NO GUNS ALLOWED at Waterside???

[TFred]

imported post

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

2a4all wrote:

essayons wrote:

Thundar wrote:

O.K., that sign is really a load of B.S. Not only do they abridge our 2A rights (No weapons), but in the same sign the trample on the 4thA (Bags subject to search), and 1st A (Passing out pamphlets prohibited.)

This is public, not private, property. We know this. These are all self executing rights. Norfolk does not have the authority to squash our rights.

Norfolk Waterside = Tyranny Capitol of the Commonwealth of Virginia

OC trip carrying backpacks full of VCDL leaflets? Kill three birds with one stone.

Before anyone goes off the deep end,reviewthe judge's ruling declaring that Waterside is public property.

Read it, I was in the gallery for all of Danbus's trial...and OC after and half a dozen times after at waterside. I also OC when I took the above pic. I have given a couple days of my life fighting this crap at waterside. I am not off the deep end, but I am sure pissed off.

Is the ruling available on-line or in a soft copy from someone?

TFred

 

[mobeewan]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

I've been sitting here stewing about this...
The City Attorney (or one of them) outright LIED TO ME...
Over and over... KNOWING he was doing it.
WTF is WRONG with them?
I also mentioned that they had been sued for violating someone's rights for OCing at Waterside and he DENIED it. I then said "Ok, you settled out of court..." He STILL denied anything ever happened.

What are the chances this guy NEVER HEARD about Danbus???

My guess is Slim and NONE (and Slim just left town!!!)

That REALLY frosts my doodads...

Sorry, but I think you may be wrong and he is right. Dan received a settlement from Norfolk because of the incident in front of the bank a couple years ago.

We was found not guilty of tresspassing in the Waterside incident, but I don't believe he has sued yet. Last I know ofhe did not have a lawyer yetfor the Waterside incident lawsuit. Just because you may have a suit to sue doesn't mean you are sure to get a lawyer to take the case. Especially if you need money up front to pay the lawyer.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Good point. I wasn't aware he hadn't sued for the Waterside incident I remember seeing the video from. That was truly amazing... They harassed Dan while allowing 2(?) other OCers to go on about their business. THAT was really crazy. I can see that happening in the 50's or 60's but certainly not NOW!

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

While such an action would be immensely satisfying, we should not seriously advocate any action which could be construed as defacing public property.

Remember ... WE are the good guys! While the city is violating the law, we are law-abiding! THAT is how we win!



MSC 45ACP wrote:

TFred wrote:

I'd be tempted to print out a copy of the preemption law and tape it to all the signs. You wouldn't be able to see what happens in the managers office but wow I bet it would be funny!

TFred

+1

I'll do it!

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

jpierce wrote:

While such an action would be immensely satisfying, we should not seriously advocate any action which could be construed as defacing public property.

Remember ... WE are the good guys! While the city is violating the law, we are law-abiding! THAT is how we win!



MSC 45ACP wrote:

TFred wrote:

I'd be tempted to print out a copy of the preemption law and tape it to all the signs. You wouldn't be able to see what happens in the managers office but wow I bet it would be funny!

TFred

+1

I'll do it!

John:
Once again, the voice of REASON prevails. You are right of course. As much fun as it would be and the immediate gratification would "feel good"; We should, at all times, set the example rather than act impulsively.

I'm STILL frosted about the City Attorney lying to me about the ownership of Waterside... INSISTING it is private property!
He even did it on SPEAKER PHONE! I wonder how many others were inthe office while he "violated me"? :idea:

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

Understood. It would upset me as well.

MSC 45ACP wrote:

jpierce wrote:

While such an action would be immensely satisfying, we should not seriously advocate any action which could be construed as defacing public property.

Remember ... WE are the good guys! While the city is violating the law, we are law-abiding! THAT is how we win!



MSC 45ACP wrote:

TFred wrote:

I'd be tempted to print out a copy of the preemption law and tape it to all the signs. You wouldn't be able to see what happens in the managers office but wow I bet it would be funny!

TFred

+1

I'll do it!

John:
Once again, the voice of REASON prevails. You are right of course. As much fun as it would be and the immediate gratification would "feel good"; We should, at all times, set the example rather than act impulsively.

I'm STILL frosted about the City Attorney lying to me about the ownership of Waterside... INSISTING it is private property!
He even did it on SPEAKER PHONE! I wonder how many others were inthe office while he "violated me"? :idea:

 

[Thundar]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

I'm STILL frosted about the City Attorney lying to me about the ownership of Waterside... INSISTING it is private property!
He even did it on SPEAKER PHONE! I wonder how many others were inthe office while he "violated me"? :idea:

This is part of their plan to "Clean up Waterside" They have much more lattitude for private property, than public property to ban weapons.

Remember there was a shooting related to Waterside and then the whole city council vote to take away the Bar Norfolkliquor license debacle.

Norfolkdoesn't likeguns. Norfolk therefore tramples on gun rights. OCDO stands up to the trampling on gun rights. OCDO and Norfolktherefore will naturally be at odds with one another.

Each side has stregnths and weaknesses.

One of our great stregnths is that the city must abide by the Freedom of Information Act. If we use this correctly, then we can discover significant truths about the ownership, control, etc. of Waterside.

Letsstart this with a FOIA frontal attack.

After we prep the battlefield with significant FOIA intelligence gathering we can discuss direct action.

 

[TFred]

imported post

jpierce wrote:

While such an action would be immensely satisfying, we should not seriously advocate any action which could be construed as defacing public property.

Remember ... WE are the good guys! While the city is violating the law, we are law-abiding! THAT is how we win!



MSC 45ACP wrote:

TFred wrote:

I'd be tempted to print out a copy of the preemption law and tape it to all the signs. You wouldn't be able to see what happens in the managers office but wow I bet it would be funny!

TFred

+1

I'll do it!

I don't know if there is any precedent for what constitutes "defacing" but I have to say it would have to be one major jerk of a LEO to give someone a hard time, legal wise, for scotch taping a piece of paper to a sign.

Especially when it would obviously be political speech.

I'm not one to encourage illegal behavior. Not at all...

TFred

 

[TFred]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

I'm STILL frosted about the City Attorney lying to me about the ownership of Waterside... INSISTING it is private property!
He even did it on SPEAKER PHONE! I wonder how many others were inthe office while he "violated me"? :idea:

This is part of their plan to "Clean up Waterside" They have much more lattitude for private property, than public property to ban weapons.

Remember there was a shooting related to Waterside and then the whole city council vote to take away the Bar Norfolkliquor license debacle.

Norfolkdoesn't likeguns. Norfolk therefore tramples on gun rights. OCDO stands up to the trampling on gun rights. OCDO and Norfolktherefore will naturally be at odds with one another.

Each side has stregnths and weaknesses.

One of our great stregnths is that the city must abide by the Freedom of Information Act. If we use this correctly, then we can discover significant truths about the ownership, control, etc. of Waterside.

Letsstart this with a FOIA frontal attack.

After we prep the battlefield with significant FOIA intelligence gathering we can discuss direct action.

This seems to be starting over at ground zero... why reinvent the wheel? Doesn't the wheel invented by the last ruling still exist?

According to the alert published by Philip, the judge in the earlier case has clearly ruled that Waterside is public property.

TFred

Here's the text:


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Win for Gun Owners! 2/10/09

I just got the word - Danladi Moore, who was arrested for trespass by
a Norfolk police officer last August while Danladi was lawfully open
carrying at Norfolk's Waterside Mall, has just won his case in court!

The judge told the Norfolk City Attorney that because of the City's
financial interest in the mall, the mall is considered PUBLIC property
and Danladi was therefore NOT trespassing. All charges are to be
dropped.

Well, well - another most deserved lesson to City Attorney Bernard
Pishko on not harassing law-abiding gun owners.

Pishko was hell-bent on prosecuting Danladi Moore to teach him a
lesson because Danladi had challenged Norfolk's authority in a
previous harassment case and won a $10,000 settlement.

Hopefully Dan can now sue the pants off Norfolk AGAIN!

I wonder how much this latest blunder is going to cost Norfolk?
Perhaps another zero on the end of the previous settlement?

Go get 'em, Danladi! ;-)

We are attempting to get the transcript of the ruling as it could have
much bigger implications for other such government-owned venues across
the state.

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

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

TFred wrote:

This seems to be starting over at ground zero... why reinvent the wheel? Doesn't the wheel invented by the last ruling still exist?

According to the alert published by Philip, the judge in the earlier case has clearly ruled that Waterside is public property.

TFred

Lower court ruling has no direct application on the next case. This did not go to appellate court.

In any event, charges were dropped, so as I see it there was no decision.

Yata hey

 

[TFred]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

This seems to be starting over at ground zero... why reinvent the wheel? Doesn't the wheel invented by the last ruling still exist?

According to the alert published by Philip, the judge in the earlier case has clearly ruled that Waterside is public property.

TFred

Lower court ruling has no direct application on the next case. This did not go to appellate court.

In any event, charges were dropped, so as I see it there was no decision.

Yata hey

Perhaps, but after this:

The judge told the Norfolk City Attorney that because of the City's financial interest in the mall, the mall is considered PUBLIC property and Danladi was therefore NOT trespassing. All charges are to be dropped.

I don't think I'd want to be the lawyer appearing before that same judge, with the exact same issue again.

TFred

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

TFred wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

This seems to be starting over at ground zero... why reinvent the wheel? Doesn't the wheel invented by the last ruling still exist?

According to the alert published by Philip, the judge in the earlier case has clearly ruled that Waterside is public property.

TFred

Lower court ruling has no direct application on the next case. This did not go to appellate court.

In any event, charges were dropped, so as I see it there was no decision.

Yata hey

Perhaps, but after this:

The judge told the Norfolk City Attorney that because of the City's financial interest in the mall, the mall is considered PUBLIC property and Danladi was therefore NOT trespassing. All charges are to be dropped.

I don't think I'd want to be the lawyer appearing before that same judge, with the exact same issue again.

TFred

By the way... theNorfolk City Attorneythatis completelyFOS is WAYNE RINGER...

Be sure to add him to your Christmas card list...