Gun owners protest police action

[beevul]

Gun owners protest police action

BY CHARLES SCHILLINGER
STAFF WRITER
05/14/2008


DICKSON CITY — A Friday evening police incident spilled over into a Borough Council meeting Tuesday, with gun-rights advocates alleging harassment by two police officers.

Police have yet to release a report of the incident in which a group of customers at Old Country Buffet were questioned about openly carrying handguns in public. At least one of those customers, Rich Banks, of Luzerne County, was detained for refusing to cooperate with police in regard to his concealed .38-caliber handgun, Police Chief William Stadnitski said. Mr. Banks’ weapon remains confiscated, but the chief said he can pick it up at any time.

Pennsylvanians are required to carry a permit for a concealed weapon; however, there are exemptions, such as in the case of Mr. Banks, who Dickson City police later found out had a federal gun-dealer license.

Contacted by The Times-Tribune, Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola declined to comment on this specific case, but said people have a right to openly carry a weapon without having to show identification or a permit.

“Police can ask, but if they don’t want to give it, they don’t have to,” he said. “It’s going to be surprising to the public, but that’s the current state of law.”

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19687220

This one has all sorts of fun stuff...confiscation, police that apparently don't know the laws they're charged to enforce,possible violations of the 4th amendment in the form of unlawful terry search, etc.


If they confiscated the guys gun for any lawful reason, why is he welcome to come pick it up at the police station?

He is required by federal law as an FFL holder to report it stolen is he not?

He was detained because he declined the request to show ID, which the DA states plainly and clearly he is not required to provide.

Thats unlawful is it not?

I have a feeling this one is going to get ugly for DC police.

[midnight]

1. I'm far from being a gun person. But the law is the law.

[DogPoundPup]

2. Gun professionals know more about guns and rules than anyone else alive!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ANY QUESTIONS ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[midnight]

3. That is a very effective graphic. Would have had a hard time

believing it if I had not seen it.

[iamahaingttta]

4. what the hell are these people doing...

...walking around carrying concealed weapons?

I live in the biggest city in the country, two blocks from "the ghetto."
It would never even occur to me to walk around carrying a gun.

What the hell are these people so afraid of or so paranoid about that they need to walk around carrying guns?

I think Americans are largely a bunch of fucking pussies...

[mvccd1000]

5. You're not kidding!

I really laugh at the idiots that buy "insurance" or make sure their cars have airbags and seatbelts. Other preventive measures like smoke alarms are sure signs of a fucking pussy.

Of course, a brave soul like you from the ghetto doesn't bother with any of those things, do you?

[iamahaingttta]

9. Preventative measures? Oh, puh-leeeze!

In all my years as a news junkie, I have never ONCE read a story about a crime that was prevented by some good citizen who was carrying a concealed weapon. I woulda thunk that by now I would have come across something like that in the news.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to own or carry guns. Quite the contrary. I am saying that people who shout the loudest about their right to bear arms tend to appear **to me** to be the biggest bunch of paranoid pussies on the planet.

[maxidivine]

11. Oh really?

What about Jean Assam at New Life church in Colorado? I know the MSM really trumpeted her as a "security guard" and that she had been a cop at one point in her life, but the day she saved many members of her church she was just a private citizen, not a security guard, although she and two other members of the congregation had agreed to attend services to provide some level of protection.

She most certainly stopped the individual who was coming to shoot as many people as she could.

[iamahaingttta]

15. Excellent! Glad to hear it.

That's one.

[maxidivine]

25. So you're getting pwned

and it doesn't look like you've actually looked for any situations where a law abiding citizen used a firearm to repel a criminal or group of criminals. Good job.

How about the attack on the school in Israel? There have actually been quite a few that were resolved by armed citizens.

The NRA has a rich collection of incidents like the ones you claim have never happened, and I would love to post some of them except that a few vocal members would just try to down the NRA as right wing scumbags and say that they do not support Democratic candidates (not true, just that many Dem candidates don't give them any reason to believe they support RKBA).

But check it out, "Armed Citizen" I believe it's called, they have many, many stories.

[iverglas]

28. only in the dark and twisted minds

of people who think killing people who have neither caused nor threatened any harm to any person is a good thing ...

[maxidivine]

37. You think Jean Assam

Shot a man who had done NO HARM to anyone?

[iverglas]

38. you think the moon

is made of GREEN CHEESE????

[SteveM]

64. I'm sure you'll be getting more than one. Be patient. (nt)

[Factoid]

18. #1

http://www.currycountyreporter.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=3556

Kevin Eber had thrown a partially full beer can, striking Von Pohle's car. Von Pohle asked Eber why and Eber became violent, telling Von Pohle he was going to kill him. During that exchange, Shelton attacked Von Pohle, striking him with closed fists and slamming his head into a parked car.

Von Pohle attempted to fend off the attack but realized Eber was closing in on him as well. Von Pohle drew his concealed 9mm revolver (for which he had a weapon permit) and pointed it at both subjects telling them if they came any closer he would shoot. The suspects stopped their advance. Von Pohle also had called 911 to notify police.

[Factoid]

19. #2

http://www.local10.com/news/16198830/detail.html

Boca Raton police said four men smashed the windows of H&L Wholesale Jewelry storeowner Leon Rozio's sport utility vehicle at the Town Square Plaza. The SUV had more than $100,000 worth of jewelry in it.

Witnesses said Rozio shot and killed one of the men. The other three got away in a silver van.

Police said Rozio had a concealed weapons permit.

[iverglas]

26. that you appear to approve of this action

-- "Witnesses said Rozio shot and killed" a person who had neither caused nor threatened any harm to any person --

tells us pretty much all we need to know about you, eh?


You seem to be good at answering questions, though. Won't you answer mine?

Post No. 6.

[Factoid]

29. He asked for a story of a permit holder stopping a crime.

This is what happened. If I approve of someone using lethal force or not to defend property is entirely beside the point. Please cease derailing conversations.

[iverglas]

31. indeed, indeed

Of course, the permit holder would have been COMMITTING a crime, had he lived in any part of the civilized world ...

[Factoid]

How do you report a post to a moderator?

nt

[iverglas]

34. pretty much the way I'm going to report yours

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

"If you think someone is breaking any of the rules listed here, or if you think someone might be a disruptor, please click the "Alert" link on the offending post so the moderators can deal with it."

oops. :rofl:


Which one did you have in mind?

[Irreverend IX]

65. Neither caused nor threatened any harm...

So what do you think they were breaking his SUV windows for? The story's not clear on whether he was inside or outside the vehicle, but I'd think he was inside, delivering the jewels to his store, since I don't think he would leave his vehicle with those jewels inside it.

[iverglas]

68. let us know

when you find out, eh?

[iverglas]

69. that was easy

html fixed


Google news. Just the coolest thing.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/south/epaper/2008/05/07/0507brshoot.html?imw=Y

After Leon Rozio was robbed, he vowed never to let it happen again.

Three or four years ago, the 64-year-old owner of Miami-based H&L Wholesale Jewelry Inc. lost about $300,000 in gold and jewelry in a Miami Lakes holdup, said his half-brother, Fernando Mirabal.

... About 12:45 p.m. Wednesday, not long after Rozio parked his red Ford Explorer outside St. Moritz Jewelers at 21310 St. Andrews Blvd., four men screamed up behind him in a silver car, boxing him in. They surrounded the Explorer, smashing windows and snatching a duffel bag with jewelry inside, witnesses said.

Rozio retrieved his pistol and started firing. He emptied three or four rounds into the robbers' Silver Saturn Vue, which was outfitted with a Kansas license plate obscuring a Florida tag, aiming for the tires and the driver's side window.

One of the robbers was struck and killed.

With emphasis to assist you.

He was inside the vehicle when the property was taken ... and he was still inside it when he fired at the individuals NOW LEAVING THE SCENE and KILLED ONE OF THEM.

He'd "vowed never to let it happen again". So ya know what that looks like to me, I guess.

I think the expression is "premeditated murder".

[Irreverend IX]

71. He was inside the vehicle when they smashed his windows...

And you claim that the thieves "neither caused nor threatened any harm" to him? Is it common for gangs of masked men to surround people's vehicles and smash their windows is Canada? Is that how you say hello up there? I think that if someone smashes your vehicle windows when you're inside, it's reasonable to think they they are presenting a serious physical threat to you. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

[iverglas]

74. AND THEY WERE DRIVING AWAY WHEN HE SHOT AT THEM

And if you want to pretend that when I said the thieves "neither caused nor threatened any harm" to him I was not talking about THE POINT AT WHICH HE KILLED ONE OF THEM, well, you feel free.


I think that if someone smashes your vehicle windows when you're inside, it's reasonable to think they they are presenting a serious physical threat to you.

And what do you think about someone WHO IS DRIVING AWAY? Can you assess the level of threat they are presenting to you for us?


If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

If you want to play jackass, you might want to explain what you get out of it.

[krispos42]

88. And he was aiming for the tires of a vehicle being driven by felons

To prevent the escape of felons from the police.

The police and the district attorney declined to charge him with a crime.

[iverglas]

91. how can you be that

... well, you know.

He emptied three or four rounds into the robbers' Silver Saturn Vue, which was outfitted with a Kansas license plate obscuring a Florida tag, aiming for the tires and the driver's side window.

He didn't kill someone by aiming at the tires.

[krispos42]

99. Except that, in the article...

It is not mentioned where this statement comes from. The police don't say it, the guy didn't say it, his attorney didn't say it, and the DA didn't say it. That means that unless further information comes to light, it's the reporter saying it.

Obviously he hit the window, so at some point the barrel of the gun was pointed at the window when it discharged. That is not in dispute. He also hit the tires of the fleeing vehicle. In picture 8 of the story, it looks like the rear driver's-side tire is flat. Which means that at some point or points, the barrel of the gun was also pointed at the tires when it discharged.

So I'm guessing the jeweler jumped out of his Explorer and started shooting as fast as possible, trying to hit the tires before the Saturn got out of effective range of his handgun. Which is not more than 75 feet or so. And one of his shots went a little high, smashed through the window and wounded one of the robbers.

The lack of charges filed by the DA supports this interpretation.



But note that the paragraph you quote is a bit amateurish in it's writing.

You don't "empty" three or four rounds, you "shoot" or "fire" three or four rounds. You can "empty" a gun at a target, but no gun that I know of (except one model of ultra-compact .22 revolvers) only holds 4 rounds of ammuntion. All handguns in any kind of semi-serious defensive caliber hold at least five round of ammunition.

And the fact that they found spent shell casings on the ground and marked them with cones tells me the jeweler used a semi-automatic handgun, all of which hold at least 6 rounds in the clip and one in the chamber.

So it sounds like reporting by somebody that does not deal with guns or shooting very often.


Of course, it's entirely possible that he DID shoot to kill at least once and is covering his ass, and the DA knows he can't make charges stick in this case. Dunno.

[Factoid]

20. #3

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/NEWS03/804280353/1017/news01

Two men entered Sinkers Wine & Spirits on Gallatin Pike around 10 p.m. and attempted to rob the store with handguns, Capt. David Imhof said. During the robbery, a customer took out a handgun of his own and began a shootout, Imhof said.


The customer who fired on the robbery suspects had a permit to carry a weapon, Imhof said.

[Factoid]

21. #4

http://www.wwmt.com/news/charges_1347993___article.html/rapids_grand.html

Gabriel Rodriguez was filling up his car when he got into an argument with a man named Glenn Tett, who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Surveillance video shows Rodriguez picking up a trash can lid seemingly to hit Tett, when Tett takes out a gun and shoots Rodriguez, killing him.

[Factoid]

22. #5

http://www.antonnews.com/threevillagetimes/2008/03/07/news/burglary.html


Police said the suspects then removed cash that was on a piece of furniture in the living room. Police said the resident was a licensed pistol permit holder and produced a handgun. The resident then chased after the suspects, firing one shot, police said. It is not known whether one of the suspects was struck.

[Factoid]

23. #6

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=98dfdfdd-3368-441c-9a7f-16ec9ea106f5


A man shot an intruder in the stomach after the suspect attacked his girlfriend in her South Salt Lake home.

The woman was sleeping in her home in Mountain Shadows Apartments on 3900 south and 700 west, when around 5:45 a.m., she was awakened by a loud bang.

A man, who police have identified as 18-year-old, Daniel Glen Larson, allegedly kicked in the apartment door and shattered the door frame.


Just as she was dialing the numbers into her phone, Larson allegedly grabbed the woman and began attacking her.

Seconds later, the woman’s boyfriend retrieved his loaded handgun and shot Larson in the abdomen.


(5 paragraphs is the limit, yes? the author loves paragraphs in this one)

[Factoid]

24. #7

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080302_ap_policetaxidrivershootspassengerduringattemptedrobbery.html

Police say the passenger was shot and killed during the struggle and the cab driver suffered an injury to his arm. The driver was taken to a hospital for medical treatment.

Police did not release the name of the driver or the passenger.

The driver was licensed to carry a gun.

[iverglas]

33. you must be working from old inventory

That link doesn't seem to be functioning.

[Factoid]

35. Hrm, it appears you are right.

If you would like to look it up fore more details, it appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer of March 2, 2008.

[iamahaingttta]

101. Thanks for all your hard work.

Appreciated...

[Factoid]

27. I could continue but I think you'll get the point.

In general the larger media will not reprint/reair these stories, for a multitude of reasons. #1, being that they don't want someone to see a successfull handgun use, think "Oh well I can do that!" and go out and buy a gun without any training, and get themselves killed. #2, a story where a "good guy" wins, just isn't very newsworthy. #3, political junk, etc etc etc.

In a news story that IS large enough that it HAS to be covered, they will change it so that a CCW holder will "Tackle" the suspect. (see Appalachain school of law shootings, or the march 5th 2007 case in Jackson where a man repeatedly stabbed his wife then tried to set her on fire. The local papers report use of a handgun to stop the crime, the national news stated the suspect was "tackled").

So that's why you haven't seen many of these. It also doesn't help that often a defensive use where not a round is fired isn't reported in the press at All. (no crime? no story.)

[iverglas]

36. aw, and here I was hoping

you were going to give us all 2.5 million ...

[iverglas]

6. maybe someone can answer

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

Or should nobody just give a crap? So people are wandering the streets while festooned in firearms -- who cares? Maybe they're paranoid, maybe they have strange taste in fashion ... maybe they're on their way to hold up the local bank ... nobody's business but their own ...

When there actually are laws that prohibit some people from being in possession of firearms, what mechanism might there be for enforcing those laws in instances such as these?


I'm particularly interested in hearing from all the voices regularly heard in support of "enforcing the existing laws".

[iverglas]

16. maybe someone can answer ...

[Raskolnik]

17. Maybe someone can.

Hi there Iverglas! Long time no talk. (although it looks like you've been especially busy lately around here)

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

First, a clarification: if are you asking if the police--or anyone else--can tell just by looking at someone walking down the street whether or not they are allowed to be in possession of firearms, the answer is, of course, no. If you are asking whether the police--or anyone else--has a means of determining whether someone is allowed to be in possession of firearms, that would depend on whether the location in question requires a specific i.d. (such as Illinois' FOID requirement) and/or their access to the database(s) that contain those disqualified from owning firearms. I think everyone would agree that law enforcement would be well served to have improved access to those databases.

Or should nobody just give a crap?

I would hope that if a police officer--or anyone else--sees someone "festooned with firearms" acting erratically or in such a way to suggest that a crime was going to be committed, they would give a crap. Context, as always, however, is everything, isn't it? If a police officer--or anyone else--sees someone in a rural area carrying an uncased shotgun from his truck into his garage, I would not expect that to merit further investigation. If, on the other hand, a police officer--or anyone else--sees someone carrying an uncased shotgun from his truck into the DMV, I would expect that to merit further and immediate investigation.

Do you disagree with any of that?

[iverglas]

30. good of you to offer to help

And now, back to the subject on the table -- people wandering around festooned in firearms in locations in the US where no permit is required for openly carrying a firearm in public, and how the police might be permitted to determine whether the person is entitled to be in possession of a firearm at all, i.e. whether s/he is *disqualified* from doing so because of criminal convictions or the relevant mental illness provisions.


If, on the other hand, a police officer--or anyone else--sees someone carrying an uncased shotgun from his truck into the DMV, I would expect that to merit further and immediate investigation.

Not according to some of our little friends here. And not according to the courts that have apparently found any such investigation to be a "civil rights" violation.

I guess we'll just have to wait for our friends to answer!

[Raskolnik]

39. Iverglas, I believe you know the answer to your own question.

As your own question points out, there are locations in the U.S. where no permit is required to openly carry a firearm in public. In those cases, an officer can't just walk up to someone and determine whether he is entitled to be in possession of a firearm. If, however, the individual is acting erratically or behaving in such a way to suggest that a crime is imminent, the officer's ability to verify the individual's lawful ability to carry a weapon is dependant on the officer's access to the database(s) that contain such information.

As I stated before, I believe nearly everyone would agree that fast, accurate, and reliable access for law enforcement to such databases is very desirable.

What, if anything, do you disagree with in my statements?

Not according to some of our little friends here. And not according to the courts that have apparently found any such investigation to be a "civil rights" violation.

Well I disagree with some of your little friends here. And if you could point me to some of those courts that have found such investigations to be violations of civil rights, I would be able to more intelligently discuss the matter.

[iverglas]

41. no, actually, I don't

If, however, the individual is acting erratically or behaving in such a way to suggest that a crime is imminent, the officer's ability to verify the individual's lawful ability to carry a weapon is dependant on the officer's access to the database(s) that contain such information.

And that's all very well. Apparently, however, there is nothing "erratic" about openly carrying a firearm into a bank, in the universe whereof we speak, which some in this thread inhabit.

And no one can determine whether a particular person is disqualified from doing something, by accessing a database, without knowing who the person is, hm?

Which is exactly what the police are not permitted to ask, in that universe.

[Raskolnik]

42. You're going out of your way to manufacture disagreement here, Iverglas.

Apparently, however, there is nothing "erratic" about openly carrying a firearm into a bank, in the universe whereof we speak, which some in this thread inhabit.

If you want to argue about whether openly carrying a firearm into a bank is suspicious, take it up with the poster making that argument. I can imagine a few circumstances in which such behavior would not be at all suspicious, and a bunch more in which such behavior should merit immediate investigation.

As you may or may not be aware, the U.S. is not homogeneous. Behavior that would be entirely inappropriate in some locations may do nothing more than raise an eyebrow in others.

And no one can determine whether a particular person is disqualified from doing something, by accessing a database, without knowing who the person is, hm?

Which is exactly what the police are not permitted to ask, in that universe.

Again, I believe you're addressing a fictitious situation in which law enforcement is *never* permitted to do something. If someone is behaving in such a way to make an officer think that a crime is about to be committed, they can detain that person and investigate further. I'm not sure where you got the idea that an officer has to sit idly by until the first shot is fired, but allow me to disabuse you of that notion now. Officers in the U.S. have some pretty wide discretion in detaining people (for better or worse), and do not have to sit on their thumbs until the crime actually occurs. Anyone telling you otherwise is misinformed.

The question becomes, therefore, *what behavior* merits further investigation. Would you care to take a crack at that?

[iverglas]

44. and you seem to be going out of yours to avoid the question

I haven't asked you to answer it, you know?


If you want to argue about whether openly carrying a firearm into a bank is suspicious, take it up with the poster making that argument.

I don't. Someone in this thread asserted that he does it regularly. I am accepting that as sufficient grounds for saying that it is not regarded -- and not to be regarded -- as "suspicious", in a jurisdiction where openly carrying firearms in public without a permit is permitted. And THAT is the context of the question I am asking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=171657&mesg_id=171701
(post 10 in this thread: "Hell, I carry a pistol to the bank myself. No problems...")


As you may or may not be aware, the U.S. is not homogeneous.

My question relates specifically to the situation under discussion in this thread, which the news article in the opening post illustrated.


Again, I believe you're addressing a fictitious situation in which law enforcement is *never* permitted to do something. If someone is behaving in such a way to make an officer think that a crime is about to be committed, they can detain that person and investigate further.

Maybe we could just try to stop going in circles.

In a jurisdiction where openly carrying firearms in public without a permit is permitted, there is nothing suspicious about carrying a firearm into a bank.

Perhaps you think there is something more suspicious about 6 people carrying AR-15s into a bank than there is about our virginia mountainman carrying his pistol into a bank.

I'm not sure how that position could be argued, since the issue seems to be an individual "civil right", and each individual in the group of 6 would appear to have the same right to carry a firearm, and the same right to decide what firearm to carry, as any other individual.

I don't know -- that's why I have asked for someone who thinks s/he does know to give the answer.

Perhaps you'll recall the tale posted here a while back about the brat in Utah who decided he'd start wearing his rifle everywhere he went. Just as a f'r instance of the things that happen.


Officers in the U.S. have some pretty wide discretion in detaining people (for better or worse), and do not have to sit on their thumbs until the crime actually occurs.

NOT, in the jurisdictions in question, if the only basis for detaining is that the person is openly carrying a firearm in public. Have you read the other posts in the thread?? (The ones from before we started getting regaled with tales of charming things done by people with firearms.)


Now if we could just START from there, instead of dancing around behind it, it might be useful.

[Raskolnik]

46. Iverglas, I know you're not this obtuse.

In a jurisdiction where openly carrying firearms in public without a permit is permitted, there is nothing suspicious about carrying a firearm into a bank.

I do not agree with that as a blanket statement. There may be circumtances in which it is not suspicous, but I think there many other circumstances in which any reasonable person would find it suspicious.

Perhaps you think there is something more suspicious about 6 people carrying AR-15s into a bank than there is about our virginia mountainman carrying his pistol into a bank.

I'm not sure how that position could be argued, since the issue seems to be an individual "civil right", and each individual in the group of 6 would appear to have the same right to carry a firearm, and the same right to decide what firearm to carry, as any other individual.

You're a lot smarter than that, Iverglas, so don't pretend to be obtuse for the sake of drumming up an argument. Anyone arguing that six people carrying AR-15s into a bank isn't inherently suspicious and worthy of legitimate investigation is being disingenuous. Just as you are being disingenuous if you pretend that such a silly position represents the real issue here.


Now, since you're asserting that your original question is going unanswered, let's try again and see if we can't find out which part you don't understand. In locations in the U.S. where no permit is required to openly carry a firearm in public, an officer can't just walk up to someone and determine whether he is entitled to be in possession of a firearm. If, however, the individual is acting erratically or behaving in such a way to suggest that a crime is imminent, the officer's ability to verify the individual's lawful ability to carry a weapon is dependant on the officer's access to the database(s) that contain such information. If any of the above is unclear, please let me know what you don't understand.

The point of contention, as I see it, is *what behavior* may be reasonably be considered erratic or lead an officer to believe a crime is imminent. As I have pointed out, that will likely vary by a good deal depending on one's location. If any of the above is unclear, please let me know what you don't understand.

[iverglas]

48. okay

If, however, the individual is acting erratically or behaving in such a way to suggest that a crime is imminent, the officer's ability to verify the individual's lawful ability to carry a weapon is dependant on the officer's access to the database(s) that contain such information. If any of the above is unclear, please let me know what you don't understand.

There's nothing about it that I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

What I DON'T KNOW is WHAT CONSTITUTES "acting erratically or behaving" etc.

In point of fact, I don't know that "acting erratically or behaving" etc. CONSTITUTES GROUNDS for a police officer to question someone with a firearm on display on his/her person.

I know that walking into a bank with a firearm on display DOES NOT constitute such grounds, in and of itself, in the universe whereof we speak.

I DO NOT KNOW what additional circumstances would have to be present in order for there to be such grounds.


But the damned thing is, THIS WAS NOT MY QUESTION. Kudos to you for derailing the discussion so effectively, though.

Now, if you want to go back to my original post, you can read the question.

Oh, hell. Here you go:


Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

with the supplemental / for clarification (did you miss that?):

When there actually are laws that prohibit some people from being in possession of firearms, what mechanism might there be for enforcing those laws in instances such as these?


Nothing whatsoever to do with "acting erratically or behaving" etc.

Everything to do with how in the hell anybody is supposed to know whether a person displaying a firearm on his/her person in public IS DOING SO LEGALLY.

[Raskolnik]

50. Back to square one.

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

In locations in the U.S. where no permit is required to openly carry a firearm in public, an officer can't just walk up to someone and determine whether he is entitled to be in possession of a firearm. If, however, the individual is acting erratically or behaving in such a way to suggest that a crime is imminent, the officer's ability to verify the individual's lawful ability to carry a weapon is dependant on the officer's access to the database(s) that contain such information. If any of the above is unclear, please let me know what you don't understand.

As we apparently agree, the issue then becomes *what behavior* may be reasonably be considered erratic or lead an officer to believe a crime is imminent. As I have pointed out, that will likely vary by a good deal depending on one's location. If any of the above is unclear, please let me know what you don't understand.

[iverglas]

53. look, I really did not ask

In locations in the U.S. where no permit is required to openly carry a firearm in public, an officer can't just walk up to someone and determine whether he is entitled to be in possession of a firearm.

what a cop CANNOT do.

I KNOW what a cop cannot do.

If you want to go back to square one, read the question again and see whether you have an answer to it.

If you don't, that's fine. Remember: I didn't ask you for one.


In case the reasons for my question really, really are not apparent to you or anyone else:

(a) the public, in my own humble opinion, has an interest in knowing whether the individuals they see displaying firearms on their person in public ARE DOING SO LEGALLY, i.e. are entitled to be in possession of firearms at all, since if they are not, one might have very good reason for questioning their doing it in public;

and

(b) there is much talk hereabouts about ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS, in particular laws prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms, and I would like to know how making it impossible for the police to determine whether someone displaying firearms on his/her person in public IS DOING SO LEGALLY furthers that objective.

[Raskolnik]

57. "I didn't ask you for one."

Oh, that's right, you just posted an open question for "someone" to answer. How silly of me to think that you actually wanted it answered.

[iverglas]

60. and what a fool I was

to think that someone who "replied" to a post in which I asked questions might actually answer them.

I should have expected that someone would go off on a tangent and then berate me for not liking the non-answers to my questions.

[Indy Lurker]

58. Your asking what?

How to tell if someone is *entitled* to engage in an activity that does not require a permit?



I imagine it would be the same way the police check if someone is *entitled* to be at a public playground.

[iverglas]

62. oh, hey, it just gets worse, eh?

Your asking what?
How to tell if someone is *entitled* to engage in an activity that does not require a permit?

Well, if my asking were that (if my were asking that? if my asking that were?), then you'd have the perfect answer. And a prize for being the first to put your hand up.

Sadly, sadly, I wasn't asking that.

Is a person on parole for robbery ENTITLED to parade around in public WITH FIREARMS OPENLY DISPLAYED ON HIS/HER PERSON?

Huh. I didn't think so. Maybe I was wrong.

Feel free to READ THE QUESTIONS -- post 6, in case you haven't bothered. And hey, feel free to answer them.

[Indy Lurker]

73. Is there reasonable suspicion?

It's not reasonable to invade everyones privacy to look for criminals.

You cannot randomly stop people who are not engauged in suspicious activity to look for criminal wrongdoing.

If there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the person can be briefly stopped and questioned. This is true whether its a person with firearms or a can of gas and matches.

[krispos42]

89. I'll take a stab at it

Seeing as how you're involved in the legal profession, you probably have a pretty decent idea of what acting erratically is. Loitering, perhaps. Unusual attention being paid to a cash register. Following a person down a sidewalk, perhaps while looking around excessivly.

That kind of stuff. The police are able to use their talents at investigating erratic behavior for sniffing out a variety of crimes, such as drunk driving.

"He was driving erratically" can mean a lot of things. Unusually fast, unusually slow, wide variences in speed, random braking, weaving, inability it stay in a lane, drifting and overcorrecting.

I know that walking into a bank with a firearm on display DOES NOT constitute such grounds, in and of itself, in the universe whereof we speak.

I DO NOT KNOW what additional circumstances would have to be present in order for there to be such grounds.

Ski masks would be a good one. Running around like a tactical police team. Running in and/or running out. A car idling in front of the bank.

Everything to do with how in the hell anybody is supposed to know whether a person displaying a firearm on his/her person in public IS DOING SO LEGALLY.

You can't, just like you can't tell who is a wanted felon. Or a sex predator. Or Mr./Mrs. Right. This is why community policing is important. The beat cops usually intimately know felons and such, so seeing somebody they know was a felon with a openly-displayed gun is a pretty good hint.

The mechanism you are looking for in this case is not one of a government branch, but one of common sense: If a person can't legally own a firearm (which is a requirement in order to be able to legally carry in the open) but wants to carry one anyway, then only the dumbest of the dumb would strap it on in plain view!

[iverglas]

40. maybe someone can answer ..................

Seeing as how this is actually the subject of the thread and all ...

[Raskolnik]

43. If you truly don't understand, please ask for clarification.

But don't pretend that the question is going unanswered.

[iverglas]

45. if you truly don't know the answer, please say so

instead of pretending that you have given it.

So far, you haven't seemed to understand the question.

[Raskolnik]

47. For the sake of clarity

Please refer to post #46.

[iverglas]

49. and if you

will refer back to post 6 -- and my reply to post 46, if post 6 really is unclear to you -- perhaps all will indeed be clear.

[Raskolnik]

52. Iverglas, you are not well seved by this behavior.

Next time you have the urge to respond to a post attempting to streamline the discussion into one sub-thread with a snotty post, ask yourself if you think that kind of behavior advances the discussion or hinders it.

[iverglas]

54. look, I'm dreadfully sorry that *you*

have either entirely failed to take my point -- which could not have been more relevant to the subject of this thread -- or have chosen to disregard it.

It has to be one or the other. I've done all I can do to help you to get the point. If you can't or won't, I can't do much more.


In a nutshell: these laws, and the straightjacket that they place on police, appear to me to confer complete immunity on persons who are INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS to go out in public with firearms, as long as they display them prominently on their person and do not "act erratically" etc.

And I'm trying to figure out

(a) whose interests this could possibly be in;

and

(b) how it furthers the objective of enforcing existing firearms laws.

[Raskolnik]

56. Now we're getting somewhere.

I took the time to answer your question directly. As I suspected, you weren't actually asking a question, but feigning ignorance in order to make a point without having to make declarative sentences about the issue you actually want to talk about.

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to come out and say what you mean without couching in the form of a disingenuous question, you certainly don't get to keep demanding an answer when it has been addressed. You posted an open question for "someone" to answer. I did. You don't like the answer, but not liking the answer and not getting an answer are two distinct concepts that you refuse to differentiate.

Obviously, you understand how a law enforcement officer--or anyone else--can verify whether or not an individual has the lawful ability to carry firearms. If you want to discuss the *circumstances* under which a law enforcement officer--or anyone else--can legitimately make such an inquiry, have the honesty to discuss that issue directly.

[iverglas]

59. could ya help me out here?

As I suspected, you weren't actually asking a question, but feigning ignorance in order to make a point without having to make declarative sentences about the issue you actually want to talk about.

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to come out and say what you mean without couching in the form of a disingenuous question, you certainly don't get to keep demanding an answer when it has been addressed.


Alrighty now. Here is the sum total of the post you started out replying to -- I'm going to underline the actual questions:

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

Or should nobody just give a crap? So people are wandering the streets while festooned in firearms -- who cares? Maybe they're paranoid, maybe they have strange taste in fashion ... maybe they're on their way to hold up the local bank ... nobody's business but their own ...

When there actually are laws that prohibit some people from being in possession of firearms, what mechanism might there be for enforcing those laws in instances such as these?

I'm particularly interested in hearing from all the voices regularly heard in support of "enforcing the existing laws".

Now. Could you copy that into your reply and identify -- say, boldface -- the part you are characterizing as "feigning ignorance", and the part you are characterizing as "disingenuous", and the part that you are characterizing as lacking in "intellectual honesty" ... and the part you are characterizing as different from what I said in the post you have just replied to?


Two questions in the original post:

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?

When there actually are laws that prohibit some people from being in possession of firearms, what mechanism might there be for enforcing those laws in instances such as these?

Two questions in the post you have just replied to:

And I'm trying to figure out

(a) whose interests this could possibly be in;
<this being the bleeding OBVIOUS reason why I would like to know how the police or anyone else can know that a person wandering around displaying firearms on his/her person is entitled to be in possession of firearms>

(b) how it furthers the objective of enforcing existing firearms laws.
<this being the bleeding OBVIOUS reason why I asked what mechanism there might be for enforcing the law i.e. making sure that people who are ineligible even to possess firearms are not wandering around displaying firearms on their person>

Somewhere in there, you're seeing a whole lot of stuff that appears to be invisible to the naked eye. Please help me.


If you want to discuss the *circumstances* under which a law enforcement officer--or anyone else--can legitimately make such an inquiry, have the honesty to discuss that issue directly.

I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THAT. For the love of fuck. How many times do you have to be told????

[Raskolnik]

61. Iverglas, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

You're not helping yourself out at this point, trust me.

[iverglas]

63. and when you've lost the farm

Accuse the other party of being a fool, being a villain, being at the bottom of a hole, whatever, and feign concern.

Works for you, does it?



Oops.

Falls down and looks silly.



Pretends it was on purpose.

[Raskolnik]

67. Multiple pictures of cats aren't helping either.

Seriously, Iverglas. You need to take a deep breath and objectively evaluate the discussion we just had.

But since I know you have to have the last word, please proceed.

Thank you and good evening.

[iverglas]

70. I would never want to disappoint my adoring fans

So of course I will take the last word.

You have tried every twist in the book to pretend not to know what my simple, straightforward questions meant and to portray them as every horrible thing in the book once it was no longer possible even to pretend not to understand them, and you have offered mealymouthed insincere concern about my wellbeing as a last ditch attempt to divert attention from the subject matter and the questions I have asked about it.

Ta da. Job well done, eh?

[beevul]

66. Festooned...

"Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?"

Seen or heard about people scurrying about strapped with holsters of garland have we?

*chuckle*


Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets is actually *entitled* to do so?

[iverglas]

72. well I had to wait a long time for that one

Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets is actually *entitled* to do so?

I'd expected it much sooner.

Is a person wandering the streets *without* firearms displayed on his/her person doing something that is potentially of concern to the public?

Are you people really going to say that someone carrying firearms in public is not doing something that is POTENTIALLY of concern to the public?

If it is being done by someone on parole for robbery is it not UNQUESTIONABLY of concern to the public?

Walking is not ordinarily a matter of concern to the public. Not so's I can see. Not even if it's a convicted mass murderer doing it after escaping prison. What I'm wondering about is how the police might determine that the person wandering around displaying a firearm is not a convicted bank robber doing THAT after escaping prison.

The police might be expected to have, oh, a photograph of a convicted mass murderer unlawfully at large. Do they have photographs of all convicted bank robbers -- and of everybody else ineligible to possess firearms?


I'm seeing apples and oranges, is what I'm seeing. And I'm also not seeing anybody talking about the problem of people being unlawfully at large, anyhow. If you want to have that discussion, we could always do it, somewhere else.


And I'm seeing some damned flippant attitudes when it comes to all that enforce-the-laws crap some are so fond of spouting.

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS. But make sure you hamstring the cops so they can't do it when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of those laws: the prohibition on people convicted of serious crimes being in possession of firearms.

[beevul]

75. The end.

"Are you people really going to say that someone carrying firearms in public is not doing something that is POTENTIALLY of concern to the public?"


Nope, I'm not saying that. The people of PA said that, and made laws to that effect.


"And I'm seeing some damned flippant attitudes when it comes to all that enforce-the-laws crap some are so fond of spouting."

"ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS. But make sure you hamstring the cops so they can't do it when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of those laws: the prohibition on people convicted of serious crimes being in possession of firearms."

And I'm seeing alot of sanctimony. Enforce the laws with the tools available, but don't expect those tools to be over-reaching or absolute. Do you believe the 4th amendment "hamstrings the cops" as well?
Your so busy asking everyone else what cops can do in PA, it appears you haven't bothered to find out yourself.


Do you think the situation would be better off 'festooned' with "papers please" for those open carrying?

On edit: "Is a person wandering the streets *without* firearms displayed on his/her person doing something that is potentially of concern to the public?"


If hes someone that should be in an institution...say a convicted murderer, or rapist...that escaped from prison...then yeah. Just as much a concern as anything else. Those rap sheets...they appear to have those cloaking devices your so fond of mentioning occasionally.

[beevul]

102. Maybe someone can answer... N/T

[beevul]

87. You do not get to decide what a thread is about.

It is in fact about police abuse of law abiding citizens.


And I couldn't help but notice the vaccume that has thus far been your input on THAT matter.

[beevul]

103. Maybe someone can answer... N/T

[WWFZD]

76. Twice in one post?

You're the best iverglas. I'm pondering the creation of a drinking game where a person has to drink a shot, pardon me, an individual portion of one's favorite libation from a miniature drinking vessel, whenever you use the word "festoon" or any derivation of it.
I guess that might make one pretty much of a loser but what the hell, a sip of Wild Turkey or maybe some Jimmy Beam hits the spot after a long, rough day in the salt mines. Here's to ya.

[iverglas]

77. pantaloons

[WWFZD]

79. Nah, not pantaloons, too archaic

Wouldn't want anybody staggering out into the street anyway. We'll hold it to one word. Festoon will do just fine.

[Indy Lurker]

78. You are describing a privacy issue.

There is no way to determine if someone is engauging in a prohibited activity unless you have their identity.

There is no legal basis for inquiring about their identity unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

How does it work in Canada? Are you required to produce ID on demand?

[iverglas]

80. hahaha

We are if we're driving a car.

http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/h-8/20070717/whole.html#BK57

33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).


'Cause the danged thing is -- there is just no other reasonable way of determining whether someone is entitled to be doing something unless people are licensed to do it. We could administer driver's tests to every driver a cop stops for speeding, to determine whether s/he is entitled to be driving. Seems a little wasteful of resources.

And where the thing they're doing is validly a matter of interest and concern to the public, then licensing is the only reasonable way to ensure that people who are not entitled to do it can be identified.

Selling hot dogs on the street? Get a licence. Driving a car? Get a licence. Practising law? Get a licence. And then be prepared to produce the licence to establish that you are entitled to be doing what you're doing.


Yes, it comes down to the other-universe claim that people wandering around in public with firearms is not reasonably and legitimately a matter of public interest and concern.

And those who claim this will come up with whatever idiotic argument they find lying around to base that claim on.

Even one as idiotic as the analogy between walking in public and carrying firearms in public.

[Tejas]

82. The laws in the U.S. are......

"Yes, it comes down to the other-universe claim that people wandering around in public with firearms is not reasonably and legitimately a matter of public interest and concern.

And those who claim this will come up with whatever idiotic argument they find lying around to base that claim on.

Even one as idiotic as the analogy between walking in public and carrying firearms in public."



.....what they are. If you think they're "idiotic", you're more than welcome to move here and work to change them. If you weren't scared to death of guns, I'd suggest Texas, but I think Chicago would be more to your liking.

[iverglas]

83. guns???

If you weren't scared to death of guns, I'd suggest Texas, but I think Chicago would be more to your liking.

You forget. I've been to Texas. It ain't the guns, it's the drunks and racists. With guns, of course. Oh, and the fire ants. They tried to kill me.

Chicago I'm actually rather fond of. So I guess you're right.


Hey, since I've been on the Cdn self-deprecating humour thing, I don't think I've told this one in a while.

In Chicago in the 80s for a couple of weeks, shortly after first run for office. Sitting in the back corner of a bar on North Michigan, drinking Courvoisier and listening to jazz and making out with the Trotskyist reference librarian I was staying with ... at the break, step out for some, uh, air in a nearby darkened doorway. A bunch of guys pass by wearing jackets from the other school in the town where I went to university, back home. When we finished and stepped back out on the street, they were still nearby watching a busker. (Busker: person who performs on street and accepts money.) I hailed them, as an ex fellow student. One of them peered at me. "I know you," he said. "I saw you ..." -- "On the CBC," I said smugly, having been on the national news during the campaign. "No," he said. "Standing in that doorway back there smoking a joint."

[Tejas]

84. Skeeters > fire ants

I bagged a 4.6 ounce skeeter last summer with a .22, state record is a little over 7 ounces. Best part is since they are classified as pests, there is no hunting license required. Don't know about other states.

[iverglas]

96. duh

I actually googled. My Texan has suffered since the Texan of my dreams ... well, of a three-year nightmare ... went back across the border ... and died, of a few decades of alcoholism ...

I once visited my father who was vacationing in Florida in a trailer park in the central part of the state. He was a mosquito magnet all his life. You could safely sit anywhere with him; they'd leave you alone as long as he was around. Conversely, I sat down at the picnic table and was immediately swarmed by the fire ants who had apparently studiously ignored him the entire time he was there.

I gather they have supernatural powers of communication; I'm sure they also have species memory. They recognized me as the moron who had sat on a dead log at the bottom of a recently flooded arroyo in Plano while they chewed me to bits. After that, while I was a mass of itching, festering sores that lasted weeks, I could go nowhere without them. Standing in the asphalt parking lot of a 7-11 loading ice in the back of the old Suzuki, I'd be covered in them within seconds. Just me.

If they ever make it here, I'm a goner. Global warming ...

[maxidivine]

94. If she moved to Chicago...

She wouldn't have any work to do now would she?

[Indy Lurker]

85. Not in the US

The police cannot stop you just to check your drivers license.

And that's even considering that driving is a privilege, with diminished rights.

[iverglas]

86. yeah, well,

I could have gone hunting for what the Supreme Court of Canada has said most recently about that sort of thing. I couldn't be bothered.

Obviously, what it really comes down to is that some people will claim that displaying a firearm while entering a bank ... or walking down the sidewalk ... is a perfectly reasonable, unremarkable activity.

And basically, there is just no rational, good faith discussion to be had with such people.

[Indy Lurker]

90. It would be very unusual in Illinois

It would be very unusual in Illinois, but not in other places.

There are however, many places in the US where walking down the sidewalk with a firearm is a perfectly reasonable, unremarkable activity.

Here's a map of where that's legal

In some of these places, it would still be considered disorderly conduct to open carry, but that depends on local attitudes. I know Wisconsin is like that.




Permissive Open Carry States - To qualify for this category, a state must have passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They must also permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Also open carry must be lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.

Licensed Open Carry States - To qualify as for this category, a state must have passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They must also permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens once they have been issued a permit or license. Also open carry must be lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.

Anomalous Open Carry States - In these states, open carry is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions.

Non-Permissive Open Carry States - In these states, open carry is not lawful, or is only lawful under a limited set of circumstances, such as when hunting, or while traveling to/from hunting locations, or for lawful self-defense.

As the map shows, only seven states and the District of Columbia fully prohibit the open carry of firearms. Additionally, there are eleven states which permit open carry without requiring the citizen to apply for any permit or license.

Disclaimer: While state law may not prohibit the open carry of loaded firearms, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to be unaware of this fact. Especially in states with highly restrictive laws regarding firearms ownership, open carry, even though legal, could result in serious negative consequences.

[maxidivine]

93. Favor a police state much?

None of the examples you gave are valid, because they are all things one must be licensed to do. One must not be licensed to have their rights protected. Do you think that individuals should have to get a license to be able to speak? Because that is more or less exactly what you are insinuating, that in order for the police to "know" that someone is not committing a crime they must question and inspect every person who is exercising a basic right.

Yes the right to carry a firearm is a basic right, and is recognized by most states. Some states require a license for any carry, but most only require licenses for concealed carry.

Now you will make some stupid claim about speech not emitting projectiles probably.

[iverglas]

97. beg the question much?

[Tejas]

81. probable cause

"When there actually are laws that prohibit some people from being in possession of firearms, what mechanism might there be for enforcing those laws in instances such as these?"

"Probable cause" under the law is necessary before investigation. No PC, no further investigation. If a peace officer has probable cause, then she/he can persue the matter.


That's how it works here in the US, what is the process there in Canada?

[mvccd1000]

100. I can answer.

"Is there some way for the police -- or anyone else -- to know whether a person wandering the streets while festooned in firearms is actually *entitled* to do so?"

The answer is nearly always NO.

Just as the police cannot know whether any person walking down the street possesses the DNA they have recovered from three recent rape/murder victims and one rape survivor.

Of course, some people seem to think that police should be able to stop everyone with a gun and ascertain whether that person is a criminal. Perhaps those same people feel the police should also be able to take a DNA sample from everyone in my town to see if they possess DNA that matches that found in the victims?

Luckily, in my country some of our rights are still protected.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Police, I find, as a whole. are EXTREMELY ignorant of firearm law

Several cases of Police overstepping their bounds in Virginia, and they get called on the carpet for it all the time, thanks to the KNOWLEDGEABLE, effective base of pro-civil rights activists here in this state.

It gets really funny, when after everything is sorted out, they get SUED for violating a person's civil rights, and end up paying lots of taxpayer $$$$ because of their "lack of education".

[iverglas]

8. and of course, the truly entertaining part

It gets really funny, when after everything is sorted out, they get SUED for violating a person's civil rights, and end up paying lots of taxpayer $$$$ because of their "lack of education".

If the police saw six people heading for the local bank carrying AR-15s, and they munched on doughnuts while waiting to see what might happen ... because inquiring what the people might be up to would be a violation of their civil rights ... why, nobody would be able to sue the police. Because the police are under no obligation to actually, y'know, do anything about anything ...

And the really hilarious part is how some people think this is all a good thing.

[virginia mountainman]

10. If the fellers with the AR's are NOT breaking the law..

I see no problem.. Why the blind bigotry?


Hell, I carry a pistol to the bank myself. No problems...

[maxidivine]

12. NOW YA DONE IT

You have just proven to the antis on this board that you are a certifiable nutbag. Or a big giant pussy.
I mean, why would you possibly NEED a GUN for in a BANK?

Some people don't understand preparedness if it doesn't rely on waiting for police to come take a statement.

[iverglas]

13. that's what I said

They're not breaking the law when they walk into the bank with those AR-15s.

They are LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS right up to the point when they fire a round into the ceiling and tell everybody to get down on the floor, and hand over the money.

Lucky you carry your pistol to the bank. If you happen to be there, you can deal with them.

[iverglas]

14. oh, and -- if they ARE breaking the law

-- e.g. if they are disqualified from possessing firearms because of a string of robbery convictions in their past ...

How exactly is anyone going to know or determine this?

You might want to answer my first post in this thread.

[iverglas]

51. please, sir

Could you answer the question(s) in my posts 6 and 14?

Thanking you in advance.

[iverglas]

55. why the ugly name-calling?

So. I say:

If the police saw six people heading for the local bank carrying AR-15s, and they munched on doughnuts while waiting to see what might happen ... because inquiring what the people might be up to would be a violation of their civil rights ... why, nobody would be able to sue the police. Because the police are under no obligation to actually, y'know, do anything about anything ...
And the really hilarious part is how some people think this is all a good thing.

and you reply:

Why the blind bigotry?

Hmm.

Bigotry: "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion", fer instance.

Yes, raising an eyebrow at six people entering a bank carrying AR-15s ... call me irrationally suspicious.

I mean, even though "irrational suspicion" isn't really the meaning that could spring to most people's minds when they hear the word "bigotry", I'll just assume you weren't accusing me of irrational hatred. Eh?

[virginia mountainman]

92. WOW...

I have never seen Iverglas get excited before...I go to work, and come back, and I missed the meltdown.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

98. prove you wrong?

Prove what wrong?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!