needed?

But, your explanation doesn't really hold up. That last sentence about "hints" and "threats" not welcome here just doesn't fit with your explained purpose.

If you have something to moderate, do it. We're all big boys here. If any don't like the rules--the actual rules--they can go home.

Also, I take specific exception to your weasel comment about "some resistance to any reference to rules and application thereof". Got an accusation to make? Make it! You know damned good and well I'll call-out a cop-basher just as fast as you will. And, will demand cites faster than you will. So, your little comment about resistance to rules doesn't hold up. If you tell us what the real rules are; and then moderate according to those, you won't hear any complaint from me about the moderation. And, you know it.

Citizen said:

I'm not buying it.

I let your similar reply in that earlier thread slide without comment last time because it seemed that the message got across.

It is clear from your comments in this thread that there was more intended than a cautionary statement because you were concerned it might get out of hand as compared to actually gotten out of hand. Certainly you did not phrase your concern as giving a reminder to prevent anything getting out of hand.

Even if we use your explanation, you are rather specific in that "some" "need reminding"--meaning you can't really evade that you fully expected whoever those "some" are would violate the rules. Who are those posters you were so sure would get out of hand you were convinced a reminder was needed?

But, your explanation doesn't really hold up. That last sentence about "hints" and "threats" not welcome here just doesn't fit with your explained purpose.

If you have something to moderate, do it. We're all big boys here. If any don't like the rules--the actual rules--they can go home.

Also, I take specific exception to your weasel comment about "some resistance to any reference to rules and application thereof". Got an accusation to make? Make it! You know damned good and well I'll call-out a cop-basher just as fast as you will. And, will demand cites faster than you will. So, your little comment about resistance to rules doesn't hold up. If you tell us what the real rules are; and then moderate according to those, you won't hear any complaint from me about the moderation. And, you know it.

Click to expand...

Relax - you'll get over it. You make entirely too big of an issue of this.

More importantly, public dissension of this does not benefit OCDO's image. If there exists a serious disagreement on policy, rules or methods, the preferred procedure would be to to discuss/report it to John which I have taken the liberty of doing.

Repeater said:

By your logic, the only (lawful) recourse is to avoid the premises of Maryland altogether.

Click to expand...

I don't see a single thing wrong with this idea. :lol:

wylde007 said:

I don't see a single thing wrong with this idea. :lol:

Click to expand...

all joking aside, there are many who will say they won't shop in certain stores, visit certain malls, bank with certain institutions because of the policies of each of those places with regards to the carrying of lawfully owned firearms. So what's wrong with extending that idea to include not visiting States that have policies, or laws, preventing an otherwise law abiding person from carrying their firearm? Don't buy anything in those States because the tax you pay on everything goes to fund the policies we despise. We'll see comments like 'don't go to Cracker Barrell because they're anti', so why not include 'don't go to Maryland because they're anti'?

The comment was only slightly in jest. I agree completely with your more expansive explanation.

Countless others I could point too, but...

To those that say or agree with the comment, "Civil disobedience can be accomplished, and it comes in many forms....but I do not see knowingly breaking the law to be one." I point to Susan B. Anthony as a well known example.

In 1872 Susan B. Anthony voting in violation of the law. I honor her for act of civil disobedience, in which she did 'break the law'. She WAS convicted and WAS fined $100. She never paid the fine, but only because the U.S. Government took no collection action against her. I am proud as a human being at her statement, "I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty". She not only willfully broke the law, but in face of conviction willfully and with contempt refused to abide by the sentencing!

Anyone that in pursuit of what is right continues in her tradition has my support and admiration. If such a comment puts me in violation of an internet forum rule I am ok with that. I HONOR AND ADMIRE FOR THOSE THAT DO WHAT IS MORAL, ETHICAL AND RIGHT.


"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein

#15 WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY

Now it has been said that the comments so far have been theoretical and do not break the rules as they are not advocating the law. I can not and will not say that will always be the case. I supported and went to court with Dan, he was found not guilty, but it could have been the other way. If someone posted they intended to challenge an unconstitutional/unjust/unethical law I would support them. I would warn them to think long and hard about the price they may end up paying over it. I would caution them, but I would end the end support them if I felt the cause just. I would do so because, they are furthering my freedom....and maybe, maybe someday I will be the one making that hard choice.

Doing what is right and abiding the law, should be the same thing, but it is not always. I don't advocate breaking law, I advocate and support doing that which is right, beyond that the law is lesser consideration.

scouser said:

We'll see comments like 'don't go to Cracker Barrell because they're anti', so why not include 'don't go to Maryland because they're anti'?

Click to expand...

Sadly, that is not an option for me. My aging father will no doubt, if he gets his way, live out his days on our land in MD. To avoid the premises of Maryland would be to forsake visiting my father. Every time I visit MD my contempt for the unconstitutional laws of that state disgust me even more. I would visit him even if he lived in such tyrannical places as China, Cuba, or Chicago. Sometimes one has reason to go "behind the lines" into less free lands. So the difference is, it is one thing to vote with your feet and dollars to forgo a business and it is another to forsake all with an entire state, for some that is just not an option.

He's from Virginia Beach and was victimized in Maryland. This is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

This is true. He could have just gone to Newport News.

zoom6zoom said:

This is true. He could have just gone to Newport News.

Click to expand...

Ouch!

So, to get this thread headed back in a practical direction, has anyone been able to look up the arrest info for this case and see if a court date has been set? Watching an arraignment would give a good idea whether this guy is going to plead or lawyer up to fight this thing.

The discussion here continues to be interesting. Some of you have stated that the accused, Tony Anderson, "admitted to being aware of MD laws." Do most of you accord that assumption? How many of you have listened to the audio? The on-air reporter says that " ... he told the officer he knew about the law ..." -- did the reporter interview Anderson directly? It seems the reporter only interviewed Sheriff Chuck Jenkins. That's hearsay. Were any of you there at the incident to bear witness to what actually happened? If you were not there, then you're ignorant.

So we all are then. Then why pass judgment? The news report from the Frederick News Post does not say that Anderson "knew the law" or anything else; it simply tells the story from the point-of-view of Deputy First Class Andrew Crone. How many LEOs have embellished their account of an incident, or worse, "testilied" about it? Note that I'm not accusing Crone of anything unprofessional.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, why not wait for Anderson to have his say. That would be due process.


[size=+1]Sheriff Jenkins[/size]

Repeater said:

SNIP The discussion here continues to be interesting. Some of you have stated that the accused, Tony Anderson, "admitted to being aware of MD laws."

Click to expand...

You know, I wondered about that. Thanks for pointing it out.