Gay gun enthusiast ejected from Pride event


PDA






gunsmith
June 14, 2007, 08:29 AM
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4623.html

3th June 2007 11:40
PinkNews.co.uk writer

Pro-gun activist David Nelson was ejected from last week's Utah Pride festival by its organisers, security and law-enforcement officers for possessing an unconcealed firearm.

Nelson, who owns the gay group Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah, has filed a complaint with city Police Chief Chris Burbank against Lt. Rusty Isakson for what Nelson described as "grossly and specifically violative of state weapons laws."

In the complaint, Nelson described how he arrived at the festival, purchased an admission ticket and entered the event before he was detained, questioned and ejected.

"As a state Concealed Firearm Permit holder, I possessed and carried my firearm unconcealed, but holstered, at the event," Nelson said.

"I never unholstered it or displayed in a threatening way. In fact, my firearm was unloaded according to state laws (no chambered cartridge). I carefully reviewed the advance published event rules; they didn't prohibit my possession or unconcealed carrying.

"After I presented my ticket to a main-gate staffer and entered the event, security staffers and organisers met me and asked about my possession and unconcealed carrying," Nelson said.

"I answered their questions simply and truthfully. As a Utahn with disabilities who uses a cane, my possession and unconcealed carrying is as much a visual deterrent of violence as it is a more responsive and reliable mode of carrying if I need it."

Utah state laws prohibit "a local authority” [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."

Despite this, Isakson wrote a police report about the matter. Nelson said Isakson told him that he'd send an unsolicited copy of the report to the state Bureau of Criminal Identification for their review, and that "one sure way to lose your permit is to abuse it like this."

"His implication seemed clear to me: He was intentionally jeopardising my permit," Nelson said.

"He then asked me 'to leave' the event property. It was the first such request of me by anyone involved in the matter, and I left immediately."

Nelson's ejection and consequent complaint have received the attention of Second Amendment advocates in the state including those who are lawyers and legislators.

They've encouraged him to take his complaint further by pursuing court charges against the city, its police department and others who were allegedly responsible for violating his legal rights.

"My complaint to Chief Burbank is only the first step," Nelson said. "I'll pursue appropriate solutions of my complaints against the event organisers and their security staff regardless of any solution with the chief."


© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gay gun enthusiast ejected from Pride event" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30 cal slob
June 14, 2007, 08:34 AM
that just sux. :fire:

kludge
June 14, 2007, 08:50 AM
Quick, call the ACLU! er... uhhh...

:scrutiny:

ScottsGT
June 14, 2007, 08:51 AM
This guy is just grandstanding for attention, kind of like that young lady did in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1955.

TonyB
June 14, 2007, 09:01 AM
Grand standing or not it will be interesting how the ACLU comes out on this(no pun intended).

Leatherneck
June 14, 2007, 09:40 AM
Clear choice here: either pursue charges and make examples of all who trampled his rights and deter future actions like this; or do nothing and encourage these fascists.

TC

axeman_g
June 14, 2007, 09:40 AM
ScottsGT....
How in the blazes can you make that comment? There is no and I repeat no correlation at all between a Human Rights stand and simple encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official.

Did Tiamanen Square equate to my last traffic ticket?

Henry Bowman
June 14, 2007, 10:09 AM
How in the blazes can you make that comment? There is no and I repeat no correlation at all between a Human Rights stand and simple encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official. Are you saying that Rosa Parks had a simple "encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official"? Because I'm sure you're not suggesting that RKBA is something less than a human rights issue.

axeman_g
June 14, 2007, 10:47 AM
Henry,
I am not saying that Rosa Parks had an encounter with a ignorant public official, just the opposite, that the gentleman in Utah did.

And you can castrate me for this if you want to ....

But Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat is much more important an event in the Human Rights struggle, then Mr Nelson being asked to leave an event by an ignorant public official. This official was ignorant of a law, not of Mr Nelson's humanity. He was not trying to disarm Mr Nelson forever, the Lt. was incorrect in his stance the open carry was illegal in this public space.

The RKBA is a Human Right, and Mr Nelson has that right, and in this case it was infringed upon incorrectly is would appear. Mrs Parks at the time was not even considered human enough to sit where she wanted on a bus. Do you think the police would have let her carry gun at the time?

In my mind, I can not equate Mr Nelson's encounter directly with Mrs Parks stance to not move her seat and to me, Scotts comment was ridiculous.

I am sure that you are not suggesting that they are equal.

Drysdale
June 14, 2007, 11:12 AM
WRONG!

Without RKBA, Rosa Parks never would have had the opportunity to sit down.

Without RKBA, we'd all be slaves.

If you don't recognize this fundamental truth, I feel sorry for you.

Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what face it wears.

gego
June 14, 2007, 11:53 AM
Isn't it interesting how selective people can be about Human Rights! That is probably one of the big reasons they are going down the tube.

Only when we all endorse natural rights / God given rights, and freedom for ourselves AND for others will we likely escape the current system of government control and plunder, but is that really likely to happen? Probably not.

FieroCDSP
June 14, 2007, 12:02 PM
I think this is a plain and simple violation of state law by the government agent. The victim was OC, had a conceal permit, and there was nothing in state law mentioned here that prohibits one from carrying openly or otherwise at a public event. If the cop filed a report with the intention of revoking this citizen's conceal permit when he hasn't broken the law, then that cop should be taken down a few notches by the city and the civil courts.

Fletchette
June 14, 2007, 12:17 PM
If it went down like the article says, I think this guy has a very good lawsuit against the police department.

People are not obligated to excercise their rights in the shadows, they have every right to do so in public.

Prince Yamato
June 14, 2007, 12:28 PM
As I've stated before, press the issue of pro-gun gays. If you can get gay people solidly pro-gun, the antis will never be able to touch us. Any time they go against firearms owners, they'll be simulataneously gay-bashing.

Actually, the people in that article discriminated against him because he was handicapped too.

Antis- anti-gun, anti-gay, anti-handicapped... hey, kinda like Nazis!

Henry Bowman
June 14, 2007, 12:58 PM
Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what face it wears.That was my point. In the instant case, he was trying to impose his bigotry using an incorrect understanding of the law as an excuse.

Just as this guy was not being disarmed forever, Rosa Rarks was not being banned from the bus entirely, just being made to stand in the back so that whites could sit in confort and separate from those whom they may have distained. Miss Park's act was seen as an insignificant event at the time. It is only hindsight that allows us to seen what a significant event it turned out to be.

Fletchette
June 14, 2007, 01:00 PM
Antis- anti-gun, anti-gay, anti-handicapped... hey, kinda like Nazis!

kinda?!? ;)

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 01:12 PM
This official was ignorant of a law... He was not trying to disarm Mr Nelson forever

Apparently you didnt read the portion where the police LT in question made the comment "one sure way to lose your permit is to abuse it like this." The thing is, Nelson wasnt abusing anything. As far as I can tell, he was totally within the law to carry at that event.

Sounds to me like LT Isakson was fully aware of the law, yet took it upon himself to ignore it, and impose his anti-gun position regardless.

If it had been a regular patrol officer, I could see how ignorance might be argued, but you dont make it to LT by being totally clueless about the law.

glummer
June 14, 2007, 01:16 PM
Miss Park's act was seen as an insignificant event at the time. It is only hindsight that allows us to seen what a significant event it turned out to be.As I remember, it WAS considered to be quite significant at the time; it was a well-planned challenge to the prevailing law (which is what makes it somewhat different from the case under dicussion here - this IS a single individual act of bigotry, not a law imposed on everyone. Still bigotry, though, and maybe giving better grounds for a civil rights lawsuit BECAUSE there is no law to hide behind.)

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 01:22 PM
this IS a single individual act of bigotry, not a law imposed on everyone.

This case is just as problematic, because its an example of law enforcement's failure to respect a law that specifically protects people from improper police action.

"Utah state laws prohibit "a local authority” [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."

Phetro
June 14, 2007, 01:33 PM
But Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat is much more important an event in the Human Rights struggle, then Mr Nelson being asked to leave an event by an ignorant public official.

No it wasn't, although it was what you were made to think. The entire event with Rosa Parks was, in fact, staged by activists. All that aside, being defenseless is a much more serious problem than being made to sit somewhere you don't want to sit, regardless of the reasons, wouldn't you say?

Deanimator
June 14, 2007, 01:38 PM
No it wasn't, although it was what you were made to think. The entire event with Rosa Parks was, in fact, staged by activists. All that aside, being defenseless is a much more serious problem than being made to sit somewhere you don't want to sit, regardless of the reasons, wouldn't you say?

Since the motivation for gun control in this country has largely been bigotry against some disfavored group, be it Indians, Blacks, Jews, gays, etc., they're fairly indistinguishable.

Bigots never want the objects of their bigotry to be able to fight back.

axeman_g
June 14, 2007, 01:42 PM
I am not sure I understand why you all think that Mr Nelson's Human Rights were violated. I understand all of the facts surrounding Rosa Parks. It was orchestrated, not staged. There is a difference.

So do you all think the Lt. was aware that he was asking Mr Nelson to give leave the event, even though he fully realized that Utah state laws prohibit "a local authority” [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property?

axeman_g
June 14, 2007, 01:47 PM
A point... the gentleman was wronged and does have grounds for a suit. And I in no way agree with the actions of the Lt. Let me restate this before I get called another degrading name or another person accuses me of being simple... I IN NO WAY AGREE WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE LT.

My argument is with the statement that equated Rosa Parks and David Nelson.

willbrink
June 14, 2007, 02:39 PM
FYI, there is a pro gun gay group called the Pink Pistols. Their motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed" which I think is a great motto!

http://www.pinkpistols.com/

No idea how large a group they are, but at least we know some in the gay community "get it" when it comes to the importance of the Second Amend as a human rights issue.

kbheiner7
June 14, 2007, 07:35 PM
If Nelson does indeed hold a valid Utah CCW, he didn't even need to have an empty chamber while carrying.

It's too bad we live in a society where people get freaked about open carry. It's even more depressing to acknowledge that too many LEOs are completely ignorant about they laws they are supposed to be enforcing.

pacodelahoya
June 14, 2007, 07:51 PM
Axeman, the 2nd ammendment is the one that gives all the others teeth.

It is the very mortar which holds the bricks of the Constitution together.

Without the 2nd, all the others are just a house of cards.

Would it be ok for the cop to make him leave because he was wearing a tee shirt with a political slogan that the cop didn't like?

All rights are important, to say one isn't as important as another diminishes them all.

That's why I don't like Dui checkpoints, no knock(or knock and crash )warrants, and all the other, ever growing encroachments on liberty.

So do you all think the Lt. was aware that he was asking Mr Nelson to give leave the event, even though he fully realized that Utah state laws prohibit "a local authority” [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property?



ABSOFRICKINLUTELY!:cuss:

ScottsGT
June 15, 2007, 09:03 AM
ScottsGT....
How in the blazes can you make that comment? There is no and I repeat no correlation at all between a Human Rights stand and simple encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official.


Simple, it's a comparison of people that are standing up for what they honestly believe in. That's all.
I'm not trying to make a comparison to the struggles that the black Americans went thru to get what is deserved by everyone and the 2nd amendment.
But then again, the '50's were full of "ignorant and misinformed public officials" that were showing their ignorance towards a race of people, as did (do)the Nazis.

axeman_g
June 15, 2007, 10:12 AM
Scotts.. then I apologize for jumping you. I am sorry that I misinterpreted your comment. Yes they are two people standing up for themselves and others for what they believe in.

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2007, 10:51 AM
David Nelson is the head of Stonewall Shooting Sports Utah. He isn't involved in the Pink Pistols group no more, but there's similar corrallaries to my soon to be situation.

Interesting thing is that I'm also a "gay gun enthusiast" will be doing something equally as controversial this weekend.

axeman_g
June 15, 2007, 11:32 AM
Paco,
Trust me I realize this and in NO WAY was saying the 2a is less important. I was going on the presumption that the Lt was STUPID, not a bigot. If it turns out he was a 2A Bigot, can him.

Lonnie, keep us informed.

BB62
June 15, 2007, 12:10 PM
The Way of the Gun - by a gay (& liberal) man:

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/5/the-way-of-the-gun

Correia
June 15, 2007, 12:18 PM
I know David Nelson. I testified right after him during the last legislative session against the University of Utah gun ban. He openly carries at the state capitol building also.

He's a cool guy.

Bearhands
June 15, 2007, 03:31 PM
I'm just not sure how bigotry rears it's head in that article?

SuperNaut
June 15, 2007, 03:42 PM
I know David Nelson. I testified right after him during the last legislative session against the University of Utah gun ban. He openly carries at the state capitol building also.

One of the Representatives was pretty freaked-out by it too.:evil:

"Uh, can you do that? Is that legal?"

"Yes, I can and yes it is."

DWARREN123
June 15, 2007, 07:46 PM
If any of the rights are violated then we should all bite back. Let one slide and the others will eventually follow.
Hope he kicks their butts over this.

cpaspr
June 15, 2007, 08:38 PM
jaholder1971 -

Off topic.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of the sexual preference of the OP or the focus of the event, he paid for admission to the event, was perfectly legal in carrying at the event, and was ejected by a local authority (Lt. Rusty Isakson) in direct violation of state law.

Substitute some activity that you participate in. For argument sake, let's make it kite flying.

"Kite flyer jaholder1971, while legally carrying his .22 caliber revolver on his hip, and after paying admission to the world kite flying championships, was asked to leave the event in direct violation of state law by Lt. John Doe of the local police force."

A violation of his rights and the state law is still a violation of his rights and the state law. End of discussion.

coylh
June 16, 2007, 02:58 AM
Was the cop hired as security? My own experience with a rent-a-cop was that she behaved more like a bouncer than a police officer. They're wearing the same uniform, but are really on the side of their employer.

Someone should try a similar PR event: try to get into a gun show with a loaded openly carried handgun. Be sure to get it on film. ;)

mnrivrat
June 16, 2007, 03:34 AM
"My complaint to Chief Burbank is only the first step," Nelson said. "I'll pursue appropriate solutions of my complaints against the event organisers and their security staff regardless of any solution with the chief."

Good for him ! I hope he gets some serious satisfaction and helps teach others they can't make up their own version of the law.

And WOW ! The tree grew a lot of branches in a hurry here ! :what: Almost de-railed the train

Gray Peterson
June 18, 2007, 08:30 PM
Despite the fact that I had went in once, open carrying for two hours without issue, I went to dinner. When I came back, I got ejected.

I'll put out more specific information later. First I need to do the appropriate writeups.

FYI, I also open carried in downtown Portland for many hours with no issue. :)

MinnMooney
June 18, 2007, 08:42 PM
Grandstanding gets my vote and this might hurt everyone's right to carry or it may help... I have no idea.
Handicapped or not, I'd NEVER carry my weapon unconcealed unconcealed carrying is as much a visual deterrent of violence as it is a more responsive and reliable mode of carrying if I need it. just because it would take a nano-second more to retrieve it. Someone ELSE could retrieve it before you ever knew they were after it!

axeman_g
June 18, 2007, 08:51 PM
Lonnie,
Thanks for the update. Keep us informed on the details.

Once again, this discussion was centered on the fact the Mr Nelson had his 2A rights infringed. Let's try to keep it to that issue.

Gray Peterson
June 18, 2007, 08:53 PM
Actually it's more than a nano-second to draw from concealment, and I point out that there are things called "retention" holsters that have come out in the last twenty or so years.

rickomatic
June 18, 2007, 08:58 PM
Jerry: "They said the guy was packing heat."
Elaine: "You mean he was carrying a gun???!!"
George: "So...you're saying that this guy at a gay pride event was actually carrying an honest to goodness real gun?"
Jerry:" Well..not that there's anything wrong with that!"

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i84/rickomatic/nothings.jpg

Gray Peterson
July 10, 2007, 03:13 AM
Pride Northwest Ejects Gay Man for Lawful Open Carry (http://www.prbuzz.com/security-agent-ejects-gay-man-from-pride-northwest-for-legal-open-carry-of-firearm-pride-official-c-3995.html)

Elza
July 10, 2007, 04:48 AM
Grant48: If it had been a regular patrol officer, I could see how ignorance might be argued, but you dont make it to LT by being totally clueless about the law.Personally, I find that statement open to some debate. :D

pogostick
July 10, 2007, 06:45 AM
Man, talk about picking on the wrong target. A disabled, law abiding, head of a shooting sports organization, state legislature testifying, pride event attending, guy who also happens to be gay. Not like there is a good target for this kind of infringement, but WOW.

This is one of those situations were I hope the victim sues the crap out of everybody for just about everything possible. There was a time in history when people that were gay, disabled or bunch of other things would have their natural rights and sometimes lives taken from them and this seems like a good time to inform the offending parties that those times will never return. And nothing short of a butt kicking says that quite like a nice public law suit.

And to Lonnie your situation is just as bad - I mean how many precautions do you have to take to make sure your rights won't be trampled?

kellyj00
July 10, 2007, 08:46 AM
sounds like this poor fella was *clears throat* violated by the police. I hate to say it but I think he was hoping for the police to give him a hard time. He said he had a CCW permit, it makes sense to just carry the pistol concealed.

Not saying that he shouldn't exercise his rights, just saying he kind of invited trouble by open carrying when he could have been concealed carrying. I could strap a shotgun to my back when I'm mowing the lawn, but I don't because I don't want folks to keep their kids from visiting on Halloween because "i'm a lunatic".

wow, that's gonna start some debate. I think it just started an internal debate.... I feel like I can't show that I'm a RKBA supporter without drawing negative attention. If the NAACP is burying words, maybe the NRA can symbolically bury the assault weapons ban?

Blackfork
July 10, 2007, 09:02 AM
You gotta love folks, especially gun rights people, who are willing to stand up for what they believe in. I've admired the Pink Pistols for a while and hope we see more of this, not less.

Thanks to both men for taking the trouble to take a stand. I hope all of us are encouraged and inspired by your example.

gunsmith
July 10, 2007, 10:02 AM
Keep up the good work!

that deserves it's own thread.

James T Thomas
July 10, 2007, 11:58 AM
He should file charges against the event organizers for commiting a
"Hate Crime!"

SoCalShooter
July 10, 2007, 12:59 PM
If it were me I would take it further and stop this trampling of 2a rights.

Car Knocker
July 17, 2007, 09:21 PM
This is an update from David Nelson, taken from another board I'm on:
POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZES ABOUT GUN EJECTION

Salt Lake Police Chief Chris Burbank apologized personally on July 17 to me for the actions of Lt. Rusty Isakson to eject me in June from the Utah Pride festival for possessing an unconcealed firearm. Burbank also commended my understanding of the applicable laws and pursuit of a reasonable resolution, and promised that more instruction about the laws would be required of all officers.

After being ejected, I filed a complaint with Burbank against Isakson for "violating state laws which prohibit 'a local authority … [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.'"

Meanwhile, I filed a $25,000 claim against Salt Lake City Corp. about the matter in which I described Isakson's actions as "facially unlawful and tortious in their violation of my constitutional, civil and legal rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, the Utah Constitution and Utah laws 63-98-102 and 76-10-500, and willful misconduct of [Isakson's] professional duties and ethics."

If you enjoyed reading about "Gay gun enthusiast ejected from Pride event" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!