PDA

View Full Version : Man Arrested in Beaver County, PA for Exercising 1st, 2nd Amdt Rights


Kyrottimus
September 08, 2008, 15:36
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/15561.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/15801.html

http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/doc48b8adb204d42890214530.txt

================================================== ===

Man arrested for having gun at rally

By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:10 PM EDT
BEAVER — An Industry man intended to disrupt an Aug. 29 Barack Obama rally in Beaver by wearing a loaded gun holstered on his hip, state police said Friday.

John A. Noble, 50, of 1063 Willowbrook Drive, has been charged with one count each of disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions.

In court documents, police said Noble “came to this proceeding with an agenda and a plan,” as he posted on a Web site prior to the rally that he was going to take his gun “to test what would happen.”

Noble said Friday evening, “Why would there be a test? I was just inviting others from our group. There was no test about it.”

Police said Noble posted messages on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association under the user name “Mtn Jack,” which Noble confirmed is his user handle, urging other gun owners to join him.

In filing charges, state police Trooper Shawn L. Schexnaildre said “the accused’s political agenda and intent to disrupt the proceedings at the Obama rally were clearly evident by his own statement and actions.”

However, Schexnaildre pointed out that Noble did not violate the law by simply having the gun, as it’s legal in Pennsylvania to wear a weapon out in the open without a permit.

Police and Beaver County deputy sheriffs earlier said that Noble was in McIntosh Square, adjacent to Irvine Park. A witness saw the gun, a Glock 9mm handgun holstered on Noble’s waist, and notified deputies more than an hour before Obama arrived. Noble also had fliers about gun rights.

Schexnaildre said that when police first questioned him, Noble said he didn’t know Obama would be in Beaver until his wife told him about it just prior to their arrival. Schexnaildre wrote that was obviously untrue because of the Web posting.

Noble had a Bible in one hand, and when he was questioned as to why, Schexnaildre said, Noble responded that he “was there to show Senator Obama that Pennsylvanians do, in fact ‘cling to their guns and religion.’ ”

Obama was criticized for a San Francisco speech in April in which he said small-town Americans are “bitter.”

Schexnaildre said Noble’s answers indicated “his intent was to disrupt the proceedings.” The trooper added that Noble said “he did not think he would get within a mile of the senator, but was apprehended within 100 yards of the podium after crossing the outer perimeter barrier tape and being in a position to see no less than a dozen police officers.”

After being interviewed for a couple of hours after he was taken into custody, Noble was released and his gun confiscated.

Police and deputy sheriffs said Noble did not threaten anyone and did not try to reach for his gun when approached by officers.

Schexnaildre said Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him, thus the disorderly conduct charge.

Noble said, “I wasn’t trying to go to the rally. I wasn’t at the rally. I just wanted to see people walking around.”[/email].

renaissance_warrior
September 08, 2008, 16:09
Well, he obviously is mentally unbalanced, carrying a Bible AND a gun. What's wrong with some people? Didn't he know the Pope of Dopes was showing up? The Constution is suspended when His Mindlessness is in town.

Edited to add: Evidently this trooper is a 2005 academy grad. Here's a little press on the guy:

Pennsylvania Corrections Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., was principal speaker at the graduation ceremony held at Central Dauphin High School. State Police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller offered remarks and Cadet Shawn L. Schexnaildre of Cranberry, Butler County, spoke on behalf of the cadet class.

The imagery that comes to mind is Niedernmeyer in 'Animal House' and the guy was wearing a pledge pin.

Beckman
September 08, 2008, 19:38
Nice news report. Notice that the first paragraph of the story tells us the alarming news about how Mr. Noble was near an Obama rally with a "loaded gun holstered on his hip".

How many readers will ever read until the seventh paragraph and find out that open carry is perfectly legal? We'll see if any of the charges against Mr. Noble stick and whether Noble is convicted of disruption, based not upon his actions, but upon his thoughts.

Additionally troubling is the fact that Mr. Noble's web postings were apparently searched. Big brother is watching...

Mr. Noble wanted to "test" and see whether the police would violate state laws and the U.S. Constitution. I would say that he got a definite result. It's much like wearing the wrong gang colors in certain parts of Los Angeles: the result is inevitible.

lngnmn
September 08, 2008, 19:52
Schexnaildre said Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him, thus the disorderly conduct charge

It appears that you can enjoy your constitutional rights as long as you don't encounter any idiots who don't know about the constitution.
How can the police charge someone with a crime when what that person is doing is perfectly legal? W.T.F.?:confused:

Russ
September 08, 2008, 20:01
I am normally reflexively in defense of rkba situations, let alone when they happen right next door to me here in western PA.

But not in this case.

These "in your face" tactics really don't work for anyone, anywhere, for any cause. Or worse, they DO work - in favor of those who progressively shut down the 2nd amendment by drawing an emotionally charged image of gunowners as scary, dangerous, irresponsible fringe-types.

If Noble wants to make his counter-protest, fine, that's his right, within the law. This do-do-bird sought to create a confrontation, made a firearm the centerpiece of his demonstration at a political rally for a presidential candidate. The only thing he didn't do was mount a flashing red light on his head and tell passerby that he is the long lost bastard son of Squeaky-Fromm. If he wants to advertise himself as a kook, he's allowed, but this is major-caliber ammo to the anti crowd.

It's kind of hard to get mad at him given that he likely has a screw loose --instead, I remember Kurt Russell in "Big Trouble in Little China" -- "Are you totally nuts? Is that what your problem really is??"

Russ

renaissance_warrior
September 08, 2008, 22:59
I would say that activism on the 2nd is best kept away from presidental candidate venues. The Secret Service is probably so freaked out about Nobama and anything happening to him that would make MLK being shot look like a birthday party. I really think the guy was 'gaming the system' and knew exactly what he was doing. Legal? Yes, smart? Your call, my vote says no.

19k40ret
September 08, 2008, 23:41
if exercising your rights under any venue can be suppressed because others might get upset or feel threatened by the presents of a gun, then there is no right. every time gun owners compromise their right, our right is deminished, until eventually the right is so narrowly confined, it simply disappears.

police officers carries their weapons in and around these candidates and the crowds, why should they be more trustworthy than a citizen, after all police officers have committed murder, rape, arson, robbery, etc.

John Culver
September 08, 2008, 23:41
Why was his gun siezed?

Kyrottimus
September 09, 2008, 00:39
Originally posted by Russ
I am normally reflexively in defense of rkba situations, let alone when they happen right next door to me here in western PA.

But not in this case.

These "in your face" tactics really don't work for anyone, anywhere, for any cause. Or worse, they DO work - in favor of those who progressively shut down the 2nd amendment by drawing an emotionally charged image of gunowners as scary, dangerous, irresponsible fringe-types.

If Noble wants to make his counter-protest, fine, that's his right, within the law. This do-do-bird sought to create a confrontation, made a firearm the centerpiece of his demonstration at a political rally for a presidential candidate. The only thing he didn't do was mount a flashing red light on his head and tell passerby that he is the long lost bastard son of Squeaky-Fromm. If he wants to advertise himself as a kook, he's allowed, but this is major-caliber ammo to the anti crowd.

It's kind of hard to get mad at him given that he likely has a screw loose --instead, I remember Kurt Russell in "Big Trouble in Little China" -- "Are you totally nuts? Is that what your problem really is??"

Russ

He may be a little wacky, but did he break any law?

Those crazy assholes who protest at fallen soldier's funerals with "Thank God for IED's" are definitely loony and hateful, but they are well within their Constitutional rights to do what they do.

No, I don't like what they do, but we have to draw a line where rights are rights and not mere allowances [I can't believe I first spelled it "allowences", lol] from time to time.

Beckman
September 09, 2008, 01:51
Originally posted by Russ
[...]These "in your face" tactics really don't work for anyone, anywhere, for any cause.
What about "gay marriage?" It's legal in some states now, and the gays didn't get it by sitting on their butts. The pro-gay campaign has been very much "in your face" for a number of years now, from marches and rallies to pro-gay news items and pro-gay TV shows. As always, it helps when you have the mass media on your side. In the 1950's, 60's and even later, gays were portrayed negatively in movies and TV. Not now.


[...]If Noble wants to make his counter-protest, fine, that's his right, within the law.
Although Noble was arrested and charged, it seems as though the charges were trumped-up. As Ingnmn pointed out, how can Noble be charged with a crime when his action is perfectly legal? The "disturbing the peace" tactic has been used before against Open Carry proponents. My understanding is that the tactic usually fails.

We'll see whether Noble is convicted or whether his case is quietly dropped.

justashooter
September 09, 2008, 09:25
didn't i put up a post about PAFOA a few weeks ago? that site has turned into an "I'm gonna show them all that I can carry my gun anywhere and anybody who don't like it better not say so" forum.

couple of mistakes this guy made. one was carrying a gun to a political rally that featured a high profile guest. another was lying to a policeman about his knowledge of the expected appearance. one of these mistakes will result in a charge that WILL stick, and if this guy ever had a CCW, he can kiss that goodbye, as well, as CCW IS discretionary by sherriff in PA on basis of evidence of character.

the disorderly charge might not stick under the Ortiz and Hawkins PA supreme court rulings. PAFOA is sending out "Training Memos" to lots of penna police departments citing these, but they are late 90's cases and did not involve political rallys featuring presidential candidates. i suppose the stated intent will be a strong factor in the DA's decision to file or not. if this moron posted that he wanted to test reaction, he is in the can. if he was just a guy going about his own business, he might walk 10K$ and 6 months later.

funny thing is, he prolly coulda CCW right up to the rope, and no result.

here's the PAFOA thread. it seems to not require registration:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/31196-mtn-jack-arrested-oc-near-obama-rally-site.html

here's his "bring your gun and bible thread", which PAFOA were smart enuf to close and not conceal:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2/31143-guns-bibles.html

John Culver
September 09, 2008, 11:37
If having his gun there was legal, why did the police sieze it?

Does the 4th ammendment not apply there?

Stranger
September 09, 2008, 12:30
Originally posted by justashooter

couple of mistakes this guy made. one was carrying a gun to a political rally that featured a high profile guest. another was lying to a policeman about his knowledge of the expected appearance. one of these mistakes will result in a charge that WILL stick, and if this guy ever had a CCW, he can kiss that goodbye, as well, as CCW IS discretionary by sherriff in PA on basis of evidence of character.

if this moron posted that he wanted to test reaction, he is in the can.


First of all, whether or not he obstructed justice by lying to the officer depends on the jurisdiction. Some localities put more emphasis on obstruction than others. In several states you can lie to the police all day long without ever "obstructing justice". If there was no crime being committed then there isn't really any way doofus could have been obstructing the officer's duties. IMHO, its a real stretch to claim that lying to the officer about whether or not he knew Obama was going to be there constitutes obstruction.

Why do you say he is "in the can" if he wanted to test the reaction he would receive? There were two things that could have happened. I personally think it would have been nice if he were escorted up to the stage and given a standing ovation for supporting our second amendment rights. How was he to know police officers would be offended by him lawfully carrying a weapon?

Anyway, the guy didn't obey the first rule of contact with law enforcement, "Never talk to the police."

fastfreddy
September 09, 2008, 19:34
My guess is that he won't be convicted and he also won't get his gun back. Furthermore, the "authoritahs" will start a mental health evaluation and deny his 2nd amendment right for life.

Russ
September 09, 2008, 19:55
Well it would have been nice if the O-man came down from the podium and kissed the guy's glock and asked for permission to hold it, but that didn't happen either.

I can lawfully blow the biggest fart I can muster in a crowded lobby, but I don't choose to do that. Even though it's legal.

As for Noble's CCW (if he has one) -- in PA it's black letter law that the sheriff "Shall Issue" -- basically the same criteria as passing insta-chek, no more no less.

Last time I renewed my PA CCW I was living in Wheeling WV, and the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office very huffily informed me that the Sheriff "had a policy" of not issuing out of state PA CCW's (even though this, too, is clear "shall-issue" language within the statute). Sooooo....I had my lawyer engage in some discourse with them, and presto, I became probably the first holder of a PA CCW issued by Allegheny County to an out of state resident. Few years later, Sheriff Defazio's career ended in a big scandal over macing employees, and at least one of the deputies who gave me a hard time ended up doing a couple years hard time himself.

Four or five years earlier, my CCW BEFORE that one (above), actually was a case of the Sheriff handing me the "character" razzola -- that one took a court hearing, immediately after which I walked over to another part of the courthouse and got my brand spanking new CCW. THAT is how I protest - and how I protect-- RKBA.

Noble didn't do anything but harm to the RKBA with his little stunt -- and he advertised himself as an idiot, which would be pretty much recognizable no matter what cause he wants to get out in front of

Russ

Russ
September 09, 2008, 20:22
Originally posted by fastfreddy
My guess is that he won't be convicted and he also won't get his gun back. Furthermore, the "authoritahs" will start a mental health evaluation and deny his 2nd amendment right for life.

I took that ride, too, right after PA-Act 17 was hastily passed in 1995 during the hey-day of the gun-grab hysteria fueled mainly by the gun violence arising from sudden rise of gangs and drugs. Act 17 had some language about forever losing the rkba if you were involuntarily commited to a psychiatric institution. And I was the lucky boy who had the local police march me off, sieze my guns, and launch me as the first test-case of the new law. I won, got my guns back, PA Act 17 was quietly amended just days before the NRA held its annual convention in Pittsburgh PA, and I got to lecture a sub-committee of the PA legislature on the evils of lawmakers passing unconstitutional laws.

Many, many people and rkba groups helped me. The County Assistant District Attorney characterized my wee little gun collection (about 11 or 12 firearms IIRC) as being "a veritiable arsenal" in court. He'd have a heart attack if he saw what I have now. Right after my case was won, I wrote a short email to the conservative morning talk radio show "Quinn & Rose", which Jim Quinn kindly read over the air, complete with my parting advice to the DA (sorry Clint) -- to wit: "A man's GOT to know his limitations!"

Oh, and BTW, my attorney through all this has been a board member of the local ACLU, and even the BATF opined in a letter to my attorney that PA Act 17's original language was unconstitutional and would not be recognized as a bar to rkba for federal purposes.

Noble absolutely should get his gun back; whether he will face any charges is another matter, though my guess is that if anything is filed, it won't be more than a Summary (traffic ticket) level cite for Disorderly Conduct. Based on what I've heard so far, there is no chance that he will be ordered to undergo a mental health exam, though I'd certainly vote for him taking a trip to the woodshed out back.

I can see why the LEOs had a bit of an issue with this guy.
Russ

justashooter
September 09, 2008, 22:41
Originally posted by Russ

As for Noble's CCW (if he has one) -- in PA it's black letter law that the sheriff "Shall Issue" -- basically the same criteria as passing insta-chek, no more no less.

Four or five years earlier, my CCW BEFORE that one (above), actually was a case of the Sheriff handing me the "character" razzola -- that one took a court hearing, immediately after which I walked over to another part of the courthouse and got my brand spanking new CCW. THAT is how I protest - and how I protect-- RKBA.

Noble didn't do anything but harm to the RKBA with his little stunt -- and he advertised himself as an idiot, which would be pretty much recognizable no matter what cause he wants to get out in front of

Russ

sherriff's discretion is still in effect. in york county overt display with no legitimate purpose can result in revocation. can you win back your liscense after such revocation? sure, but why spend the bux for the defense, when you're already busy paying for the prostitution? more to the point, why let everybody know you have a gun when suprise is your best weapon?

regarding lying to law enforcement under questioning: you can tell irrelevant lies all day long wihtout violating law, but this guy's contention that he did not know obama was attending the event is related to the charge, so he will not get a pass on it.

1911guy
September 10, 2008, 07:16
I have a real problem with the presence of a "high profile political figure" trumping the civil rights of the people.

The sheriff in this case said, “I don’t think this was the time or the place to show your rights,”. In another moronic view of the situation District Attorney Anthony Berosh it’s a battle between two constitutional rights: The right to bear arms and the right to assemble peaceably and without fear. I reread my copy of the Constitution and nowhere did I find the part about assembling without fear. Must be a new amendment of which we are all unaware.

My take on the incident based on the article (can be viewed at: http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/09/08/news/doc48c31d45df16c948109432.txt) is that anytime, anyone is alarmed it is deemed reason for the government to step in and confiscate private property and arrest someone on trumped up charges. Once again I re read the Constitution and could find no place where anything was written that guaranteed "freedom from fear". Personally I would be more afraid of the govenment and it's agent at an event like this than someone openly carrying. For anyone who disagrees please ask victims such as the mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD, the Branch Davidians, the residents of at the Latter Day Saints raid in Texas and Randy Weaver to name a few.

I think the entire thing was correctly summed up by our victim, John Noble in this case when he said, "“There was no disturbance until (law enforcement) made one,”

festus
September 10, 2008, 07:57
The best and safest thing for Obama to do would be to avoid any appearances in states where firearms are legally allowed to be carried.
He should stay in Chicago, and D.C. where it is safe from gun violence.

Stranger
September 10, 2008, 08:33
Originally posted by justashooter

... this guy's contention that he did not know obama was attending the event is related to the charge, so he will not get a pass on it.

Care to explain your logic? Peaceful and lawful protesting at a political rally does not fall under the category of disorderly conduct or disrupting meetings.

C-ya
September 10, 2008, 20:17
Most likely will get charged under this:

(borrowed from OpenCarry.org (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/15537-2.html))

USC Title 18, Section 1752

Sec. 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and
others


(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons -

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of

the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other

person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices

of the President and his staff or of any other person protected

by the Secret Service, or

(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area

of a building or grounds where the President or other person

protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily

visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:

(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized -

(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and

(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term "other person protected by
the Secret Service" means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.

tuck0411
September 10, 2008, 20:20
The guy should have said he was packing because he was afraid - afraid of what Obama was likely to do to his 2nd Amendment rights if elected.

Russ
September 10, 2008, 20:23
Originally posted by justashooter


sherriff's discretion is still in effect. in york county overt display with no legitimate purpose can result in revocation. can you win back your liscense after such revocation? sure, but why spend the bux for the defense,

I think you may be mixing some metaphors, and perhaps a few martinis too.

In many municipalities, and statewide, "brandishing" a firearm is rightly considered an offense. It is raising a potential lethal threat, and it only is justifiable in response to an imminent threat of deadly violence or grave bodily harm, and then only where escape or avoidance is not feasible. It is not where someone's sportsjacket slips open and a carried gun is visible -- it IS when someone in a confrontation or in a public area makes an obvious gesture about having a gun, and indicating a more-than-ready willingness to use it.

A concealed weapon never creates that issue.

Wearing a holstered weapon where it is publically visible can become "iffy" depending on the setting and situation (as Noble well knew). Holding up and displaying a gun during a no-contact road rage deal will very possibly get your CCW revoked in popular locations all over the United States. Ditto for holding a gun when you go to your neighbor's door to complain about the loud stereo (this can also cause you to come down with a bad case of death, if your neighbor is armed too). This is not "Sheriff's discretion" - it's IN-discretion on the part of the CCW holder, and more than likely also involves committing a legally chargeable offense.

Although it may happen, I am not personally aware of anyone (in PA) getting their CCW revoked for some casual, completely unjustifiable reason -- if it did, then as you say, their is recourse through the courts.

Russ

1911guy
September 10, 2008, 21:07
Thanks you for the information C-ya.

If I were on the jury Noble would walk. Not guilty across the board with a recommendation that the government return his piece.

Kyrottimus
September 11, 2008, 00:08
Originally posted by C-ya

(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.

I didn't realize our Constituional Rights were superceded by a fiat decree which directly countermands it.

When a law contradicts the text of the U.S. Constitution, I tend to believe the U.S. Constution should always hold weight in determining which to follow.

Otherwise, why even bother to have the illusion of a Constitution when everything in it can be waived?

renaissance_warrior
September 11, 2008, 00:12
Because people that are wildly unpopular don't like to worry about being shot. That's probably why Reid and Pelosi aren't seen too much in public :tongue:

justashooter
September 11, 2008, 06:48
Originally posted by Russ


I think you may be mixing some metaphors, and perhaps a few martinis too.

In many municipalities, and statewide, "brandishing" a firearm is rightly considered an offense. It is raising a potential lethal threat, and it only is justifiable in response to an imminent threat of deadly violence or grave bodily harm, and then only where escape or avoidance is not feasible. It is not where someone's sportsjacket slips open and a carried gun is visible -- it IS when someone in a confrontation or in a public area makes an obvious gesture about having a gun, and indicating a more-than-ready willingness to use it.

A concealed weapon never creates that issue.

Wearing a holstered weapon where it is publically visible can become "iffy" depending on the setting and situation (as Noble well knew). Holding up and displaying a gun during a no-contact road rage deal will very possibly get your CCW revoked in popular locations all over the United States. Ditto for holding a gun when you go to your neighbor's door to complain about the loud stereo (this can also cause you to come down with a bad case of death, if your neighbor is armed too). This is not "Sheriff's discretion" - it's IN-discretion on the part of the CCW holder, and more than likely also involves committing a legally chargeable offense.

Although it may happen, I am not personally aware of anyone (in PA) getting their CCW revoked for some casual, completely unjustifiable reason -- if it did, then as you say, their is recourse through the courts.

Russ

no gin handy russ, but i do have some good wild turkey american honey on the shelf in front of the mirror. i am not talking about what the statute says. i am talking about what happens in real life.

the guy in the story did not brandish, and he did not "print". he openly carried in an unusual situation and with an advertised inappropriate cause. he will prolly get his ccw revoked for a year or so because of it. this has happened recently in penna to several people. read about it in the PAFOA website.

i would venture to guess that the people this has happened to got a little too much cocky in their open carry, and didn't interact appropriately with LEO who responded to complaints. attitude is everything when dealing with cops.

is official opression an S1983 actionable cause? sure. some open carry guys are winning small bux on this very issue. is 20-30 grand worth the 2 years of hassle and harrasment? not in my book.

do i believe presidential candidates are special. hell yes. they represent more than themselves. they represent the nation. they are no longer a person. they are a position embodied.

does the right of an individual trump the right of a national interest? i think not. each right we have is limited by it's impact on others around us. the impact on the interest of a nation is without measure.

Stranger
September 11, 2008, 08:15
Originally posted by justashooter

.... an advertised inappropriate cause.

Again, what was the "inappropriate cause" and how was he advertising it? He certainly didn't indicate in his post that he intended to disrupt the rally. He only stated that he was going to be there and suggested others do the same. Peaceable and legal assembly is not against the law.

67GT390FB
September 11, 2008, 10:07
Originally posted by Stranger


Again, what was the "inappropriate cause" and how was he advertising it? He certainly didn't indicate in his post that he intended to disrupt the rally. He only stated that he was going to be there and suggested others do the same. Peaceable and legal assembly is not against the law.

He doesn't have a logical answer. Its not a personal attack but the emotional arguments i hear against open carry are no more than the same drivel that the anti's spout against guns in general, or the zumbo drivel against EBR's, " oh my gosh you wouldn't want to see folks out hunting with EBR's that might cause hurt feelings vs. Oh my you wouldn't want to OC as you might cause hurt feelings" Its hypocritical. Its also devisive, as long as we as gun owners continue to classify ourselves as such and such a gun owner and look down on,ridicule,belittle those other types of gun owners the anti's and their ilk will have a chance at getting their way and banning all guns.

Kyrottimus
September 11, 2008, 12:43
Originally posted by 67GT390FB


He doesn't have a logical answer. Its not a personal attack but the emotional arguments i hear against open carry are no more than the same drivel that the anti's spout against guns in general, or the zumbo drivel against EBR's, " oh my gosh you wouldn't want to see folks out hunting with EBR's that might cause hurt feelings vs. Oh my you wouldn't want to OC as you might cause hurt feelings" Its hypocritical. Its also devisive, as long as we as gun owners continue to classify ourselves as such and such a gun owner and look down on,ridicule,belittle those other types of gun owners the anti's and their ilk will have a chance at getting their way and banning all guns.

Big +1

:fal:

Russ
September 11, 2008, 20:26
Don't get me wrong - I am not opposed to open carry, and I am not crazy about having to get a 'permit' from the authorities to carry concealed. But I just don't see the practical sense/motivation to open carry. I carry concealed, everyday, at work, but I really don't think much about it at all. I work in the downtown part of the city, and often work late. But nobody knows I carry, and I sure as heck don't advertise.

Probably most of the folks on this board, and this post, have been around firearms all their life. But to someone who is not, the sight of a carried firearm can alarming, and I just honestly don't see the point --or value- -or motivation to do so.

So the question raised here is -- "Why should I give a hoot about someone else when I openly carry a gun, in plain sight --they oughta' just get over it"

And the answer is -- if there is some genuine, honest and compelling reason why to carry a visible firearm, then it gets my vote. But if the motivation is just to be able to display your gun to the general public (and why would you want to?), or just to show you can do it -- then you fail the Noble test. I think that the status of a gun, and having it in your immediate possession -- rides pretty much 100% on the motivation. If it's concealed, its a non-issue.

Both my sons shoot, hunt, and have been around firearms as long as they've been up and walking on two feet -- but I don't OC around them when I visit, nor when I do anything else -- I just don't see the point. If carrying a firearm was completely up to the individual, no CCW needed, open carry or concealed, I'd still feel the same way. The only time I'd see OC is when you're in the woods, hunting fishing, or at the range. And in a war.

Russ

C-ya
September 11, 2008, 21:19
Originally posted by Kyrottimus


I didn't realize our Constituional Rights were superceded by a fiat decree which directly countermands it.

When a law contradicts the text of the U.S. Constitution, I tend to believe the U.S. Constution should always hold weight in determining which to follow.

Otherwise, why even bother to have the illusion of a Constitution when everything in it can be waived?

See National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) and a short Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPD-51) on it.

Not too veiled a threat on taking the Constitution right out of the picture.

justashooter
September 12, 2008, 00:58
Originally posted by 67GT390FB


He doesn't have a logical answer. Its not a personal attack but the emotional arguments i hear against open carry are no more than the same drivel that the anti's spout against guns in general, or the zumbo drivel against EBR's, " oh my gosh you wouldn't want to see folks out hunting with EBR's that might cause hurt feelings vs. Oh my you wouldn't want to OC as you might cause hurt feelings" Its hypocritical. Its also devisive, as long as we as gun owners continue to classify ourselves as such and such a gun owner and look down on,ridicule,belittle those other types of gun owners the anti's and their ilk will have a chance at getting their way and banning all guns.

my response is not driven by emotion, rather by logic.

if a man seeks to provoke another in a direct confrontation in a public place, he is in the wrong. period, the end. (this does not apply to discussion on the internet and such. it's just words on a page at that point.)

i happen to have 50K$ invested in EBR and the odds and ends that go with them. i happen to own over a dozen CCW suitable handguns. i happen to support gun ownership rights across the board. you might not have been around to see it, but i'm the guy who showed us all that when we make our own guns we don't need to serialise them.

i keep my dick inside my pants, except when i'm home. then, it swings free. i do the same with my guns. why you feel a need to show the world your dick is beyond my understanding. perhaps that is because i am a rather well adjusted person (there's that internet exemption, again).

Kyrottimus
September 12, 2008, 01:53
Originally posted by justashooter


my response is not driven by emotion, rather by logic.

if a man seeks to provoke another in a direct confrontation in a public place, he is in the wrong. period, the end. (this does not apply to discussion on the internet and such. it's just words on a page at that point.)

i happen to have 50K$ invested in EBR and the odds and ends that go with them. i happen to own over a dozen CCW suitable handguns. i happen to support gun ownership rights across the board. you might not have been around to see it, but i'm the guy who showed us all that when we make our own guns we don't need to serialise them.

i keep my dick inside my pants, except when i'm home. then, it swings free. i do the same with my guns. why you feel a need to show the world your dick is beyond my understanding. perhaps that is because i am a rather well adjusted person (there's that internet exemption, again).

You miss the point entirely. Motivation is irrelevant. Intended provocation is irrelevant. Confrontation based upon exercising ones rights is.

Does he or does he not have the freedom to openly wear a sidearm? Yes or no?

Does he or does he not have the freedom to openly speak his mind and hand out fliers?
Yes or no?

The way you express your rights may be different than the way he expresses his; 'tis why we call it freedom and not "Libertas Conformitus" . As long as he isn't threatening, harming or infringing the rights of another, he was not in the wrong.

67GT390FB
September 12, 2008, 08:39
Originally posted by justashooter


my response is not driven by emotion, rather by logic.

if a man seeks to provoke another in a direct confrontation in a public place, he is in the wrong. period, the end. (this does not apply to discussion on the internet and such. it's just words on a page at that point.)

i happen to have 50K$ invested in EBR and the odds and ends that go with them. i happen to own over a dozen CCW suitable handguns. i happen to support gun ownership rights across the board. you might not have been around to see it, but i'm the guy who showed us all that when we make our own guns we don't need to serialise them.

i keep my dick inside my pants, except when i'm home. then, it swings free. i do the same with my guns. why you feel a need to show the world your dick is beyond my understanding. perhaps that is because i am a rather well adjusted person (there's that internet exemption, again).


"my response is not driven by emotion, rather by logic."

really don't see much logic in what follows in your post just emotion.


"if a man seeks to provoke another in a direct confrontation in a public place, he is in the wrong. period, the end. (this does not apply to discussion on the internet and such. it's just words on a page at that point.)"

i guess it depends on what the man is doing that provokes someone. if the man in question is simply passing out pamphlets while wearing a sidearm and this is enough to provoke someone, then i would deem that the provoked individual is rather maladjusted.

"i happen to have 50K$ invested in EBR and the odds and ends that go with them. i happen to own over a dozen CCW suitable handguns."

big whoopie do-da, maybe you aren't so well adjusted as you think if you feel the need to tell the world how expensive, in your words "your dicks are" am i supposed to bow down before thy expensive dicks just because my dick is not as expensive as thine own. give me a break.

" i happen to support gun ownership rights across the board."

then stow the attitude and support a fellow gun owner whose standing up for his rights. If you don't want to stand up and be heard at least don't be an appeaser for the anti's.

"you might not have been around to see it, but i'm the guy who showed us all that when we make our own guns we don't need to serialise them. "

if factual(al gore internet exemption) then thank you

"i keep my dick inside my pants, except when i'm home. then, it swings free. i do the same with my guns. why you feel a need to show the world your dick is beyond my understanding. perhaps that is because i am a rather well adjusted person (there's that internet exemption, again). "

Again pure emotional drivel best attributed to a couple of butchy million mommies than someone who claims to support gun rights across the board. it just goes to prove how well adjusted you are.

67GT390FB
September 12, 2008, 08:42
Originally posted by C-ya


See National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) and a short Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPD-51) on it.

Not too veiled a threat on taking the Constitution right out of the picture.

The problem here is that the gentleman in question was not inside the Secret Services secured perimeter and never tried to be. The Secret Service spoke to the man and saw him as no threat and left him alone and are even quoted saying as much in some of the news articles about this event. This was a local or state cop that did the arresting in this case. Dontcha think if the SS left him alone that the locals should as well.

justashooter
September 12, 2008, 09:39
why is it that the newbies are always getting riled up about stuff like this?


like i said, if the guy can get an attourney to file S1983, he should. he might have a case, but we can't tell from the story as reported. i'm not going to waste my time researching the matter, but if you have the time, go ahead, and tell us what you find.

his motivation in the moment is relevant. it just like when you hit another car with your own. if it was an accident, then you get a ticket and pay the fine. if you did it just to show the other driver you were pissed, you might go to jail. if you did it with verifiable intent to kill them, you're gonna go to jail for a long time. in each case the punishment is for the intent, more so than the action.

the guy in the story is a dick, trying to show the world he has one. he is kinda like a driver who swerves toward and nearly hits another car with his because he is pissed. the secret service didn't arrest him. they just called the locals to do that. everybody did their job to protect a potential potus.

your rights are not without limit. grow up and understand that they are subordinate to the rights of a nation and it's people. as much as i disagree with obama's political intent and the inferred intent of whoever is bankrolling him, he is now more than just a person. he is considered a governmental office embodied, just like a judge or a police officer or a K9 police officer. the rules for interaction with him or interaction affecting him are different. enough said.

Stranger
September 12, 2008, 12:53
Originally posted by justashooter

why is it that the newbies are always getting riled up about stuff like this?

his motivation in the moment is relevant. it just like when you hit another car with your own. if it was an accident, then you get a ticket and pay the fine. if you did it just to show the other driver you were pissed, you might go to jail. if you did it with verifiable intent to kill them, you're gonna go to jail for a long time. in each case the punishment is for the intent, more so than the action.

your rights are not without limit. grow up and understand that they are subordinate to the rights of a nation and it's people. as much as i disagree with obama's political intent and the inferred intent of whoever is bankrolling him, he is now more than just a person. he is considered a governmental office embodied, just like a judge or a police officer or a K9 police officer. the rules for interaction with him or interaction affecting him are different. enough said.


It's just the newbies who disagree with you? Try again.

Let me get this straight, you are comparing felony assault with a deadly weapon (hitting someone with your car on purpose) to the perfectly legal activity of openly carrying a pistol? That takes quite the leap.

What the hell do you think protesting is anyway? Its about showing your opposition to the status quo. Do you really think that doesn't involve "being a dick"? You apparently believe when the Bonus Army marched on Washington they were just a bunch of guys who were "being dicks". MLK was just "being a dick" when he marched for civil rights. I am going to let you in on something, being offended by a protestor because you disagree with how they exercise their rights does not make their rights any less important. Nor does it make your rights more important.

Its pretty sad that you see a Presidential candidate as someone "more equal" than anyone else. Next I suppose you will suggest we should censor criticism of the president because he/she is "now more than just a person" and my free speech rights are "subordinate to the rights of the nation." :rolleyes: Last time I checked I was a citizen with rights.

I was going to disagree with the other members who said your agruement was based on emotion and not logic, but it appears they were correct. You would rather gun owners didn't exercise their rights. Its obvious from your comments that you want to see gun owners arrested and jailed for exercising their rights. That's the same emotional argument the Brady campaign uses.

Beckman
September 14, 2008, 01:29
Originally posted by Kyrottimus

[...]
Does he or does he not have the freedom to openly wear a sidearm? Yes or no?

Does he or does he not have the freedom to openly speak his mind and hand out fliers?
Yes or no?

The way you express your rights may be different than the way he expresses his; 'tis why we call it freedom and not "Libertas Conformitus" . As long as he isn't threatening, harming or infringing the rights of another, he was not in the wrong.
Excellent points!!!

I'd like to add that one of the major concepts of our freedom is that it the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority -- the fringe -- from the majority. Do we have freedom of religion because larger, richer churches were afraid of persecution by the small, unknown churches? Or, were the smaller, different religions afraid of persecution by the majority?

It's always easy to persecute the oddball. Frequently, few people will defend the unusual, freaky, misfit. That's why we have our freedoms. The majority, the strong, rarely need defense.

Russ
September 14, 2008, 08:51
I gotta admit, this open carry frenzy has me stumped -- I just don't get it

If there's one thing I've learned about carrying a firearm or even gun ownership in general, it is this - If I don't make a big friggin' deal about it, nobody else will either

If there were NO FIREARM PROHIBITIONS AT ALL --none, zero, nadda, libertarian paradise -- I STILL wouldn't open-carry. Other than in times of open war/combat, there is no functional reason to open carry, and alot of tactical and consideration-for-others reasons NOT to.

So all you open-carry in-your-face 'cause its my right types -- next time your seven year old daughter is having a birthday party with her friends in your back yard, you won't mind if I'm next door running around in circles with an STG 58, my finger on the trigger, screaming at the top of my lungs about: "KILL all them goverment bast-rds, yeah, let's f-ck their sh-t up good"

I mean, afterall, I'm just "exercising my rights" - freedom of speech and RKBA, and if it bothers you, then just get over it. Because if you complain, then I'm gonna' drag my three-ton thermostellar planet-buster bomb out of my garage, bring it right up to the curb bside your mailbox, and activate the big red push button with the whirling flashing warning lights on it. It's my right, and nobody's gonna' stop me, by jimminy!!

Back in about 1999, or 2000 when I signed up on the Falfiles, we were at the height of the gun-grab frenzy- the AWB was in force, and hi-cap mags were selling for $80...each. Many on these boards were understandably gloomy and predicting that in a few years we'd only be allowed to have single-shot .22 short rifles, and then only if you and all your relatives have no criminal record and you promise to wash behind your ears every night.

THe AWB died from lack of interest, Washington DC's gun ban got hammered and an entire hi-cap pistol complete with extra mag can be bought for less than $200.

Is it....? Is it....that you just NEED to have a chip on your shoulder, or are you secretly some kind of serepticious plot by Handgun Control Inc. to rouse the masses (of gun-grabbers) by making a public spectacle of yourself with a gun?

As the song says: "You can go your own way" -- my gripe is that this kind of provacative antics is just as dangerous to my RKBA as Senator Feelgood-Gungrab's latest proposed legislation. This approach to RKBA helped launch horrendous gun-restrictions in California in the mid-1960's when the Black Panthers exercised their legal right to carry m14's out in public, and it also resulted in very strict gun control in Dodge City back in the 1800's.

Is that what you want?
Russ

justashooter
September 14, 2008, 09:21
naw, russ, they just want everybody to know they have a dick.

Kyrottimus
September 14, 2008, 14:01
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e138/dignonk/office_space.jpg

"It's a jump-to-conclusions mat! It is a mat, with different conclusions on it, that you can jump to!"

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg?v=0


In all seriousness, I open carry in the sticks because I doubt bears care if I'm wearing a gun under or over my clothing.

But in practical senses in town, I personally do not open carry. It makes more sense to me to keep people guessing about my capacity for self defense.

That said, if someone else wants to do it, it's their right. You may have emotional or logical problems with understanding the why, such conclusions are irrelevant. The point being, the how is his right.

Now if one is running around waving a gun in the air screaming random hateful vitriol, well then they pose a possible if not likely threat. There is a difference between open carrying and wielding or brandishing a firearm in a threatening or violent manner.

You have no more reason to judge a man by the way he combs his hair than whether or not he open carries or conceals his RIGHTS.

Stranger
September 14, 2008, 16:14
Originally posted by Russ
So all you open-carry in-your-face 'cause its my right types -- next time your seven year old daughter is having a birthday party with her friends in your back yard, you won't mind if I'm next door running around in circles with an STG 58, my finger on the trigger, screaming at the top of my lungs about: "KILL all them goverment bast-rds, yeah, let's f-ck their sh-t up good"

I mean, afterall, I'm just "exercising my rights" - freedom of speech and RKBA, and if it bothers you, then just get over it. Because if you complain, then I'm gonna' drag my three-ton thermostellar planet-buster bomb out of my garage, bring it right up to the curb bside your mailbox, and activate the big red push button with the whirling flashing warning lights on it. It's my right, and nobody's gonna' stop me, by jimminy!!

You certainly do like turning mole hills into mountains. Now the guy at the rally is "running around in circles with an STG 58, [his] finger on the trigger, screaming at the top of [his] lungs about: "KILL all them goverment bast-rds, yeah, let's f-ck their sh-t up good"?

If the guy had been doing any of that do you really think anyone would have defended his actions? Someone doing what you described would have been breaking the law by brandishing a weapon and making threats.

You have an amazing imagination. To bad you don't have a point to go along with it.

Stranger
September 14, 2008, 16:14
Originally posted by justashooter
naw, russ, they just want everybody to know they have a dick.

Right, police officers around the country only open carry because they was everyone to know they have a dick. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try again and go for ridiculous assertion number three.

Russ
September 14, 2008, 17:16
Well actually, policemen open-carrying is no issue at all with me for a couple of reasons:

1. They have a functional reason to carry openly - to have immediate access since the nature of their duties directs them to be in situations where an immediate and deadly situation can arise and they are expected to intervene; pretty much all of the police-specific equipment is carried by them unconcealed for the same reason, it's not just specific to their firearm

2. Similar to 1, above, the nature of an LEO duties (including intervention in violent crimes in progress) makes carrying a weapon at all (concealed or openly) part of their job. For this reason, their having a visible gun is alot less alarming to the general public -- it is the same for security guards

3. The above also applies to members of the military, but even there, carrying an openly visible weapon is usually a matter of whether their duties put them in a dangerous environment, or where they have a distinctive defensive role such as an embassy guard

On the other hand, the dynamic of carrying a firearm is such that even LEOs are often prohibited from carrying a firearm in most courtrooms. And the corrolary is also true - that within law enforcement, weapons are usually carried concealed where the duties of the LEO are primarily investigative, such as a detective or an FBI agent.

See ?? They're just like us. They carry openly when its functionally necessary, and don't when its not.

I keep getting back to the WHY question, and I keep not hearing any logical reason/answer

Russ

the gman
September 14, 2008, 18:01
Look, open carry is legal. The fact that some of you folks don't get it is beside the point.

THAT is the end, period, finish of the argument.

I don't care how big or how small you think your dick is or isn't, it isn't pertinent to the point. The point is that a firearms owner, behaving lawfully, was arrested on trumped up charges that violated his 1st, 2nd & very probably his 4th amendment rights too.

And Russ, I congratulate you on your stances in defense of the 2nd but I hazard a guess that you are reasonably well heeled financially, a luxury not many of us enjoy.

Justa, get back to banging your chink girl & STFU, newbie........:p :p :p NO-ONE, not Hussain nor even GWB is above the Constitution. Jeez, if George Washington, Jefferson et al could see this debate & listen to some of you whiney ass apologists trying to explain away the unconstitutional actions of the State Police moron, they would be tearing you an new asshole right quick.:mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your attitudes & excuses are the reason we don't see rifles in gun racks, why we live in a "brave, new PC world", where instead of teaching our kids to be responsible, the PTB have us convinced we need to child-proof the fcuking world. Give me a break & get a clue. Those folks who hate guns will hate guns whether they are open carried or CCW. Only by educating the folks in the middle that guns are normal, safe & as much a part of daily life as carrying a pen or your wallet will the balance be restored.

I see you posted again since I started this Russ, well, here's my response on why I used to open carry every day & still do when I choose to: BECAUSE I CAN. Because I come from a God forsaken, hell hole of a socialist country (the UK) where firearms are harshly regulated & handguns are verboten. (except for the privileged few) In NM, I cannot qualify for a CCW until I become a citizen & while I count down the days until that happens, am I supposed to be unarmed? Am I to be preyed upon by goblins because of the stroke of an official's pen on legislation? Or shall I exercise the RIGHT that was extended to me & open carry & refuse to be a victim?

Sure, I could break the law & CCW anyway but if I break the law, isn't that hypocritcal of me?


It's a RIGHT bub, just like that free speech thing & other parts of the Bill of Rights & if you don't exercise them, they tend to be gotten rid of. In today's society, there is a mindset that seems to say that if it seems kooky or different, well then the person engaged in that pursuit is also kooky. Not so my friend, not so at all.

Some of you need to get over yourselves already..........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :redface:

justashooter
September 14, 2008, 22:15
Originally posted by Stranger


Right, police officers around the country only open carry because they was everyone to know they have a dick. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try again and go for ridiculous assertion number three.

if you talk to the average police psychologist, you will find that a sense of inadequacy in this area is disproportionately apparent in individuals who choose such carreers. i have several friends in the field, including one who wrote a well regarded book on the subject. they have horror stories to tell abot the inner psyche of policemen they have counseled. ethics prevents them from sharing the details of these stories for purposes other than peer review and educative value and forbids the identification of specific patients with specific disfunction, of course, unless to prevent ongoing criminal activity.

Kyrottimus
September 15, 2008, 00:42
Originally posted by Russ
I keep getting back to the WHY question, and I keep not hearing any logical reason/answer

Russ

Here's one:

Because he can. Beyond that does not concern you, or I, or anyone (including the police or secret service).

:rolleyes:

longhair51
September 15, 2008, 05:16
Do I like open carry? In the context of this discussion, not really.

Do I support open carry? Yes.

There are too many factions in the gun fraternity that do not support other factions, for the simple reason that "they dont do what we do, so I dont care".

Well, we better start careing. Ben Franklin said something to the effect of "we should all hang together, or we shall certainly hang seperately". It is the death of a thousand cuts that's going to get us.

If we were all united, it might be a different story.

And "because he can"(I might add the word "legally" to the statement) should be enough reason in the USA.

Russ
September 15, 2008, 20:33
Originally posted by Stranger


You certainly do like turning mole hills into mountains. Now the guy at the rally is "running around in circles with an STG 58, [his] finger on the trigger, screaming at the top of [his] lungs about: "KILL all them goverment bast-rds, yeah, let's f-ck their sh-t up good"?

If the guy had been doing any of that do you really think anyone would have defended his actions? Someone doing what you described would have been breaking the law by brandishing a weapon and making threats.

You have an amazing imagination. To bad you don't have a point to go along with it.

But I do, Stranger, and you just helped me make it.

A man carrying a weapon openly in his back yard, and ranting ...commits no specific crime. My guy wasn't brandishing a weapon, he was carrying it at port arms (you just exaggerated it) while freely moving about on his own property expressing politial opinions of a flavorful variety.

My (example) guy, and Noble have exactly ONE important shared trait concerning carrying or brandishing weapons -- they only do it if they know someone else is watching who is likely to be disturbed by their behavior

Noble would call it a "test"

My guy, and Noble, would not get any joy out of openly carrying a firearm in a secluded forest --what would be the point ?? They wouldn't do it, even if they were vaguely worried about a random encounter with a tough chipmonk. So my point is that people who carry a weapon (openly or concealed) for the sake of protection, sporting purposes, or just to quietly practice their right to KBA are A-ok in my book.

On the other hand, people who carry a gun expressly to make an impression on others, especially strangers unknown to them, are a menace, and probably 99% of gun crimes committed by legally owned, possessed and carried (openly or CCW) firearms started out with someone bringing a gun into the equation to make an impression, where there was no credible threat of violence otherwise. My big deal with that, is that not only do these du-fusses get thenselves in hot water, they also needlessly threaten my rkba, and I do have a dog in that fight.

My own legal battles were not won because I'm a swell guy with a great community reputation (I'm not either, by a long-shot) -- but rather because of the legal principle involved, and the willingness of others to help me in defense of the very clear issues involved. But I didn't get my guns seized and my home invaded because I made a threat, or walked around sporting a GLock right before a political rally by a presidential candidate, and then lied to the police trying to wiggle out of it. After posting his intentions on an internet website.

So when a dude like Noble pulls a stunt like this, he not only does NOT get my sympathy, I actually denounce these kind of antics because they both endanger and trivialize the hard work that others have done in many venues to preserve our RKBA. If you carry a gun visibly primarily for the purpose of making an impression on passerby, you engaging in provocative behavior - the very least you will accomplish is to make gunowners look like dangerous losers, and it progresses downhill from there to getting entangled with the law like Noble did.

Russ

Russ
September 15, 2008, 20:52
Originally posted by the gman

And Russ, I congratulate you on your stances in defense of the 2nd but I hazard a guess that you are reasonably well heeled financially, a luxury not many of us enjoy.

No, I've been called a "heel", but I am far from wealthy.

__________________________________________________ _______
" Those folks who hate guns will hate guns whether they are open carried or CCW. Only by educating the folks in the middle that guns are normal, safe & as much a part of daily life as carrying a pen or your wallet will the balance be restored."

Well, yes - but I carry my wallet concealed in my pocket, especially since I am not wealthy. My experience with individuals who are not gun owners is that they are often indifferent to firearms altogether, until they have an encounter of one sort or another that turns them one direction or the other. Sarah Palin is one thing, but hopefully their first "education" isn't being delivered by Professor Noble strolling through the park with a gun and a need for attention."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I see you posted again since I started this Russ, well, here's my response on why I used to open carry every day & still do when I choose to: BECAUSE I CAN. Because I come from a God forsaken, hell hole of a socialist country (the UK) where firearms are harshly regulated & handguns are verboten. (except for the privileged few) In NM, I cannot qualify for a CCW until I become a citizen & while I count down the days until that happens, am I supposed to be unarmed? Am I to be preyed upon by goblins because of the stroke of an official's pen on legislation? Or shall I exercise the RIGHT that was extended to me & open carry & refuse to be a victim?"

First of all, I can strongly empathize since my roots trace to a nearby country, Scotland, where that knot-head Sean Connery put way his PPK and took up the gun-ban cause. Beyond that, I think you are totally right. If open carry is the only option, then by all means do.
__________________________________________________ _

Rrrrrrrruss

justashooter
September 15, 2008, 20:58
Originally posted by Russ



My guy, and Noble, would not get any joy out of openly carrying a firearm in a secluded forest --what would be the point ?? They wouldn't do it, even if they were vaguely worried about a random encounter with a tough chipmonk. So my point is that people who carry a weapon (openly or concealed) for the sake of protection, sporting purposes, or just to quietly practice their right to KBA are A-ok in my book.

On the other hand, people who carry a gun expressly to make an impression on others, especially strangers unknown to them, are a menace, and probably 99% of gun crimes committed by legally owned, possessed and carried (openly or CCW) firearms started out with someone bringing a gun into the equation to make an impression, where there was no credible threat of violence otherwise. My big deal with that, is that not only do these du-fusses get thenselves in hot water, they also needlessly threaten my rkba, and I do have a dog in that fight.

My own legal battles were not won because I'm a swell guy with a great community reputation (I'm not either, by a long-shot) -- but rather because of the legal principle involved, and the willingness of others to help me in defense of the very clear issues involved. But I didn't get my guns seized and my home invaded because I made a threat, or walked around sporting a GLock right before a political rally by a presidential candidate, and then lied to the police trying to wiggle out of it. After posting his intentions on an internet website.

So when a dude like Noble pulls a stunt like this, he not only does NOT get my sympathy, I actually denounce these kind of antics because they both endanger and trivialize the hard work that others have done in many venues to preserve our RKBA. If you carry a gun visibly primarily for the purpose of making an impression on passerby, you engaging in provocative behavior - the very least you will accomplish is to make gunowners look like dangerous losers, and it progresses downhill from there to getting entangled with the law like Noble did.

Russ

nailed it.

Stranger
September 15, 2008, 22:45
Originally posted by Russ

A man carrying a weapon openly in his back yard, and ranting ...commits no specific crime. My guy wasn't brandishing a weapon, he was carrying it at port arms (you just exaggerated it) while freely moving about on his own property expressing politial opinions of a flavorful variety.

...they only do it if they know someone else is watching who is likely to be disturbed by their behavior...


I missed the part about your strawman being in "his" yard meaning an adjacent private property. I thought you meant actually AT the B-day party on your property.

If your strawman is on his own property, then who gives a rat's ass? If strawman was just in his backyard doing drills then who gives a crap. If strawman were cursing, well, here in OK there are still laws on the books concerning use of foul language around children and women. If he was really making a disturbance then I would ask that he keep it down or get a visit from the police for disturbing the peace. If he was threatening to kill anyone, in general or specific, I would most assuredly call the appropriate authorities.

If you want to attack your strawman go for it. You can attack your distorted example all you want yet it still bears no resemblance to Noble's situation.

On the subject of Noble, when did you become an expert on Noble's gun carrying habits and character? Your knowledge of the subject is amazing considering that you seem to get the obvious details wrong. You make claims that he "posted his intentions on an internet website" and state that his intentions were to "only do it if they know someone else is watching who is likely to be disturbed by their behavior". I read the website and he didn't state that anywhere. He only stated that he was going to to the rally. How you pulled everything else out of that brief statement is beyond me.

Wow, its so nice that you approve of those who "quietly practice their right[s]". Should I make sure no of the Fudds are at the range the next time use my AK? I wouldn't want them to be offended by my "assault weapon". After all, I am trying to "quietly practice [my] right" to own one lest someone pass a law banning them. Yeah, its probably better just to leave it at home where its can't offend anyone. Just because I think its fun and I think others might think its fun doesn't mean its right.

Your rant looks more like something Zumbo would post. Take out "open carry" and insert "assault weapon" and you have Zumbo. Have fun choosing who you throw under the train. I hope you don't find yourself on the track some day.

BTW, "port arms" with your finger on the trigger, eh? You sure about that?

bullseye
September 15, 2008, 23:31
I am blown away that this is even a discussion it is clear that he did nothing wrong and they (police/government) are acting like they always do. they will abuse the law take your rights more than likely destroy your property and tell you that you are lucky when they don't charge you with a crime. I think it would be great if they lost several million dollar lawsuits every single time it happens.

Forrester
September 16, 2008, 00:07
But if he's in jail whos going to mow, rake and clean up for me? (extreme sarcasm)

Kyrottimus
September 16, 2008, 00:40
Ridiculous hypotheticals aside:

He broke no law. Period. You two get over yourselves.

You can justify your opinion 'till you're blue in the face to the rest of us. It won't stick though, so save your breath to cool your porage.

If you have a problem with the way people exercise their rights, you're free to exercise your right to leave if people are too "free-spirited" here.

justashooter
September 16, 2008, 07:56
Originally posted by Kyrottimus

If you have a problem with the way people exercise their rights, you're free to exercise your right to leave if people are too "free-spirited" here.

thanks for informing me about what rights i have. i never would have known without you. thanks to the owner of this board and their decision to allow free speech, i also have the right to answer your thread with my opinion. of course, as OP, you have the right to delete the entire thread. so take your ball home and play with yourself, if you wanna.

Kyrottimus
September 16, 2008, 11:55
Originally posted by justashooter


thanks for informing me about what rights i have. i never would have known without you. thanks to the owner of this board and their decision to allow free speech, i also have the right to answer your thread with my opinion. of course, as OP, you have the right to delete the entire thread. so take your ball home and play with yourself, if you wanna.

I don't censor other people's opinions, no matter the direction of the thread. If I make a thread in the first place, I feel the topic is important enough to bring to the attention of others.

I simply can't help but hide my contempt for those who claim to be pro RKBA and then tear into those who exercise one facet of it.

The statement I made was in response to what I perceived was negative sentiment towards those of us in here supporting the core of the issue.

Essentially, you don't have to agree with anything and you can believe in anything you want. That's what freedom is. And, one is free to post here as any other. But what I posted was merely a reminder to any who may feel uncomfortable with the views of the other posters.


But as far as Noble is concerned, you're free to label him whatever you want and criticize his actions or motivations. That's fine.

But none of us have the right to try and push our views to the point of restricting the rights of another (such as in the case with the cops and Noble).

wileycsg
September 16, 2008, 18:51
Amazingly, because a pistol was involved, everyone is up in arms about his rights being violated. Where have you people been the last several years? Nowadays, holding a sign protesting Bush isn't really against the law, but do it anywhere near him and you have to either be removed to a cage miles away or be arrested. Where has the outrage been about that?

justashooter
September 16, 2008, 19:22
Originally posted by Kyrottimus


The statement I made was in response to what I perceived was negative sentiment towards those of us in here supporting the core of the issue.

Essentially, you don't have to agree with anything and you can believe in anything you want. That's what freedom is. And, one is free to post here as any other. But what I posted was merely a reminder to any who may feel uncomfortable with the views of the other posters.



no negativity here, just brotherly love. sometimes love has to be tough.

Russ
September 16, 2008, 19:32
Originally posted by Stranger


"I missed the part about your strawman being in "his" yard meaning an adjacent private property. I thought you meant actually AT the B-day party on your property."

R : Ya gotta read those details, Stranger, they get us all --just ask Noble" (see below)
__________________________________________________ _____

Quoth Stranger:
"On the subject of Noble, when did you become an expert on Noble's gun carrying habits and character? Your knowledge of the subject is amazing considering that you seem to get the obvious details wrong. You make claims that he "posted his intentions on an internet website" and state that his intentions were to "only do it if they know someone else is watching who is likely to be disturbed by their behavior". I read the website and he didn't state that anywhere. He only stated that he was going to to the rally. How you pulled everything else out of that brief statement is beyond me.

R - Where do I begin? I know all I need to know about Noble's gun-habits because I read about them in the news, and his website -- see below. I don't know how it could be more clear, but then again by your own admission, above, you tend to fly past the details -- anger and rage will do that to you.

________________________________________
Quoth Stranger:
"Wow, its so nice that you approve of those who "quietly practice their right[s]". Should I make sure no of the Fudds are at the range the next time use my AK? I wouldn't want them to be offended by my "assault weapon". After all, I am trying to "quietly practice [my] right" to own one lest someone pass a law banning them. Yeah, its probably better just to leave it at home where its can't offend anyone. Just because I think its fun and I think others might think its fun doesn't mean its right.

R - Actually, Stranger, I don't think I have ever criticized anyone's choice of firearm - I own AKs, built and own FALs etc - and BTW I don't recall introducing the subject of Noble's choice of firearm anywhere on this thread. Looks to me like another leeeeeeaaappp on your part
__________________________________________

BTW, "port arms" with your finger on the trigger, eh? You sure about that?

R - I quote the Stranger: "If your strawman is on his own property, then who gives a rat's ass?" -- Quite right !! So what does it matter if his finger is on the trigger or not? Afterall, he's just exercising his rights!" I hearken in vain for a better reply than this.

And they actually DID pass an 'assault weapon' ban, which quietly died a deserved death, in part because we didn't have hordes of protesting Nobles running around waving their AK's in the air by way of excercising their rights

________________________________________
R -
Well anyway, below is an excerpt from the collected works re: Noble - his quote of "see what happens", his website posting and even his own admission of trying to double-talk his way out what he posted publically:
________________________________________
By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, September 5, 2008 10:39 PM EDT
(snip)
In court documents, police said Noble “came to this proceeding with an agenda and a plan,” as he posted on a Web site prior to the rally that he was going to take his gun “to test what would happen.”

Noble said Friday evening, “Why would there be a test? I was just inviting others from our group. There was no test about it.”

R - I can't resist --- "A test? A test? Who said anything about a test? I don't know anything about no test"
________________________________________
(snip) ...on and on it goes:
By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, September 5, 2008 10:39 PM EDT

"Schexnaildre said that when police first questioned him, Noble said he didn’t know Obama would be in Beaver until his wife told him about it just prior to their arrival. Schexnaildre wrote that was obviously untrue because of the Web posting.

....John A. Noble of Industry admits that he posted the following messages on the Internet prior to the Barack Obama campaign rally Aug. 29 in Beaver:

•In a posting dated Aug. 29, apparently just hours before the Beaver rally, Noble wrote, “Bring your gun and Bible to Beaver tonite, lets show Obama how we hug our Bibles and guns.”

R - Yep, Noble, you sure showed 'em alright. You showed 'em real good.
_____________________________________________
Epilogue:

Now Noble is exercising a whole new set of rights, such as due process under the law and the right to representation. I'll bet he is doing this a bit more "quietly", and I'm pretty sure he won't be public-carrying any weapon when he gets his day in court.

Russ

Stranger
September 17, 2008, 08:26
Originally posted by Russ


R - I quote the Stranger: "If your strawman is on his own property, then who gives a rat's ass?" -- Quite right !! So what does it matter if his finger is on the trigger or not? Afterall, he's just exercising his rights!" I hearken in vain for a better reply than this.

R : Ya gotta read those details, Stranger, they get us all --just ask Noble" (see below)


The "finger on the trigger" is a non-starter. I only mentioned it because you don't seem to know what being at "port arms" means (i.e. you don't have your finger on the trigger at port arms).

Your example is a red-herring. You hide behind your straw-man and evade coming to some logical conclusion. As I said before, if there were a person disturbing the peace in my neighborhood, I would ask him to stop or risk entertaining officers addressing a complaint. It has nothing to do with firearms, or rhetoric, and everything to do with making loud noises, screaming, and playing your music to loudly. After all, your rights stop when they intrude on mine. That is where your straw-man broke the law. Noble didn't not break any law.

BTW, Noble didn't miss any details. He followed the letter of the law.

Originally posted by Russ

And they actually DID pass an 'assault weapon' ban, which quietly died a deserved death, in part because we didn't have hordes of protesting Nobles running around waving their AK's in the air by way of excercising their rights


:rofl: I see you are a fan of logical fallacy. Its never good to use coincidental correlation as an argument.

Originally posted by Russ

________________________________________
By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, September 5, 2008 10:39 PM EDT
(snip)
In court documents, police said Noble “came to this proceeding with an agenda and a plan,” as he posted on a Web site prior to the rally that he was going to take his gun “to test what would happen.”

Noble said Friday evening, “Why would there be a test? I was just inviting others from our group. There was no test about it.”

R - I can't resist --- "A test? A test? Who said anything about a test? I don't know anything about no test"
________________________________________
(snip) ...on and on it goes:
By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Friday, September 5, 2008 10:39 PM EDT

"Schexnaildre said that when police first questioned him, Noble said he didn’t know Obama would be in Beaver until his wife told him about it just prior to their arrival. Schexnaildre wrote that was obviously untrue because of the Web posting.

....John A. Noble of Industry admits that he posted the following messages on the Internet prior to the Barack Obama campaign rally Aug. 29 in Beaver:

•In a posting dated Aug. 29, apparently just hours before the Beaver rally, Noble wrote, “Bring your gun and Bible to Beaver tonite, lets show Obama how we hug our Bibles and guns.”

R - Yep, Noble, you sure showed 'em alright. You showed 'em real good.
_____________________________________________


Your quotes of the article show nothing but your ability to take up space. The only quote that can be attributed to Noble is, “Bring your gun and Bible to Beaver tonite, lets show Obama how we hug our Bibles and guns.” All the other quotes are from court documents and the officers involved. There is nothing illegal about gathering to show solidarity against a gun grabber.

Originally posted by Russ

Epilogue:

Now Noble is exercising a whole new set of rights, such as due process under the law and the right to representation. I'll bet he is doing this a bit more "quietly", and I'm pretty sure he won't be public-carrying any weapon when he gets his day in court.

Russ

It is sad to see you so joyful over a fellow gun nut being prosecuted for legally carrying a weapon. :sad:

Have a great life Zumbo.

ThunderGod
September 17, 2008, 11:54
While perfectly within his rights, Noble intended to provoke a reaction; unfortunately for him, he didn't like the one he got. Then, he went and lied to the police. That's just plain stupidity, and it will cost him time and grief and $$$. Even though he might prevail in court, he may lose.

***

In Texas, it is legal for me to walk down the sidewalk with a fully-loaded Winchester Defender IN MY HANDS, as long as the particular municipality doesn't have some silly ordinance forbidding it. Will I? Hell no! Why not? Simple; the best way to stay out of jail is to minimize one's adversarial interaction with law enforcement. What does it profit me to be right as I'm lying in a pool of my own blood with 6 or 8 .40cal holes in me because I didn't "comply" quickly enough?

Plus, in many places, if someone sees my shotgun and is frightened by it, I have just broken the law. My right to carry does not trump another's right to be free from terror, not matter how illogical and unfounded that fear may be.

Face it, the hoplophobes have done a good job of spreading their mental disorder to the general, non-gun public. We have to be smarter than them ALL of the time; but, it only takes one "pro-gun" idiot doing something stupid in public to set our cause back further.

***

The reason we don't see rifle-racks in trucks these days has NOTHING to do with what you imply, gman. I frankly don't want a my widows smashed and my new AR in the hands of some lowlife criminal. It's my rifle, damnit!

the gman
September 18, 2008, 18:59
Actually, Thundergod, it's EVERYTHING to do with the mindset displayed in this thread & by people who should know better.

We, the sensible, logical, law abiding gunowners have allowed the liberal lunatic fringe to marginalize, berate & demonize our interest & our passion for firearms to the point where many folks are scared to be known as gunowners. Moreover, when someone does something they personally wouldn't do, some gunowners disagree violently & throw that person under a bus, way to go........

Where once it was common for children to be given rifles as birthday presents & shooting was seen as a perfectly normal activity, it is now beyond the pale in most schools. What happened? How did this come about?

We let it. We quietly gave in to the BS about guns kill people from the liberal left. We didn't stand up for ourselves & still don't! How on earth ANYONE can have any kind of support for the POS cops who arrested Noble is beyond my comprehension!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WTF is wrong with you?? According to the world designed by Russ, there is a right & wrong way to do things & Noble's way is wrong. Who died & appointed you God? You rely on NEWS reports (because, of course, they are ALWAYS so factual & reliable, riiiiiight.........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) & a solitary posting on an internet site that is so inocuous, it could mean anything at all. It certainly doesn't threaten anyone or anything. Nor does it imply any kind of test. It, at least on it's face, says that the poster intends to show the Lord Obama that folks in PA do cling to their guns & their bibles & there ain't nothing wrong with that.

The cops can trample Noble's 1st, 2nd & 4th Amendment RIGHTS but you're just fine with that, in fact you are downright happy about it.:mad: :mad: Jeez, please don't do me any fooking favors pal, I don't want you anywhere near me.......

Self righteous, holier than thou fools are what the antis want, "useful idiots".

Much is made of Noble "lying to the police". Was he under Miranda at the time of questioning? Was he under arrest? No. He was minding his own damn business, in a public place, committing NO fugging crime & is ABSOLUTELY entitled to tell the jack booted thug cop any frigging thing he wants to. This is complete horseshit & it stinks yet none of you high & mighty folks have even condemned the cop for his blatantly unlawful actions. I despair of you numptys.....

BTW, the reason for my question regarding your financial status is that you make numerous references to attorneys, letters from same, court cases etc. Last time I checked, attorneys don't usually work for free & even getting a simple letter sent costs a chunk of change. Things that make you go 'hmmmm'.........

Russ
September 18, 2008, 19:28
Thank you T-G - I think that sums it up.

Noble didn't commit the crime of the century, he may not have committed any crime at all, beyond being incredibly stupid. I've done more than my share of stupid things, but not with a gun.

By his own words, he wanted to conduct a "test", so he could "see what would happen" ---And he did: he got arrested. Absent him pre-advertsing his intent to get a rise out of people by displaying a gun, I seriously doubt he would have been charged with anything.

IMHO he has probably a better than even chance of being acquitted of a crime, although the stupid-label is going to be a lot harder to shake.

He has his rights:

1. To due process
2. Legal representation
3. Maybe even a jury of his peers ----ooooooppSS!!!:eek:

Last time I was thru Beaver County, it was a nice mostly rural area, not heavily populated - Chances are someone on the jury either was there or knew someone who was there while Noble was conducting his website-advertised science experiment on complete strangers, and that isn't going to help his chances. It's hard to be mad at Noble -- I don't see him as a "gun-nut" -- I just see him as a nut

"A good man always knows his limitations ....a man's GOT to know his limitations"

Russ

Russ
September 18, 2008, 20:14
Originally posted by the gman
Actually, Thundergod, it's EVERYTHING to do with the mindset displayed in this thread & by people who should know better.

We, the sensible, logical, law abiding gunowners have allowed the liberal lunatic fringe to marginalize, berate & demonize our interest & our passion for firearms to the point where many folks are scared to be known as gunowners. Moreover, when someone does something they personally wouldn't do, some gunowners disagree violently & throw that person under a bus, way to go........

Where once it was common for children to be given rifles as birthday presents & shooting was seen as a perfectly normal activity, it is now beyond the pale in most schools. What happened? How did this come about?

We let it. We quietly gave in to the BS about guns kill people from the liberal left. We didn't stand up for ourselves & still don't! How on earth ANYONE can have any kind of support for the POS cops who arrested Noble is beyond my comprehension!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WTF is wrong with you?? According to the world designed by Russ, there is a right & wrong way to do things & Noble's way is wrong. Who died & appointed you God? You rely on NEWS reports (because, of course, they are ALWAYS so factual & reliable, riiiiiight.........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) & a solitary posting on an internet site that is so inocuous, it could mean anything at all. It certainly doesn't threaten anyone or anything. Nor does it imply any kind of test. It, at least on it's face, says that the poster intends to show the Lord Obama that folks in PA do cling to their guns & their bibles & there ain't nothing wrong with that.

The cops can trample Noble's 1st, 2nd & 4th Amendment RIGHTS but you're just fine with that, in fact you are downright happy about it.:mad: :mad: Jeez, please don't do me any fooking favors pal, I don't want you anywhere near me.......

Self righteous, holier than thou fools are what the antis want, "useful idiots".

Much is made of Noble "lying to the police". Was he under Miranda at the time of questioning? Was he under arrest? No. He was minding his own damn business, in a public place, committing NO fugging crime & is ABSOLUTELY entitled to tell the jack booted thug cop any frigging thing he wants to. This is complete horseshit & it stinks yet none of you high & mighty folks have even condemned the cop for his blatantly unlawful actions. I despair of you numptys.....

BTW, the reason for my question regarding your financial status is that you make numerous references to attorneys, letters from same, court cases etc. Last time I checked, attorneys don't usually work for free & even getting a simple letter sent costs a chunk of change. Things that make you go 'hmmmm'.........

Careful, Gman, you'll spurt

No, I do not think "noble's way is wrong" --rather, I think Noble is waaaaay wrong

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be the lad who got hectored on the Falfiles forums a couple years back for bragging about the reaction he got from walking thru the local mall wearing some kind of tactical open-carry get-up, including some sort of exotic, tricked-out firearm strapped to his thigh -- that wasn't you ...was it.... Gman?? I do remember whoever it was, they included some reference about how they thought their "tactical look" enhanced their sex appeal with the local women.

As for my use of an attorney to represent me, I think that was a combination of me being determined to get a chance to tell my side of the story in court, and an attorney who was passionately devoted to the cause of protecting constitutional rights -- a really potent combination -- I used to refer to us as: "The Waco-Whakko & The Jewish Jurist". But that was long ago.

There was a very distinct difference in my case, as opposed to Noble's Folly. I had the local police pour into the privacy of my home, only to find me asleep in my bed, so THEY tried to make my ownership of guns an issue (and failed). Noble went OUT INTO PUBLIC, and HE was the one who wanted to make his publically displayed gun into an issue. I had to fight to even get my case heard in court, while as for Noble- telling his story in court is probably the last thing he wants to do.

It's not "Russ's way" -- but rather that anyone who takes a visible gun into public WITH A PRIMARY INTENTION TO GET A RISE OUT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC --is always going to set back the cause of RKBA, and will also stand a good chance of encountering the legal system, up close and personal.

Russ

Kyrottimus
September 19, 2008, 01:14
“Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -- Samuel Adams

I think that best sums up my take on the matter.

Stranger
September 19, 2008, 09:19
Originally posted by Russ

By his own words, he wanted to conduct a "test", so he could "see what would happen"...

You keep saying, "In his own words." Care to actually quote Noble, rather than an officer or a reporter?

the gman
September 19, 2008, 19:39
Know what Russ, I'll just settle for your condemnation of the State Police idiot for violating Noble's 1st, 2nd & 4th Amendment rights. Absent that, I'll have to go along with the last post from Kyrottimus.

It appears that there are those of us here who believe in freedom, justice & the Constitution of the United States & those who are content with just about as much "freedom" as the powers that be will let them have.

Spurt? You betcha pal. I watched fools like you sell other gunowners down the river twice in the UK & EVERYONE lost the right to own handguns & EBR's as a result.:redface:

Do I get passionate about the issue of gun rights? Hell yes. I didn't move to the USA to see fools who would trade their definition of "reasonable restrictions" or actions they think are "appropiate" for the rights that all law abiding people should enjoy.

Noble broke no law, committed no crime & yet he was arrested? And some of you think it's just dandy, because people who are running for office assume a status that apparently makes them more equal than others?? Or because Noble decided that he would behave lawfully but make a point?

Some of you make me ill with your so superior views.......:rolleyes: :redface: God only knows what the Founding Fathers would have thought of your pathetic attitudes.......:( :uhoh:

Russ
September 19, 2008, 20:30
Originally posted by Stranger


You keep saying, "In his own words." Care to actually quote Noble, rather than an officer or a reporter?

Well, Stranger, since you asked:

Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 11:55 am
Come to beaver tonite and show Obama what a Bible toten gun owner really looks like. My women and i will be there with both in the open. This is Obamas first stop after being picked in Co. Wow arnt we lucky. On a better note Pres elect McCain has picked a gun toten women from Ak to run as his vp. I wish they were here in stead of dayton Oh. Oh well be safe Mtn Jack

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

I think this would be part of the internet posting(s) that contradicted his claim that he didn't know Obama would be there, he wasn't trying to conduct a "test" and "see what happens", and so forth. It's also what the LEOs are using to characterize his presence there as being a premeditated effort to use his display of a gun to get a reaction out of people.

There were other posts there, including subsequent to his arrest -- he made reference to his "legal team" but according to news accounts declined to name his legal counsel. It does seem he is being charged with the more serious misdemeanor level of Disorderly Conduct (vs the traffic-ticket level summary variety) -- likely the more serious charge is connected with his announced intent, including the above.

There are other posts on other topics by "Mtn Jack" -- he comes across as a likable, earthy, but not too bright individual who's occupation is a self-described fixer of fenceposts, lumberjack and such.

"A man's GOT to know his limitations"

Russ

Russ
September 19, 2008, 21:18
Originally posted by the gman

Spurt? You betcha pal. I watched fools like you sell other gunowners down the river twice in the UK & EVERYONE lost the right to own handguns & EBR's as a result.:redface:

Do I get passionate about the issue of gun rights? Hell yes. I didn't move to the USA to see fools who would trade their definition of "reasonable restrictions" or actions they think are "appropiate" for the rights that all law abiding people should enjoy.

Noble broke no law, committed no crime & yet he was arrested? And some of you think it's just dandy, because people who are running for office assume a status that apparently makes them more equal than others?? Or because Noble decided that he would behave lawfully but make a point?

Some of you make me ill with your so superior views.......:rolleyes: :redface: God only knows what the Founding Fathers would have thought of your pathetic attitudes.......:( :uhoh:

That's funny ...I didn't think that RKBA stood for: "Right to Keep Being an Ass"

If your version of freedom is to stroll through shopping malls ninja-warrior style, and impress complete strangers with your big, scary, shiny gun, then you should be damn glad you'll never run into one of the founding fathers, they'd probably take occasion to call you a barbarian, and then regret not including a footnote to the 2nd Amendment that 'bearing arms' is not to be confused with flashing them in public as a male-enhacement device.

Russ

Tsm002
September 19, 2008, 21:34
Huh huh huh...
He was packin' his piece in Beaver County.

Uh huh huh huh huh.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/5611/butthead2.jpg

justashooter
September 19, 2008, 21:58
Originally posted by the gman


Much is made of Noble "lying to the police". Was he under Miranda at the time of questioning? Was he under arrest? No.

so you agree that he did provide false information revant to a criminal investigation. this may be what he gets charged with. could be charged with this even 6 months after the incident. if the false information is relevant to a criminal investigation it's called obstruction of justice in most states. providing false information to a police officer is typically a misdemeanor offense which is typically adjudicated by a fine if no prior record, but may result in jail time.

miranda only protects you once you have been arrested...
"...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly
informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he
says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed
that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer
will be appointed to represent him."

__________________________________________________ _______

Your Rights When Questioned by the Police Useful Information from Austin Copwatch

Contrary to what you see on television, police do not have to read
your rights when you are arrested. In fact, they can legally lie about
them. Its important to know in advance what your rights are when
dealing with the police, because your rights are the only flimsy
protection you have.

Three Levels of Interaction

There are three levels of encounter with the police. The first is
conversation. Police do not need to prove they had a reason to begin a
conversation with you, but what you say can still be used against you
in court . However, in a conversation you don't have to say anything,
not even your name. Copwatch suggests asking "Am I being detained?"
and if not, walking away without another word. Being detained is the
next level of encounter. To detain you, police must prove they had
"reasonable suspicion" that you were involved in a particular crime.
If you are detained, you can still remain silent, and you do not need
to identify yourself. You cannot be prosecuted for failing to identify
yourself- it is not a crime! On the other hand police can legally
establish a positive ID for you, which means that if you do not give
ID you can be taken to a station and held for fingerprinting and a
warrant check. Copwatch suggests that if you don't have any
outstanding warrants you should tell the police your name and
birthdate, or show them your ID. Copwatch also suggests asking police
why you are being detained and memorizing their response for use in
court later. "Reasonable suspicion" is a looser requirement than the
"probable cause" needed to arrest you, but if police can't prove they
had it, or if the suspicion they give is too weak, it can help your
case in court. Copwatch does not suggest arguing about this at the
time of detention, however. If you are detained, say nothing further!
Assume that if police had been able to arrest you they would have done
so, and that they are now hoping you will say or do something that
gives them the "probable cause" they need. If you are arrested, say
nothing at all. Police can legally lie: they can claim you've waived
your rights, claim that since you aren't a lawyer, you have to let
them determine what your rights are, claim they can hold you for long
periods of time unless you cooperate, threaten you with extreme
sentences or offer to let you off easy in exchange for giving
information about yourself or other people. They can claim to be
gathering evidence to help you. Remember- only a judge and jury can
determine whether you get off the hook or not, or what your sentence
will be. Police can only gather evidence to use against you. Say
nothing! If police lie to you and you fall for it, it can still be
used against you in court!

Searches

There are different levels of searches as well. The first is called a
Terry Search or a pat-down. If you are detained, you can be patted
down. A pat down can only go over the outside of your clothes, and can
only legally be used to find weapons. Police can not go through your
pockets at this time, and you do not have to empty your pockets for
them. If police pat you down and find contraband other than a weapon,
supposedly they can't arrest you for it. If you are arrested, you can
be searched to the skin. Police can only search a house with a warrant
specifying the address and signed by a judge. The only exception to
this is if you are in custody (detained or arrested) and you enter a
house. Police will try to trick you with this- if you are arrested on
your front lawn, they may offer you a chance to get your jacket from
your house. The minute you set foot inside, you give them automatic
permission to search the entire building. Do not enter any building
when you are in custody. Police can legally search your vehicle
without a warrant, but must have probably cause. This is the same
requirement as searching a house, but a judge does not need to approve
it in advance. If a cop ever asks before searching you or your
property, say "I do not consent to this search." If they could already
begin searching, they would do so without asking, so consider any
question a sign that they do not have probable cause. Saying this will
probably not stop the cops, but it may be useful in court later.

From 'The Austin Javelina' For more information, contact Austin
Copwatch at (512) 472-0979 or write: Austin Copwatch 2932 E. 12th St.
Austin, TX 78702

the gman
September 20, 2008, 16:56
Originally posted by Russ


That's funny ...I didn't think that RKBA stood for: "Right to Keep Being an Ass"

If your version of freedom is to stroll through shopping malls ninja-warrior style, and impress complete strangers with your big, scary, shiny gun, then you should be damn glad you'll never run into one of the founding fathers, they'd probably take occasion to call you a barbarian, and then regret not including a footnote to the 2nd Amendment that 'bearing arms' is not to be confused with flashing them in public as a male-enhacement device.

Russ

Or in your case, "right to keep dodging the question" prick.

Don't try to lecture me on the ideals of the Founding Fathers; you have already shown your colors. All I asked was would you condemn the over-reaching State cop for infringing Noble's 1st, 2nd & 4th Amendment rights? Still waiting for an answer.

Justa, I don't know WHAT Noble did or did not say to the cop as I wasn't there & neither were you. What we do have is the 'word' of a cop who already stretched the law as far as it would go to make an arrest so what is that worth? Questioned in relation to WHAT "criminal investigation"? There was no crime, therefore there can be no investigation. There was a question asked about what he was doing in the area with a bible & a legally owned firearm in it's holster. No criminal act had been committed ergo no criminal investigation was in progress. It comes to something in this country when cops can demand your papers or take you to a cop station, fingerprint you & do whatever else they consider reasonable to establish your identity.... & Russ thinks that Washington et al would have a problem with ME? Don't make me laugh, tool.

And, for the pair of you, nowhere in Noble's "own words" does he state he's going to test anything. Suggest you both take reading & comprehension 101 again......:rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm done, but with morons like you on our side, God help us.......:( :(

Stranger
September 20, 2008, 17:26
Originally posted by Russ


Well, Stranger, since you asked:

Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 11:55 am
Come to beaver tonite and show Obama what a Bible toten gun owner really looks like. My women and i will be there with both in the open. This is Obamas first stop after being picked in Co. Wow arnt we lucky. On a better note Pres elect McCain has picked a gun toten women from Ak to run as his vp. I wish they were here in stead of dayton Oh. Oh well be safe Mtn Jack

Russ

Care to rephrase your previous statement?

Originally posted by Russ

By his own words, he wanted to conduct a "test", so he could "see what would happen" ---And he did: he got arrested. Absent him pre-advertsing his intent to get a rise out of people by displaying a gun, I seriously doubt he would have been charged with anything.
Russ

You said, "In his own words" and yet the statement you attribute to him is nowhere in his words.

Try as you might to paint Noble as the bad guy, it just isn't the case.

Russ
September 21, 2008, 12:00
(warning – long post, but bear with me)

For the record, categorically, and totally without any qualification of any sort: I do NOT think Noble is a 'bad' guy, anymore than I think that winning my gun case over decade ago happened because I was a 'good' guy, since I am not.

Instead, I think Noble is a simple sort of dude who's aggressive, unbridled enthusiasm for open carry, coupled with a distinct lack of common sense, caused him to push the envelope right to the point where he got in hot water. His actions neither advanced the cause of RKBA (actually, endangered it) – and got himself arrested in the bargain.

As for Stranger, you asked for a quote, and I gave you a quote. In fact, it was the defining Noble quote that elevated his actions from the level of a protest to a possible criminal act. Now you want a different quote, but Noble apparently has buttoned up (wisely) and he is evidently still not willing to release any other information, including the name of his ‘legal team’. His address is listed in the original Bill Vidonic news reporter’s article, so you are free to look up his home phone on directory assistance and call to ask him to verify just what exactly he did or did not say to whom (aside from my excerpt from Noble’s internet post), or you can email the news-reporter (address below, and ten thousand other locations), and ask him to verify his news reporting integrity.

There really isn’t anything else publicly accessible, including from Noble, save the following, which is a follow-up piece from the same news-reporter, about a week after the initial incident.

It strikes me as an extremely careful, balanced reporting of Noble’s situation from all sides.

A few pertinent highlights –

1. The PA State Police are on record as saying that Noble committed no crime by possessing a firearm in public.

2. There was indeed a security perimeter established around the Obama rally, and under federal statute the USSS would act on anyone posing a threat, including trying to pass through a metal detector to get access. It is acknowledged that Noble did NOT attempt to pass through this area, and was not in violation of the federal statute.

3. Noble has been charged with a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct solely for the reason that the State Police believe that his website posting (quoted here by me) - and/or other statements he made to them when detained --indicated his intent to disrupt the rally, and that a passerby (possibly someone attending the rally) was concerned enough about Noble’s visible glock to call it to the attention of law enforcement.

4. The Beaver County Sheriff, who describes himself as a supporter of gun rights, expresses his opinion to the effect that Noble used very bad judgment in using a political rally for a presidential candidate as the stage for an open-carry demonstration (he’s apparently old enough to remember “Taxi Driver”, Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, the grassy knoll in Texas, etc)

5. Noble has openly carried his gun in the same park before, for the 'Syrup Festival', and a book-signing event -- and had no problems. Get it? Syrup Festival= Fine; Book-signing= No Problem. Political rally for presidential candidate posing enough risk to be covered by federal statue establishing security zone? --Bad disaster for John Noble's glock.

It gets down to this – whether you agree or don’t with Noble’s tactics (I don’t), his arrest and criminal charge stem from his publicly declared intention to show up ‘with his women’, and with a gun in plain sight, and show Obama 'what a gun-totin’ Bible carrying Pennsylvanian looks like' or something to that effect. The State Police chose to interpret all that as him displaying advance intent to disrupt a political rally, with the scary gun as the nexus of disruption (rather than other means like shouting down the speaker with a bullhorn) ---and that rightly gave them an opening to arrest and charge him.

I really and truly do NOT believe that Noble’s intent was to disrupt the rally – I believe he intended to make a peaceful demonstration.

I also believe that, under the circumstances, the State Police had a lawful basis to arrest and charge him, but I would argue that their interpretation of Noble’s actions was wrong, and that he is not guilty of any crime. I am convinced that the decision to charge Noble with a crime only came as a result of whatever it was he said in the course of his interview (unavailable to me, but likely included in the PSP documents filed with the court).

There was another rally in Pennsylvania, not long ago, in which open-carry enthusiasts met in some (I think) park or something, had a sort of picnic, away from the general public, and practiced their right to open carry. Local law enforcement showed up and although I think someone got a lawfully carried gun seized, I don’t recall that any charges were filed. THAT is a case where I’d come down on the other side – my very limited indirect knowledge of that affair is that the participants were in their own group, there was no hint that they were causing a public disturbance to anyone, and it was the LEO’s who decided to insert themselves and create an issue.

___________(BEGIN TIMES FOLLOW UP ARTICLE)_________________

By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Saturday, September 6, 2008 11:52 PM EDT
John Noble said he’s openly worn a handgun while attending the annual Maple Syrup Festival in Bradys Run Park.

He’s worn it to a Bridgewater book signing.

The Industry man said he’s never been confronted by police over his habit of wearing a holstered pistol on his waist — that is until Aug. 29.

Noble’s arrest at the Barack Obama campaign rally at Beaver’s Irvine Park has raised questions about gun rights.

“There was no disturbance until (law enforcement) made one,” Noble said.

Beaver County District Attorney Anthony Berosh said the issue isn’t whether Noble was legally carrying a gun. State police said Noble did not violate the state’s open carry law, under which you don’t need a permit to carry a weapon in plain sight.

Instead, Berosh said, it’s a battle between two constitutional rights: The right to bear arms and the right to assemble peaceably and without fear.

“No constitutional right pre-empts the other,” Berosh said.

Berosh said Noble did not have the right to alarm anyone around him attending the Barack Obama rally in Irvine Park.

While Noble’s intentions might not have been sinister, Berosh said, “The people who don’t know him don’t know that.”

Noble’s arrest at the Obama rally has set off controversy. Gun right advocates say Noble’s rights were stepped on, while others say Noble should have known better than to take a gun to a presidential campaign rally.

Noble said he had no ill intent and that Obama’s constitutional rights didn’t take precedence over his.

THE INCIDENT

Noble was standing in McIntosh Park, next to Irvine Park, when people noticed that he was packing a gun in a holster and notified sheriff’s deputies.

After a brief confrontation Noble was taken into custody, and his gun, a Glock 9mm, was confiscated. He was questioned by state police and released.

Deputies and state police have said Noble did not threaten anyone with the gun, and it remained in his holster until it was confiscated. The gun hasn’t been returned yet.

THE FALLOUT

On Friday, state police charged Noble with one count each of disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions.

State police wrote in a criminal complaint that they think Noble intended to disrupt the rally, because he posted a message on a Web site just before the rally telling people to “bring their guns and Bibles.”

State police said Noble put others around him in fear for their safety and that law enforcement agents had to abandon their posts at the Obama rally to deal with Noble.

State police did say that Noble did not illegally possess his weapon.

Federal authorities said they would not file charges against Noble because he did not enter Irvine Park. To do so, he would have had to pass through a metal detector.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Beaver County Sheriff George David said a person who is wearing a gun in a holster, out in the open, doesn’t need a license to carry that weapon.

However, a person who wants to keep a weapon concealed on his body or carry it in a vehicle must obtain a license. Extra permission is necessary for a concealed weapon, David said, because a concealed weapon poses a greater danger to police.

A weapon is considered concealed if it’s worn under clothing or kept in a vehicle.

While David said he’s a gun advocate, he said Noble should not have taken the gun to the rally because of all the security present for Obama’s protection.

“I don’t think this was the time or the place to show your rights,” David said.

Noble’s case is not unique, however.

According to published reports, a Louisiana man last month received a monetary settlement for his January 2006 arrest at a Baton Rouge shopping mall.

In the incident, a police officer approached Mark Marchiafava, 55, of Baton Rouge, and asked why he was openly wearing a holstered weapon in a mall. Marchiafava replied that because he wasn’t a felon, he could legally carry a weapon in the open.

The officer took Marchiafava into custody and charged him with a count of illegal gun possession.

The charge was later dropped, and Marchiafava’s weapon was returned, but he sued the police department, claiming a violation of his civil rights. The terms of the settlement with the department have been sealed.

Noble’s case has already been heavily discussed on Web sites dedicated to gun rights.

Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, said Friday, “John Noble was arrested for engaging in peaceful, constitutionally protected conduct in a park open to the public, i.e., passing out fliers while carrying a handgun in a secure holster. Noble was not intoxicated, fighting, cursing, or making loud noises.”

He also said, “Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly said that ‘the offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people,’ but the police in Noble’s case blatantly ignored the law and turned Pennsylvania’s disorderly conduct statute into a license to grab people off the street at will.”

Berosh said, “You have a right to strike a match, unless you’re in a TNT factory.”

Berosh also said it’s unfortunate that there’s “historical precedent” of violence at political rallies and presidential appearances, including the shootings of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

In the charges filed against Noble, state police trooper Shawn Schexnaildre wrote that if witness John Atkinson hadn’t been alarmed by Noble, Atkinson wouldn’t have notified nearby officers.

“This may be due to the fact that a political assassination is as devastating as any crime that can be committed and is nearly always committed with a gun. Either way, (Noble’s) actions, without question, created a public alarm,” Schexnaildre wrote.

Bill Vidonic can be reached online at bvidonic@timesonline.com.

WHEN DO YOU NEED A LICENSE?

In Pennsylvania, only those who wish to carry a concealed weapon must obtain a license.

Statute 18 P.C.S, 6106 defines when a person is breaking the law: Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

The punishment for the offense would depend on what a person’s prior criminal record is.

Source: Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

--------------------(END TIMES ARTICLE)----------------------------------------

As the article indicates, Gman, you are still free to don your cammo-BDU’s and patrol the local mall, impressing the junior high school chicks who skipped school that day. Totally lawful – obnoxious, yes – but lawful. I can at least give Noble that he was perhaps a bit of a innocent dolt, but in your case I cannot

I guarantee you that if Noble fights the misdemeanor charge, his as-yet-unnamed ‘legal team’ will focus entirely on his INTENT, and not on his actions. The prosecution will have the same focus, and if it was me, I’d say that Noble would win—barely. But in practically any court case involving public display of a weapon, it is inevitably the perceived intent that transforms a firearm from a tool for protection into a machine of mayhem.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again, if your INTENT in carrying a publically visible weapon is primarily to impress strangers, you are looking for trouble and it will find you, sooner or later.

"A man's GOT to know his limitations"
Russ

Russ
September 21, 2008, 12:21
Ahhhh, the G-d made coincidences that string together to form what we call "life"

This morning I visited my adult age son, who lives in a nearby apartment complex, and who kindly stores some of my rifles due to space limitations on my part. The long rifle 1916 Lebel showed a light sheen of rust, and I decided to take it back home for intensive care. My son didn't have any usable gun case, so I decided to just hump it to my car, "open carry" style.

It all happened in an instant, two or three seconds max.

Stepping into the courtyard of his place, I saw three little girls - ages 5- 7 years old or so, playing on the sidewalk about a hundred feet away, cute as buttons. Their mother was just leaving them, walking away to a nearby building. In that instant she glanced at me, ---and she just froze in mid-step, in that horrible "am I actually seeing this?" posture.

I just flipped the Lebel to my left shoulder, parade style, away from the kids who would be on my right as I passed, and I detoured well off the sidewalk so that I would not pass closer than twenty feet from where they were playing. From the corner of my eye I saw the mother simply unfreeze and continue on her way to the nearby building. I don't think she ever looked back at me.

Like I said, it began and ended in a matter of seconds

"Guns don't kill 2nd Amendment rights, INTENT does"

Russ

Kyrottimus
September 24, 2008, 01:49
Originally posted by Russ
"Guns don't kill 2nd Amendment rights, INTENT does"

Russ

Wrong

Fools who don't stand up for 2nd Amendment Rights kill them. Last time I checked, "Bearing Arms" was part of that whole 2nd Amendment.

English Mike
September 24, 2008, 18:34
"State police said Noble put others around him in fear for their safety..... "

And THAT folks is the hammer that will be used more & more often to stifle your Rights.

First you create a climate of fear around firearms.

Then you USE that fear as a means to disarm & criminalise gun owners.

All perfectly legal & supported by "reasonable" gun owners.

Pretty neat huh?

Russ
September 24, 2008, 20:04
I don't think you or Kryt could be any more wrong -- you just can't see it.

YOU are the ones ratcheting up the fear factor over guns with your antogonistic, provocative, "my-big-scary-gun-in-your-face" approach, and almost without exception every instance of encroaching gun control has been fueled by that fear being whipped up. Usually it's from the deadly antics of gangbanger's who just can't wait to show off their big scary gun to the public, or maybe some outfit like Handgun Control Inc. -- but now they have YOU, just when they were starting to feel (rightly) like THEY were the one's out of touch with the mainstream, Washington DC SCOTUS decision and all.

How many times and ways can I say it -- The RKBA is NOT the right to run around scaring people by presenting your gun to the public. Never was, never will be.

Opening my raincoat in public is not illegal, but if I'm not wearing anything underneath, then I will get arrested. I can yelp about how I only wanted to get a little fresh air, and that nobody should judge my intentions, but any jury of my peers is bound to know what is really going on.

I fought my battles for the RKBA, ...what exactly did YOU do ??--- strap a huge gun to your side and cruise the mall or the local soccer match in the park to promote the second amendment ???

"A man's GOT to know his limitations"

Russ

lngnmn
September 24, 2008, 20:31
First you create a climate of fear around firearms. Then you USE that fear as a means to disarm & criminalise gun owners. All perfectly legal & supported by "reasonable" gun owners. Pretty neat huh?

Yep and easily done, apparently! :confused:

Kyrottimus
September 25, 2008, 00:57
Originally posted by Russ
I don't think you or Kryt could be any more wrong -- you just can't see it.


Opinion...


YOU are the ones ratcheting up the fear factor over guns with your antogonistic, provocative, "my-big-scary-gun-in-your-face" approach, and almost without exception every instance of encroaching gun control has been fueled by that fear being whipped up. Usually it's from the deadly antics of gangbanger's who just can't wait to show off their big scary gun to the public, or maybe some outfit like Handgun Control Inc. -- but now they have YOU, just when they were starting to feel (rightly) like THEY were the one's out of touch with the mainstream, Washington DC SCOTUS decision and all.


I don't carry openly unless in the forest (cause bears don't care if you appear to be armed or not and there is no easy way to CC a .44 mag).

In town I wear a little 9mm that only holds 8 rounds, concealed. I'm simply standing up for a right guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. Just what do you think "bear" (as a verb) means? It doesn't mean shamefully hide or obscure, that I'm certain.

And to equate a law-abiding citizen to a gang-banger is wholly illogical and non-sequitor.

And when was the last time the Main-Stream media was actually main stream? BTW, I live in Montana, not D.C.


How many times and ways can I say it -- The RKBA is NOT the right to run around scaring people by presenting your gun to the public. Never was, never will be.


The RKBA says nothing about running around doing anything. But bearing arms is gauranteed (directly) by the 2nd Amendment. Always was, and, I hope, it always will be.


Opening my raincoat in public is not illegal, but if I'm not wearing anything underneath, then I will get arrested. I can yelp about how I only wanted to get a little fresh air, and that nobody should judge my intentions, but any jury of my peers is bound to know what is really going on.


You're equating one legal action leading to an illegal one. So technically in that instance opening the raincoat would be illegal. So it's an unsound statement.

To open carry is NOT illegal. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?


I fought my battles for the RKBA, ...what exactly did YOU do ??--- strap a huge gun to your side and cruise the mall or the local soccer match in the park to promote the second amendment ???


Let's see, I helped in the formation of The Friends of the NRA. I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic" when I enlisted in the USAF. And when I was honorably discharged, I do not recall any recanting of said oath, so technically I'm still bound by it.

Oh yeah, and I don't go to malls.

I also support my 2nd Amendment by exercising it regularly and getting others to get into the use of the right. Since I was 18 I've turned at least a dozen people over from the dark side to the light.


"A man's GOT to know his limitations"

"...but he's also got to know his rights."

And my own limitations begin where my rights end.


And here is one by me:

"We cannot allow the weakness of others to become weakness in ourselves."

Don't let the fear of firearms by the Generally Dumb Public sway your ability to exercise your own rights.

-Kyro

Stranger
September 25, 2008, 08:37
Originally posted by Russ

How many times and ways can I say it -- The RKBA is NOT the right to run around scaring people by presenting your gun to the public. Never was, never will be.

Opening my raincoat in public is not illegal, but if I'm not wearing anything underneath, then I will get arrested. I can yelp about how I only wanted to get a little fresh air, and that nobody should judge my intentions, but any jury of my peers is bound to know what is really going on.


Why do insist on comparing Noble's perfectly legal actions to things blatantly illegal (and now sexual)? This time you compared him to a flasher. Your analogy is irrelevant and yet another appeal to emotion.

Why don't you come back when you can come up with a real argument to support your position.

Russ
September 25, 2008, 19:31
Originally posted by Kyrottimus


You're equating one legal action leading to an illegal one. So technically in that instance opening the raincoat would be illegal. So it's an unsound statement.

To open carry is NOT illegal. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
-Kyro

I think that actually does a terrific job of summing up my view of this; a good post, and thank you for your service to our country.

In PA, it is NOT illegal to openly carry a firearm -- there is no statute or law forbidding it, and until lately, I was not aware of any issue on either side of the street.

My concern is that both of the incidents in the two active threads here seem to at least have the appearance of folks WANTING their openly carried gun to BECOME an issue. And that is where I see open carry becoming "one legal action leading to an illegal one" -- In the case of John Noble, being charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. In the case of Melanie Hainee, getting her CCW revoked on the character issue.

My concern is that needlessly provoking public alarm by using a publically displayed gun to "exercise your rights" isn't helping the cause of RKBA, and may fuel new anti-gun leglislation that will affirmatively prohibit open carry of firearms in a wide patch of public venues, that currently are not at issue.

Underneath it all, the issue to me is why needlessly make guns an issue?? My experience with the general public has been that when you don't make a gun an issue, nobody else will either.

Russ

Beckman
October 01, 2008, 03:09
Originally posted by Russ

[...]

___________(BEGIN TIMES FOLLOW UP ARTICLE)_________________

By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff
Published: Saturday, September 6, 2008 11:52 PM EDT
John Noble said he’s openly worn a handgun while attending the annual Maple Syrup Festival in Bradys Run Park.

[...]
Beaver County District Attorney Anthony Berosh said the issue isn’t whether Noble was legally carrying a gun. State police said Noble did not violate the state’s open carry law, under which you don’t need a permit to carry a weapon in plain sight.

Instead, Berosh said, it’s a battle between two constitutional rights: The right to bear arms and the right to assemble peaceably and without fear.

“No constitutional right pre-empts the other,” Berosh said.

[...]

Notice how Berosh, a DA no less, has altered the First Ammendment by adding, "without fear" to the "right to assemble peaceably." This is not a legitimate part of the Bill of Rights, but it is was necessary for Berosh to justify his infringement on the "right to bear arms." Berosh sees this as a battle between his imaginary right of assembly "without fear" with the real right to bear arms. Clearly, the DA's phantom right is the more important.

Originally posted by Russ
[...]
“I don’t think this was the time or the place to show your rights,” David said.
[...]Although Sheriff George David is supposedly pro-gun, he sees no problem with violating the Constitution when HE thinks that it isn't "the time or the place to show your rights.” Apparently, there are simply times when the Constitution does not apply. Perhaps his oath of office contained an appropriate weasel clause, "I will uphold the Constitution unless I feel that it isn't the right time or place to do so."

Scott S
October 01, 2008, 13:25
I applaud posters in this thread on both "sides" of the issue. It's been mostly congenial and issue oriented, and the debaters make good arguments. I found it an interesting read.

It is a shame that a person can't exercise his or her 2nd Amendment rights these days without raising alarm. But, I'm afraid that, given the nature of our more urban society, the lack of familiarity with firearms by the general populace, and probably a myriad of other reasons, this is a misconception with which we must cope. How did we get to this point? I think it's likely a combination of our fault for "letting" liberal types demonize us as gun owners and their fault for promoting their myopic, anti-gun agenda. I do give Noble credit for trying to fight that misconception.

However, I give Noble an "F" for the method he chose to take the fight to the street. I think he knew good and well that openly wearing his gun on his hip near Obama's rally would raise a few eyebrows, and I think he assumed someone would call law enforcement. I pose that was part of his plan. However, I think were he screwed up was how he responded to LE and his miscalculation that proclaiming his right to RKBA would protect him.

It's obvious to all here that the man had absolutely no intent to hurt anyone; he simply wanted to exercise his 2nd Amendment right peaceably and to further that right. However, I think it was his attitude that cost him. He got cocky.

Granted, I have very little on which to base my assertion, as the Timesonline article by Vildonic is poorly written--unfortunately, what I've come to expect regarding darned near any incident having to do with guns that the mainstream media grabs. Vildonic uses an alarmist title with the term "gun" to get reader attention, though I don't think that's the real reason Noble was arrested.

Noble's plan worked fine in the initial stages. Obama supporter observed Noble with gun and called cops. Cops respond to complainant and confront Noble. Up till that point, Noble exercised his right and showed support for it. But here's where Noble lost touch with reality. Instead of asking the cops where he could show his support for the 2nd Amendment in peaceful opposition to Obama's rally (where he wouldn't cause the sheep alarm), he responded belligerently by proclaiming his right to wear his gun where ever he damn well pleased, giving credence to the complainant’s assertion that Noble caused alarm. He demonstrated to the officers that his judgment was in question. At that point, I don't think the officers had much choice. Noble miscalculated. I think he'll be lucky to get his Glock back.

Should we have to ask where we can exercise our rights? Hell no. But if exercising my rights causes someone concern and officers are called to address the complainant’s concern, I ought to have enough brains to regroup and figure another way to exercise my right safely and judiciously. If that means leaving the Obama rally to fight peaceably another day, then do just that. A little courtesy and respect go a long way, regardless of whether you're in the right.

I think Vildonic should change the title of his article from "Man arrested for having gun at rally" to "Man arrested for being demonstrating poor judgment at rally".

Kyrottimus
October 01, 2008, 14:11
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k312/Wunderschlung/perpetuvator.gif

Russ
October 01, 2008, 15:29
It's no use, Scott. What we have here is a tragic case of dyslexia = these guys read the 2nd amendment and figured it was the .....

"Right to Keep and BARE Arms"

You are correct, the Sheriff in the Melany Hainee case (other thread) - has been described by a longtime and well-respected member of the Falfiles (who himself seems pretty pro-open carry himself) as being a strong supporter of gun rights. And yet this same Sheriff is quoted as saying that these folks who have an incurable compulsion to wave their gun in front of strangers will likely spawn new legislation to put in place statutory restrictions against open carry.

And then the fife&drum crew can sit in their darkened living rooms, humming the "Spirit of 76" and clutch their 7lb 50 cal portable cannon and just wait, just wait, I tell you, for that evil US mailman to step onto their property.

Every blessed one of these open-carry fanatics uniformly seem to want very specifically to take their gun out in public and display it in front of total strangers, ESPECIALLY if it causes fear and concern. That's what they want -- it's the reason that not ONE of them has yet come up with why they want to openly carry their gun in public, if they have the option to carry concealed.

And the hoary old chestnut about 'only criminals carry concealed' :rolleyes: Last time I checked, "open carry" seems popular with dictators like Fidel Castro, and is practiced in all the popular banana republics and violent third world cesspools. At least for them, they are openly honest about carrying openly as a means of projecting a menacing image.

Russ

Kyrottimus
October 01, 2008, 15:48
Originally posted by Russ
It's no use, Scott. What we have here is a tragic case of dyslexia = these guys read the 2nd amendment and figured it was the .....

"Right to Keep and BARE Arms"

Tragic case of dyslexia?

What we have here is a tragic case of poor grammar.

"Bare" is a descriptive word (adjective) used to DESCRIBE something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bare

Bare (1)

Main Entry:
1bare Listen to the pronunciation of 1bare
Pronunciation:
\ˈber\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
bar·er; bar·est
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English bær; akin to Old High German bar naked, Lithuanian basas barefoot
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: lacking a natural, usual, or appropriate covering b (1): lacking clothing <bare feet> (2)obsolete : bareheaded c: lacking any tool or weapon <opened the box with his bare hands>2: open to view : exposed <laying bare their secrets>3 a: unfurnished or scantily supplied <a bare room> b: destitute <bare of all safeguards>4 a: having nothing left over or added <the bare necessities of life> b: mere <a bare two hours away> c: devoid of amplification or adornment <the bare facts>5obsolete : worthless



"Bear" is an action (verb) used to show an ACTION (either passive or active) being taken.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear%5B2%5D

Bear (2)

Main Entry:
2bear
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bore Listen to the pronunciation of bore ; borne also born Listen to the pronunciation of born ; bear·ing
Etymology:
Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date:
before 12th century

transitive verb1 a: to move while holding up and supporting b: to be equipped or furnished with c: behave , conduct <bearing himself well> d: to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother> e: to give as testimony <bear false witness> f: to have as an identification <bore the name of John> g: to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h: disseminate i: lead , escort j: render , give2 a: to give birth to b: to produce as yield c (1): to permit growth of (2): contain <oil-bearing shale>3 a: to support the weight of : sustain b: to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> c: to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching> d: to hold above, on top, or aloft e: to admit of : allow f: assume , accept4: thrust , pressintransitive verb1: to produce fruit : yield2 a: to force one's way b: to extend in a direction indicated or implied c: to be situated : lie d: to become directed e: to go or incline in an indicated direction3: to support a weight or strain —often used with up4 a: to exert influence or force b: apply , pertain —often used with on or upon<facts bearing on the question>
— bear a hand
: to join in and help out
— bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms2: to serve as a soldier
— bear fruit
: to come to satisfying fruition, production, or development
— bear in mind
: to think of especially as a warning : remember
— bear with
: to be indulgent, patient, or forbearing with

Kyrottimus
October 01, 2008, 15:50
I never figured it to be: "Right to Keep and BARE Arms", as that isn't the literal text of the Amendment. It's not even a proper sentence. Now, "Right to keep and bear bare arms" is, but it is awkward...but that's not how it's written.

It is the "right to keep and BEAR arms". To carry/possess arms.


You should really brush up on your English Comp.

Stranger
October 02, 2008, 07:56
Originally posted by Kyrottimus

You should really brush up on your English Comp.

Russ thinks this is what it means.

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

justashooter
October 02, 2008, 10:57
bearing arms, in the period in which the text was written, is in reference to serving in a military role. it is not about wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront you for your childish behaviour.

when the amendment was written, people were a little more mature, i suppose. they had to be. they had work to do, and didn't have time to sit around trying to figure out how to feel like more of a man. they already knew that they were men.

Stranger
October 02, 2008, 11:07
Originally posted by justashooter
bearing arms, in the period in which the text was written, is in reference to serving in a military role. it is not about wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront you for your childish behaviour.

when the amendment was written, people were a little more mature, i suppose. they had to be. they had work to do, and didn't have time to sit around trying to figure out how to feel like more of a man. they already knew that they were men.

Do you have the mistaken belief that human nature has changed in the last 3000 years? :rolleyes:

Are you serious? Do you really think folks back in the 1700s and 1800s didn't carry weapons out in the open? With bandits, indians, bears, wolves, and meat to put on the table, do you really expect anyone to believe your claim that no one carried weapons around town? A person would have to be daft to believe that travelers passing through a town WOULDN'T be armed with all the two- and four-legged beasts wandering around the highways.

Once again, the anti-rights contingent see fit to make mountains out of mole hills. Once again Noble is the bad guy who was "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront" him when in fact he did no such thing. He was walking peacefully with a firearm on his side. How that can be interpreted as "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront you" is beyond comprehension.

Next time you are stateside why don't you tell a police officer that his/her open carry is immature/childish behavior.

John Culver
October 02, 2008, 13:00
seems like no one has bothered to think about WHY the public is 'scared' of open carry.

They are scared of it, because gunowners stopped doing it, plain and simple.

If seeing a person with a gun, was a regular, daily occurence, for John Q Public, then this would NEVER have developed into a problem.

As Stranger said, we use to always carry guns, if you saw someone without one, he was probably a pastor or something.

The way out of this problem is MORE open carry, such that the public once again gets use to the constitution.

Scott S
October 02, 2008, 14:54
Nice play on words, Russ. I thought it was worth a little chuckle. Perhaps not particularly productive toward furthering your argument, but funny nonetheless.

Originally posted by Stranger
...

Once again, the anti-rights contingent see fit to make mountains out of mole hills. Once again Noble is the bad guy who was "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront" him when in fact he did no such thing. He was walking peacefully with a firearm on his side. How that can be interpreted as "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront you" is beyond comprehension.

...

Stranger, if you're implying that I'm the anti-rights contingent, I think I did an inadequate job of explaining what I think Noble was doing. But before I address the Noble issue, let me clear up my "anti-rights" agenda. (If I inferred in error, please forgive me.)

I wrote this years ago here on the 'Files if memory serves, and I'll repeat it. I think we need about 4 firearm laws. That's it. Here's my list. We need laws against:

1. Murder (you kill someone who doesn't need killing, you go to jail, regardless of whether by firearm, car, or fist)
2. Negligent death (if you violate gun safety and kill someone, you go to jail for being careless)
3. Recklessness (if you endanger others by shooting in the air at New Year's, you oughta go to jail)
4. Disturbing the public (target shooting at 2:00 in the morning next to my house will disturb me, and if you don't have enough sense to know that, you oughta go to jail)

Given some thought I could probably come up with another rule or two (stealing firearms would be a good one), but I think these paint the picture I'm trying to portray. NFA? I have no need for it. What does it matter if I'm shooting a blackpowder gun, a single shot, a semi, or a full auto if I'm following the above rules? Concealed carry license? Bullshit paperwork as far as I'm concerned. True concealed carry ought to be along the lines of concealed carry in Vermont (or Alaska?) where if you're not stupid, you can carry, not some silly-assed governmental permission to exercise a "right". Everyone here knows it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference how many laws congress critters enact against firearms and their owners--only the law-abiding, us, will obey. Criminals will break my four laws, the only ones that really matter, and the umpteen thousand others that are on the books that infringe upon MY right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if that view still classifies me as "anti-rights contingent", then I'm guilty as charged. However, I have a feeling a lot of folks, even some on this site, would call my firearm view "extremist".

In the case of Noble, I don't think he was "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront" him. I do think he was walking peacefully with a firearm on his side, just as you wrote. However, I think where I failed in my earlier attempt at clarity, and where the two "sides" on this issue diverge is with respect to timing and good old-fashioned manners. Forgive the crude and admittedly inane classifications here, but for simplicity let's call the camps the "For" camp (you, Kyrottimus, gman, etc.) and the "Against" camp (me, Russ, justashooter).

On the issue of timing, I, speaking for the Against camp, assert that Noble picked the wrong time and place to exercise his right to make his point that open carry is no big deal. Sure, we should be able to exercise our right when and where ever we want, but I think Noble picked a poor time and place to exercise his. I have the right to free speech. Nothing physically prohibits me from hollering 'Fire" in a theater or rattling off a string of expletives in front of my child's birthday party attendees. But just because I can exercise that right when and where ever I want doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. I wouldn't cuss in front of my kids' friends, nor would I open carry in front of them at a birthday party (though I wouldn't have any problem open carrying in front of said friends on a shooting outing or on a campout in bear country). Ideally we should be able to carry everywhere without raising eyebrows, but the fact is we can't. Regardless of the "why" which John Culver asks about (good question, BTW), the fact is most folks in big cities simply aren't used to guns and therefore tend to get their britches in a wad when they see someone other than LE with a heater strapped to his or her waist. Noble knew good and well that wearing his piece in front of a Democratic rally for Obama was going to raise a few eyebrows at the very least. Hell, he coulda been sitting on the park bench reading a newspaper or hammering on his laptop keyboard and the gun still would have caused the sissy Obama supporters to call LE and warn of the crazed man in the park with the deadly-looking fully automatic assault pistol. Noble knew this. He didn't have to look for trouble or a confrontation, he knew some Obama nut was going to call the police and create the confrontation for him without having to bat an eyelash. And, not only did he expect it, he was ready for the LE confrontation with his spiel about his 2nd Amendment right. I think the For camp is of the opinion that Noble was just minding his own business while open carrying, but I don't think that's quite the case. I think the For camp dismisses Noble's intent while the Against camp recognizes it.

And here's where the second part of the equation, manners, comes into play. Noble could have avoided the arrest with a little courtesy to the officers that responded to the complainant's call. But Noble was hell-bent to prove that his 2nd Amendment right trumped the complainant's comfort level, and he took a haughty attitude with the cops. That's what landed him in jail. Back to my free speech analogy, while I'm busy cursing my way through my kid's birthday party, Janie's mom is calling 911 on me, if she beats my wife to it. When the cops arrive, proclaiming my right to free speech while I continue to hurl invective in front of the kids probably won't stop the cops from slapping the cuffs on me and tossing me in the squad car. Noble didn't have to be confrontational with the officers, but that's the route he chose, and he chose poorly. He was so busy focusing on his 2nd Amendment right that the thought didn't occur to him he might get arrested for being an ass. Let's put it this way: I thought Heller, et al, brought a pretty damned good case before SCOTUS. I'd be ashamed if Noble's case went before SCOTUS on behalf of gun owners.

Kyrottimus
October 02, 2008, 15:02
Originally posted by John Culver
The way out of this problem is MORE open carry, such that the public once again gets use to the constitution.

+1

An armed society is a polite and civilized one.

justashooter
October 03, 2008, 09:27
Originally posted by Stranger


Do you have the mistaken belief that human nature has changed in the last 3000 years? :rolleyes:

Are you serious? Do you really think folks back in the 1700s and 1800s didn't carry weapons out in the open? With bandits, indians, bears, wolves, and meat to put on the table, do you really expect anyone to believe your claim that no one carried weapons around town? A person would have to be daft to believe that travelers passing through a town WOULDN'T be armed with all the two- and four-legged beasts wandering around the highways.

Once again, the anti-rights contingent see fit to make mountains out of mole hills. Once again Noble is the bad guy who was "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront" him when in fact he did no such thing. He was walking peacefully with a firearm on his side. How that can be interpreted as "wandering about the town glaring at people and daring them to confront you" is beyond comprehension.

Next time you are stateside why don't you tell a police officer that his/her open carry is immature/childish behavior.

foist on yer own petard, my friend (foist a deliberate substitution for hoist).

people in the US have much easier lives these days than people in the US had 200 years ago. they have not needed to learn to be pragmatic, and have been able waste time engaging in frivolity that forefathers had not at option. they have not needed to earn their own respect, so prop it up through provicative actions, (just like me fuxxing with you on the internet). this is true of people in a any developed society. the character just dumbs down when life is easy (fall of the roman empire). live in a second world country for a few years and you will understand.

regarding people carrying guns in the post revolutionary period: do some research. google is your friend. most people in in cities in this period did not have a gun. most people in towns in this period had a smoothbore musket, if anything. it was a practical piece for practical times. people on the frontier had one gun per household, cause they were just too damned expensive to have a bunch. few people had pistols. they were considered a rich man's toy, or an officer's badge of rank, and were viewed as generally inefectual.

to this day policemen and policewomen carry them as a badge of rank, and if you look at the departmental statistics, they are still largely inefectual. i'll never forget the first incident report involving use of the new 9mm "wondergun" by a baltimore city policewoman in the mid 90's. IIRC, the policewoman "successfully discharged her firearm 13 times" in an attempt to arrest a fleeing felon. the story didn't mention her hitting him

regarding four legged and two legged beast wandering the highways: the false perception of danger is a peculiar facet of many OC advocate's psychologies (or psychiatries, in some cases). you can read it on the forums (PAFOA, Highroad, etc). just a bunch of immature/paranoid fellows looking for a way to make up for their short schwangs and deal with their delusions.

"OK, I was interviewed last night, and had to draw down with my uber tactical super-magnum maximum capacity plastic pistol when an old lady looked at me wrong. Just plain wrong! Wrong, I say!

I just knew she had it in for me, so i made a tactical roll and swept her before she could pull the heater i know she had in her purse. I am sure she was intent on robbing me, and maybe even taking me home so she could Home Invasion me! And the nerve to do it in the midst of her dear departed husband's funeral!

Black is a great color for concealment, ya know, and widows have a great disguise for their vile intent. Oh, and i did a tactical mag change while rolling under the casket, just in case the stiff was carrying, too. How did i do, guys? should I have pre-emptively maced her to slow down her reaction time?

I'm so excited about this, and really need to debrief. I was caught up in the OOMPA LOOMPA, and am still so kicking on the adrenaline I can barely practice my Cooper's Corelary excersizes. I shoud file an after action report in the morning and look for some more tactical courses to take.

Did I mention that I ripped my body armour on the corner of the casket? Damned stuff just doesn't come in big enough sizes ( I ordered the jumbo, but they must be kidding, cause i'm a BIG guy and all, but...), and the double ceramic plates I was wearing didn't make it any easier to get into, lemme tell ya."

BTW, it was the soccer bitch who lost her LTCF that was openly confronting people, not the moron with the pamphlets and bible and the "lets's see if we can get a reaction" internet posts. you are getting confused, here.

Stranger
October 03, 2008, 13:24
Originally posted by justashooter


foist on yer own petard, my friend (foist a deliberate substitution for hoist).

people in the US have much easier lives these days than people in the US had 200 years ago. they have not needed to learn to be pragmatic, and have been able waste time engaging in frivolity that forefathers had not at option. they have not needed to earn their own respect, so prop it up through provicative actions, (just like me fuxxing with you on the internet). this is true of people in a any developed society. the character just dumbs down when life is easy (fall of the roman empire). live in a second world country for a few years and you will understand.

regarding people carrying guns in the post revolutionary period: do some research. google is your friend. most people in in cities in this period did not have a gun. most people in towns in this period had a smoothbore musket, if anything. it was a practical piece for practical times. people on the frontier had one gun per household, cause they were just too damned expensive to have a bunch. few people had pistols. they were considered a rich man's toy, or an officer's badge of rank, and were viewed as generally inefectual.

to this day policemen and policewomen carry them as a badge of rank, and if you look at the departmental statistics, they are still largely inefectual. i'll never forget the first incident report involving use of the new 9mm "wondergun" by a baltimore city policewoman in the mid 90's. IIRC, the policewoman "successfully discharged her firearm 13 times" in an attempt to arrest a fleeing felon. the story didn't mention her hitting him

regarding four legged and two legged beast wandering the highways: the false perception of danger is a peculiar facet of many OC advocate's psychologies (or psychiatries, in some cases). you can read it on the forums (PAFOA, Highroad, etc). just a bunch of immature/paranoid fellows looking for a way to make up for their short schwangs and deal with their delusions.

"OK, I was interviewed last night, and had to draw down with my uber tactical super-magnum maximum capacity plastic pistol when an old lady looked at me wrong. Just plain wrong! Wrong, I say!

I just knew she had it in for me, so i made a tactical roll and swept her before she could pull the heater i know she had in her purse. I am sure she was intent on robbing me, and maybe even taking me home so she could Home Invasion me! And the nerve to do it in the midst of her dear departed husband's funeral!

Black is a great color for concealment, ya know, and widows have a great disguise for their vile intent. Oh, and i did a tactical mag change while rolling under the casket, just in case the stiff was carrying, too. How did i do, guys? should I have pre-emptively maced her to slow down her reaction time?

I'm so excited about this, and really need to debrief. I was caught up in the OOMPA LOOMPA, and am still so kicking on the adrenaline I can barely practice my Cooper's Corelary excersizes. I shoud file an after action report in the morning and look for some more tactical courses to take.

Did I mention that I ripped my body armour on the corner of the casket? Damned stuff just doesn't come in big enough sizes ( I ordered the jumbo, but they must be kidding, cause i'm a BIG guy and all, but...), and the double ceramic plates I was wearing didn't make it any easier to get into, lemme tell ya."

BTW, it was the soccer bitch who lost her LTCF that was openly confronting people, not the moron with the pamphlets and bible and the "lets's see if we can get a reaction" internet posts. you are getting confused, here.

It would be difficult for me to hoist myself on a question now wouldn't it. :wink:

However, if you really want to get into it I will let you in on a little secret.

Your "research" on the internet is worthless. Almost all of the information floating around the web concerning the subject comes from a book written by the disgraced and discredited former Emory professor of history Michael A. Bellesiles. His book "Arming America: The Origin of a National Gun Culture" was proven to be nothing more than a string of lies, falsifications, and willful disregard of legitimate resources. The quote from the Emory University investigatory board summed it up with the statement, "...Every aspect of his work is deeply flawed. His scholarly integrity is seriously in question." He resigned from Emory before they could kick his ass out.

You go right ahead and believe his bullshit. It fits right in with the other bullshit ideas you have.

I don't have to go to the internet to know who owned firearms in the 1700-1800s. My great-great grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and grandfathers have passed on the muskets, pistols, and rifles they owned. They weren't rich. They were farmers, tailors, salesmen, and shopkeepers. So, much for your idea that few owned them.

BTW, it is unfortunate that we have to see your true colors. The lady at the soccer field is now a "soccer bitch". :rolleyes: Do you ever get tired of your own bigotry?

JasonB
October 03, 2008, 21:24
Originally posted by John Culver
As Stranger said, we use to always carry guns, if you saw someone without one, he was probably a pastor or something.


Maybe not. I was in a museum a few years ago and saw a revolver carried by a Methodist pastor who was on the road a lot in the late 1800's. Apparently preachers weren't pussies then either.

Kyrottimus
October 04, 2008, 00:12
Originally posted by JasonB


Maybe not. I was in a museum a few years ago and saw a revolver carried by a Methodist pastor who was on the road a lot in the late 1800's. Apparently preachers weren't pussies then either.

Fairly usual today I'd think too. As my father says,

"Do unto others as they would do unto you, just do it quicker than they can."

justashooter
October 04, 2008, 02:31
Originally posted by Stranger


Do you ever get tired of your own bigotry?

no bigotry here, brother. i dislike idiots of all colors and persuasions. intolerance toward people who can't keep their behaviour in order is just prudence.

in regard to the percentage of persons owning firearms in colonial days, it's simple economics. few people in china today have televisions because few can afford them, and they are not necessary in the daily life.

firearms were not truely "affordable" in the US before the advent of mass production. comparative prices fell dramatically between 1820 and 1870 as machines were developed to make production simpler. production volume increased during this period. this was made possible by a reduction in the skill and knowledgement requirement of the applied workforce made possible by technological advancement.

the first firearms components mass produced (ienterchangeable parts) were the Hall Breechlock Conversions. these were an adaptation of earlier muzzle loading muskets made in national arsenals in 1819. the first mass produced comercial guns with interchangeable parts followed 10 years or so later.

prior to this time, virtually all comercial guns made in the US were handmade. sure, there were barrel making specialists, and lock making specialists, and even screw making specialists, but in the end it was all made by hand in small scale shops on primitive machinery until about 1820. this partly due to a general prohibition on firearms making within the colonies occasionally enforced by the british backed government prior to the revolution, and the economic strain during development of the post-war economy.

the post-war years were not a pretty time, by any means. an infrastructure vaccum had to be filled. this happens in every country when a national government is overthrown. mass production of firearms on the european continent occured earlier than in the US, and yet, was still predominantly military in nature. because of this reality, the US revolution was fought largely with french muskets.

RT
October 07, 2008, 17:27
after trying to read all this mess. is there a outcome to this clusterfugk? can someone give me the short verson please. ie is he introuble? or will it all get tossed out and he will get some $$ etc? thanks~R

justashooter
October 08, 2008, 00:39
i'm betting he will get a misdemeanor conviction for disturbing the peace, and loose his LTCF. he will prolly have to spend a few thousand bux learninig to be less provocative, but will avoid the cross bar hotel.

67GT390FB
July 21, 2009, 15:03
Originally posted by justashooter
i'm betting he will get a misdemeanor conviction for disturbing the peace, and loose his LTCF. he will prolly have to spend a few thousand bux learninig to be less provocative, but will avoid the cross bar hotel.

Time for you to pay up to those who took you up on your bet.

Judge: Taking Gun To Rally Foolish, Not Criminal
Jurors found John Noble Not Guilty Of Disrupting A Public GatheringBEAVER (KDKA) ¯ Click to enlarge1 of 1
KDKA

Close




numSlides of totalImages Related StoriesJury Goes Home Without Verdict In Noble Case
(7/16/2009)
Man With Gun At Obama Rally Wanted 'Quiet Protest'
(7/15/2009)
Man To Stand Trial After Taking Gun To Obama Rally
(7/14/2009)
Jurors and a judge in Beaver County found a local man not guilty of disrupting a public gathering and disorderly conduct for bringing a gun to a campaign rally for President Barack Obama last August.

While the judge said John Noble's decision to take his gun to the rally was a foolish act; he added that not all foolish acts rise to criminal behavior. The judge found Noble not guilty of the summary offense of disorderly conduct earlier today.

Noble was accused of causing a disturbance by bringing a gun to the rally in Beaver County last year. The Beaver County man said he wanted to educate people about the right to carry firearms after Obama characterized Pennsylvanians as clinging to guns and religion.

Though he had proper permits to carry the firearm, a trooper arrested him for disrupting a public gathering.

While jurors could not reach a verdict in the case last night – asking the judge to go home because they were "frazzled," they found Noble not guilty of the third degree misdemeanor for disrupting a public gathering shortly before noon.

Noble said he was "elated" with the verdicts.

When asked to respond to the judge's comment that his actions were "foolish," Noble told KDKA's Harold Hayes, "That's the judge's opinion. I think he ruled on the law and that's the way it should have been."

"God is good," Janet Noble said after her husband's acquittal. "Our constitution stands."

Had he been convicted of the third-degree misdemeanor, Noble could have faced as much as one year in jail and fines of up to $2,500.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)


http://kdka.com/beaver/John.Noble.Gun.2.1089780.html

onebigelf
July 21, 2009, 16:05
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

Actually this is probably where he will get in trouble, thought they will have to ignore the part immediately after where it says that NONE of these regulations shall supersede state law. Since state law says he can open carry, the regulation would seem not to apply. So the guy was being a confrontational butt-head. The bottom line is that he WAS within his rights. None of the laws regarding open carry mention anything about your INTENT while carrying. None of them say that you can open carry as long as it doesn't make anyone else nervous or uncomfortable. The question is, do we only have our rights if the exercise of those rights doesn't make someone else nervous? The arrest and the seizure of his firearm do not seem proper. At the most, the officers might have been justified in ASKING if he minded surrendering the magazine for the duration of the candidate's visit, or stationing an officer or two or three with the butt-head to watch him, with the clear understanding that the slightest wrong move could have dire consequences. Then leave it up to him. That aside, he went there to provoke a confrontation and that's what he got. He knew doggone well that exercising his rights in that time and place and it that manner was not gonna fly. I'll agree he had the right, but not sympathize with the consequences.

John

67GT390FB
July 21, 2009, 16:13
Originally posted by onebigelf


Actually this is probably where he will get in trouble, . I'll agree he had the right, but not sympathize with the consequences.

John


you do realize that i just posted an article saying that the man was found not guilty of the charges. So he won't be getting in any trouble from this or suffering any consequences.

molotov
July 21, 2009, 16:54
you do realize that i just posted an article saying that the man was found not guilty of the charges. So he won't be getting in any trouble from this or suffering any consequences.

Imagine that, justice prevailing.

I think I'd bring some sort of return lawsuit, followed by another larger protest, to said town the man was protesting in. He was well within his rights to be doing what he was doing, as much spin as the story was given.

He shouldn't have had any attention from police at all, beyond giving them a flier and discussing 2A rights for a moment.

I wanna see a discrimination lawsuit is what I'm saying.:)

Stranger
July 21, 2009, 17:09
Originally posted by 67GT390FB



you do realize that i just posted an article saying that the man was found not guilty of the charges. So he won't be getting in any trouble from this or suffering any consequences.

He is totally oblivious. Justashooter will be along shortly to say that the guy should have gone to jail.

Jaxxas
July 21, 2009, 18:00
Woo Hoo for us good guys. But you gotta admit the guy likes to draw attention to himself!

Stranger
July 21, 2009, 18:21
Originally posted by Jaxxas
Woo Hoo for us good guys. But you gotta admit the guy likes to draw attention to himself!

Perhaps if more were willing to draw attention to the issue this wouldn't happen at all.

Jaxxas
July 21, 2009, 18:36
Originally posted by Stranger


Perhaps if more were willing to draw attention to the issue this wouldn't happen at all.


I'm sure you are right, but I kinda doubt that from this day forward anybody will ever be able to attend a presidential (or elect) political function with an exposed weapon without drawing at least some 'unfair' attention. Unfortunately I think those days are gone!


Hopefully I'm wrong, but if you are going to have a go at it, let us know in advance so we could maybe set up a bail fund.

Scott S
July 22, 2009, 10:58
Despite my rant about his attitude, I'm glad to hear that Noble was found not guilty.

StarPD
August 07, 2009, 16:36
Interesting. I just now came across this thread, damfino why.
Anyway, FWIW, Arizona being an "Open Carry" State, for many years when I rode a motorcycle, I ALWAYS carried openly. My sidearm was in a holster on my left hip (you don't really NEED your left hand to ride a motorcycle). In a very few places, I was asked to check my gun at the Cashier's station with her, where it was placed in a secure place. Otherwise, I kept it with me. Being a very fast rider, I had quite a few stops by the police. Not one ever gave me a hard time about being armed, with the exception that a few cops asked me to remove it and place it on the hood or front seat of their squad car, which I did willingly. Not one of them ever made an issue of it or even asked my why I was armed.

I went into banks, restaurants, stores, and other places of business, and outside of a few people looking at my gun, never had a problem with carrying openly. While a few people, usually newcomers to the State asked me why I was carrying, to which I usually answered "for the same reason cops do, for self defense, Not one single person ever gave me a hard time about it.

Interestingly enough, it was a State Policeman who suggested that I ride armed, since as a motorcyclist himself, he had on several occasions been assaulted by car drivers, and only having his gun kept him from being roadkill. I found out he was right, as on several occasions, I too was almost run down deliberately by car drivers who thought they were funny. Until they saw my gun, upon which they suddenly became innocent as virgins.

I don't ride any more, but on occasion when I'm going hunting or shooting, I still wear my sidearm in a holster and patronize restaurants and stores on the way too and from the field. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone doesn't like it, too bad for them. Life is full of things they probably don't like, and my gun is only one of them. As for fearing to offend those who are afraid of or hate guns, I refuse to live MY life to please everyone, and that includes those who don't like seeing me armed.

Anyone here who is one of them can join them in having their feelings hurt because I choose to do what I want and that which is perfectly legal. If you think for one minute that gun haters will like you because you don't offend them, you are sadly mistaken. Living to please others is something alien to me. I will continue to be armed and carry openly whenever I see fit, and the anti-gunners and gun folk who are intimidated by anti-gunners can all go straight to hell.

justashooter
August 07, 2009, 17:06
Originally posted by Stranger


He is totally oblivious. Justashooter will be along shortly to say that the guy should have gone to jail.

how did i miss this bait? well, better late than never...

i was glad to hear that the charges were refuted. i live in penna, and now have one more arrow to shoot. more importantly, there is yet another arrow in the quiver. the MPOTEC trainings issued this year contain a very specific topic on the issue of open carry that instructs policemen to stay off your back if you are seen to be open carrying and there is no other RAS or PC.

download this 5 page PDF from a trusted source:
http://www.lildobe.net/PAFOA_Docs/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf

see the relevant threads:
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/64310-source-mpoetc-regarding-open-carry.html
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/42522-2009-mpoetc-mandatory-service-training-page-10.html

do i think open carry is wise? not in most circumstances. do i think that the PAFOA site is crawling with pencil-dicked retards who shouldn't be carrying a gun at all? sure. does my wife have a carry permit? sure. do i let her carry at her curent level of training? if i told you, i'd have to kill you.