Why Rick Wears A GUN


PDA






NIGHTWATCH
October 4, 2003, 03:09 AM
Why Rick Wears A Gun and The Incident In Denver At Sambucca's Restaurant




Rick Stanley, Constitutional Activist, former U.S.Senate candidate, Enemy of the State, and self avowed extremiston the order of our forefathers of America, gave the following media release for your use:



Once again, I have been harassed by the Denver Police Department for exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, this time while sharing an evening with my wife at Sambucca's Restaurant in Denver. I am restating again why I am openly wearing a weapon and what happened at the restaurant that evening.




Why is Rick Stanley wearing a gun on his hip openly carrying for all to see?




GUN REFRESHER COURSE



1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution © 1789. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace. No guns, no peace.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911- government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control-it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. End the gun control laws in place, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened if the colonists had submitted to Gun Control Laws.



With the signing of SB-25 on March 18, 2003 by Governor Owens, all Colorado cities and counties are prohibited from making ordinances that violate our right to OPENLY CARRY on our person a weapon. This bill also prohibits cities and counties from making ordinances that violate our right to keep a weapon in our vehicles, concealed or otherwise, and prohibits the making of ordinances that violate the state Constitution in any way regarding types of guns, whether the gun is loaded or not, etc. You or I do not need permission to keep and bear arms from the state. It is a guaranteed and protected CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Turning rights into privileges, is unconstitutional, and is something the state is an expert at. Witness the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, which the state has turned into a privilege, through their permit system. Having a drivers' license permit and a license plate permit are only authorized for commercial purposes, not individual citizens.



I will continue to wear my weapon openly to remind Colorado citizens that exercising our rights is paramount, in order to protect those rights.



Openly, everywhere, until the state of Colorado it's state CONSTITUTION regarding concealed carry as a protected and guaranteed right in harmony with the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms," anyway we wish. A right is not a privilege. In addition, after a felon has served his time, his servitude completed per the courts rendered decision, that felon has all the rights extended to any other citizen of each sate in America. The state is stealing their rights as well, and declaring them second class citizens. This is unconstitutional as well.



The state is stealing weapons from citizens across Colorado and the country, should a citizen have a family disturbance as well. The state says they lose their right to keep and bear arms for this, and this is unconstitutional as well.



Each citizen of every state in America must stop the advancing police state, and their stated goal of disarming America, leaving the citizenry defenseless from criminals (who always have weapons), and the tyranny of the police state which has unconstitutionally suspended the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights. Defending America is the duty of every citizen from threats from within and without.



UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE



Over three hundred years ago, our ancestors left an oppressive government operating in England to establish a settlement in America. From the blood of our forefathers, the Constitution framed boundaries for the government established by and for "We the People." For the last one hundred years, our elected officials are ignoring those boundaries, and our Constitution has been buried six feet under the ground.



Our God-given, individual, sovereign rights have been stolen today by legislative, judicial, and executive "acts," at all levels of government. Our government is operating under "the color of law," in the form of agencies, such as, but not limited to:



Internal Revenue Service The Federal Reserve Corporation Social Services CIA FBI BATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms FEMA War Powers Act US Patriot Act Executive orders Asset forfeiture laws Home rule or admiralty jurisdiction in our courts denying citizens a common-law constitutional rights trial Twenty thousand gun laws Permitting agencies that "allow" citizens with the "purchase" of a permit to operate as "free citizens."



America is not the flag, the rock that we live on, or the people who inhabit it. America is the ideals embodied through our republic, in the Constitution and defended vigorously by "We the People."



We The People Congress (givemeliberty.org) is a proactive, constitutionally - based, rapidly growing body of (citizen) leaders who are determined to restore our God-given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."



I am petitioning the leaders here to help us restore our God-given rights guaranteed by our Constitution, while educating the sleeping sheep of this great nation. It took only about three percent to initiate the freedom movement back in 1769. Are there three percent here who care? If we aren't part of the solution, then most assuredly, we are part of the problem.



Our founding fathers (during a continental congress in 1774) in an act, said "If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, they (the PEOPLE) may retain it (their MONEY) until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquillity."



"We The People Congress," are now telling Congress to obey the Constitution or else. What "or else?" No answers to our petition, no income taxes to be paid.



www.givemeliberty.org
www.losthorizons.com
www.taxableincome.net
www.unansweredquestions.com
www.freedomabovefortune.com
www.stanley2002.org
www.stanley2002.org/mgmpetition.htm



BUSH KNEW www.copvcia.com






Incident at Sambucca's Restaurant September 6, 2003



STANLEY NOTE: I have been sentenced to 6 months in jail which was changed to 30 days of ankle bracelet home detention, 150 days suspended sentence, 75 hours of community service, $629.00 in fines, and one year probation, for the Denver Gun Case. I have several new people who I am paying to work on my case for Denver to take on up the ladder, possibly to the Supreme Court, but it all seems so useless, since the courts are an unconstitutional fraud, from the lowest to the highest courts today. I have been as high as the Federal District Court in Denver with this case, all to no avail. The judges are corrupt and appear ready to ignore the constitutional rights of this American, at every level of the judiciary.



My Thornton Gun Case is very, very similar with the exception of some minor details like, going at it pro se, entering the judges oath of office, refusing to enter their jurisdiction, demanding a jury trial without having to pay for it, and many other UCC fights that all turned out to be a waste of time in this court, as well as Denver. This case was recently turned down at the Adams County District court on appeal and I have been notified by Thornton Court to appear on October 15, 2003, where they will review my case and if I haven't appealed by that time to a higher court and received a new stay of sentence from a higher court, they will probably initiate a 90 day jail sentence and a $520.00 fine. I have turned over by fee, this case as well, to some other individuals willing to help with this case as well. Decisions will be made in the upcoming weeks as to what I am going to do regarding both cases. I have previously suggested that I should not waste my time and money anymore. I will see exactly what I will decide shortly.



Last night, Saturday the 6th of Sept. 2003, I was detained by Denver Police, removing me from SAMBUCCAS Restaurant, after I had dinner with my wife, while we were dancing on the dance floor, while I was openly carrying a weapon. Seems some woman in the restaurant called the police after I had been in the restaurant from 6:30 PM till after 11:00 PM having dinner and dancing with my wife. While dancing, my wife and I met many wonderful couples who even expressed the point to me that they felt safer with me ARMED in the restaurant, while they were there. My wife and I were there for 4 and 1/2 hours, had a wonderful dinner, without incident, until the Manager of the restaurant, decided to give the Denver Police entry into the restaurant to allow them access to this customer because another customer had been "frightened" that I was lawfully carrying a weapon openly in Denver, which is my right.



At no time have I ever been told that I was not allowed access to this restaurant when armed openly. I was detained because I had the audacity to exercise my rights, in the city of Denver once again. It seems that bothers some in the community and appears to give them license to have me detained whenever they wish, anonymously.



I demanded the police bring my accuser or accusers onto the street as I had been done, to no avail. I was questioned continuously about how much I had to drink, my SSAN, my address, my ID, my birthdate, etc. I told the officers my name and then informed them over and over, that I didn't have to answer their questions, and they knew that fact.



First rule in dealing with the Denver thugs in uniform, is to give them no information. I asked what law or ordinance I had violated and if I was under arrest, over and over, They said I was not, but was being detained until they could figure out what to do. The sergeant was on the way. It took some time, about an hour on the sidewalk being double and triple teamed by Denver's finest thugs with guns, who decided I must be disarmed in order for them to talk with me. By the way, what law or ordinance is that? I gave my card and website to all of the officers and invited them to go to my website for "education" purposes. I had at least two dozen people from inside the restaurant, come out to give me support for the obvious police state thuggery I was forced to endure, once again for having the audacity to actually engage in a constitutional right in Denver, Colorado.



Seems the woman could not be found who made the complaint. Seems the manager did not want my gun back in the bar, even though another manager knew I had it, commented on the lawfulness of it, and gave my wife and I, the best table in the house to the left front, next to the band stand. I had many people say to me that we had the best seats in the house, and indeed, we did. That same manager stopped over and asked how we were doing and thanked my wife and I again, for coming in. Several wait staff came over and said hello when they saw we were in the restaurant. The bartender said hello to me by my name, and expressed his pleasure at seeing my wife and I again. Later my wife told him that I was in the front of the restaurant on the sidewalk being detained and questioned by police, and he swore with disgust and dismay.



I had one woman thank me for my efforts for liberty and freedom while in the bar waiting for a table, and she mentioned that she knew exactly who I was, and felt that what I was doing regarding the gun ordinance in Denver, was absolutely the bravest thing she had ever heard of and applauded my efforts.



However, there was ONE person in the restaurant who did not appreciate me and the fact that I was engaging in my constitutional rights to openly carry my weapon in Denver. This ONE person had the right to sick the police on me and then, slip away anonymously, once again.



This is a regular occurrence in the city of Denver regarding Rick Stanley, and will be addressed as well in time. I tried to walk out of the restaurant with as much dignity as I could muster followed by the three Denver Police, the manager that I had not spoken to earlier that evening and my wife, who was needless to say, extremely furious. The officers were trying to intimidate me into saying that I was drinking with my weapon, even though my weapon and I rarely drink with each other. They were disappointed when I would not, and it appeared I was as sober, as if I was in church. I was comporting myself as a gentlemen would, who was having trying circumstances.



After the sergeant arrived I was hustled over to the alley and given my gun back and as I was loading the bullets back in my .357 seven shot pistol made by Taurus, built in Brazil, a great gun by the way, I was informed that I could not load the weapon until they had left. Again I asked what ordinance or law that gave them authority over me in this matter, to mute stares. I took a few steps away from the police officers, loaded my weapon, and mentioned to one of them as he was walking away, to please not forget to go to my website for educational purposes, and wished him well. Even shook each of the officers hands. I mentioned to them once during the night, that they would have to make a decision soon, whether they supported the people, or the government that was having them violate their oath of office, to uphold ordinances that violated the constitution.




Rick Stanley

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Rick Wears A GUN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Moparmike
October 4, 2003, 04:20 AM
Wait, I dont understand. He walked away from them with his gun, and was not charged nor arrested. Then, he is later convicted of the same crime?:confused:

Excellent article, even if I am a little confused. If it holds up (the right...er...priveledge to carry), I should move.:) The man is a true hero in the fight for regaining and helping others to realize our freedoms.

NIGHTWATCH
October 4, 2003, 04:51 AM
I agree. He serves as an example of the sacrificial activism that is needed to change this country and restore our rights as human beings. And restore our constitution.

Original page: http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/stanley.html

DrPsycho
October 4, 2003, 08:18 AM
The question still remains - whatever happened to that complainant woman? And perhaps bring into question the criteria/protocols set in place by police on their response procedure. ie. what distinguishes whether they'll respond to certain 'incidents' and dismiss others as nuisance calls.

Delmar
October 4, 2003, 08:34 AM
whatever happened to that complainant woman?

Hopefully being mugged. Not a very nice thing to wish on anyone, but I have had it with the nosy, crybaby psycho-babble do gooders who think I ought to live their way. :banghead:

greyhound
October 4, 2003, 08:57 AM
because another customer had been "frightened" that I was lawfully carrying a weapon

These types of people can be just as much a problem as the true antis in the fight to make self defense a normal part of the culture.

What amazes me, in a society where at least 1/3 to 1/2 of movies and television shows feature firearm use, just the sight of one in real life induces instant panic.

P12
October 4, 2003, 10:06 AM
The dispatcher should have stated to the the complaining woman, "So what's the problem?" instead of dispatching officers to the scene.

He needs to keep pushing.

benewton
October 4, 2003, 11:17 AM
If you gentlemen hurry, Rick is being interviewed on americanewsnet.com at this time (11:15 AM EST 10/4).

Pilgrim
October 4, 2003, 11:47 AM
Wait, I dont understand. He walked away from them with his gun, and was not charged nor arrested. Then, he is later convicted of the same crime?

Apparently the officers wrote a report and passed it on to the district attorney for review. The district attorney, or one of his deputies, decided a crime was committed and filed a complaint in court. Either a warrant for his arrest was issued or, more likely, a letter informing him of the charges was mailed to him commanding him to appear in court to face the charges or a warrant would be issued.

Pilgrim

C.R.Sam
October 4, 2003, 12:36 PM
Sounds like he is maintaining his cool in the face of dips.
That good for him and good for all of us.

Sam

Andrew Rothman
October 4, 2003, 12:59 PM
The guy seems to be a fairly incoherent nut job; he does more harm than good with these missives.

Go ahead and be an activist, and practice civil disobedience. But come across as reasonable and law-abiding, not defiant, nutty and revolutionary.

He does more harm than good.

Matt

Moparmike
October 4, 2003, 02:51 PM
Matt, how was he acting like a nutjob? He wasnt even practicing civil disobedience, he was practicing sheeple/blissninny disobedience. He followed the letter of the law, and because someone was scared of his evil gun while he was doing nothing intimidating nor illegal, he was charged with a crime. This man needs to fight this as hard as he can.

I just dont understand how following the exact letter of the law is civil disobedience. Am I being civilly disobedient when I do the exact speed limit?:confused: :scrutiny:

Zak Smith
October 4, 2003, 03:41 PM
Regardless of what you think about Rick Stanley, this "media release" contains factual errors, e.g.

With the signing of SB-25 on March 18, 2003 by Governor Owens, all Colorado cities and counties are prohibited from making ordinances that violate our right to OPENLY CARRY on our person a weapon.


Wrong! The "new" 29-11.7-104 says, "A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction" (italics mine). The restriction added is that those areas must be posted.

As far as I can tell, the "arrest" he's talking about is the "open carry" event he did last year before SB25 was passed.

-z

keederdag
October 4, 2003, 04:07 PM
Sounds like a guy taking a lot of our heat, who's gonna end up doing time for it. I personally do not have the courage to do what he is doing. Just because Denver has passed an ordinance, does not make it in the right. Everyone should have the right to protect themselvs without having to obtain a permit. Anyone have idea's about how to support this man?:)

Brian Dale
October 4, 2003, 04:35 PM
...the right of the people peacably to assemble...
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ...

Denver scores a hat trick. Sorry, lady; human rights exist whether complainers like them or not. Denver's wrong here.

ojibweindian
October 4, 2003, 04:55 PM
Stanley is a "nut job", "does more harm than good", because he is exercising his legal, constitutional rights? Also, activism and civil disobediance is not necessarily a bad thing, or are you saying that MLK, Gandhi, the Founding Fathers, etc are evil?

Matt, with enough people harboring the same sentiments, we should be able to completely abolish the 2A in under a generation.

keederdag
October 4, 2003, 05:08 PM
Here here...Well said!:D :D :D

ojibweindian
October 4, 2003, 05:17 PM
I would like to say one other thing; a person can reason and rationalize themself straight into servitude and/or oppression.

Bowing to this kind of crap, be it from the feds, a state, or a local government reeks of appeasement and docile acquiescense. Does anyone (Matt) remember Neville Chamberlain?

Standing Wolf
October 4, 2003, 05:24 PM
Seems the woman could not be found who made the complaint.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Most of Colorado has more sense than to hassle ordinary law-abiding citizens, but Denver seems to consider itself a special exception to everything.

keederdag
October 4, 2003, 05:38 PM
After living in Denver for 7 yrs. I can truthfully say, that it should be relocated to LA County. Colorado's a great state, that Denver seem's to be bent on ruining.:cuss:

Al Norris
October 4, 2003, 05:40 PM
I have no need to comment here, but I'll just pass on this URL:
http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release100203.htm

WvaBill
October 5, 2003, 12:09 AM
What amazes me, in a society where at least 1/3 to 1/2 of movies and television shows feature firearm use, just the sight of one in real life induces instant panic.

How many of these movie shots of firearm us are anywhere near accurate. It seems like most current movies, TV, shows have any guns not used by gov't types causing intentional or accidental mayhem.

Gray Peterson
October 5, 2003, 12:53 AM
I'm trying to figure out what exactly was a result here. Thorton gun case? Sambaccus restaurant?

Why would Denver file charges on a local ordinance declared illegal?

Andrew Rothman
October 5, 2003, 01:52 AM
ojibweindian,

This is The High Road, so I am being more polite than I want to right now.

Please re-read my post.

I wrote:
Go ahead and be an activist, and practice civil disobedience. But come across as reasonable and law-abiding, not defiant, nutty and revolutionary.

This guy is a nut job. His rantings are incoherent; his arguments are nearly impossible to follow.

He is on the right side of the issue. But being a pro-gun crazy only gets crazy all over us sane pro-gun people.

Antis LOVE freaks like him. They can point to him and say, "See, them gun folks is stark ravin' loony!"

Contrast him with coherent, well-spoken, Bruce Krafft. (https://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2795).

Not everyone agrees with Bruce's tactics either, but he comes across as a gentle, peaceful, law-abiding, principled man.

Nutball Stanley wants to raise a miltia every time he thinks he's been wronged. Check out the link that Al posted: http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release100203.htm

Stanley believes he has the answer: enforce constitutional law with the Mutual
Defense Pact Militia! No more Waco's! No more jack-booted thugs murdering honest
citizens, then covering up the crime and announcing to the world that they have
"saved the children."

...

Stanley says. "I think the issue now is, we now have Pact Warrants of
arrest for judges, something new for the robber barons and their hired thugs to
consider. Will the hired thugs protect the robber baron judges from the Pact
Warrants?"

Just a moment, is this Stanley fellow threatening judges? No one wants anarchy!

"No," says Stanley and several thousand, perhaps tens of thousands of supporters
and well-wishers throughout the land, "Stanley is simply enforcing the
Constitution - something the "authorities," in their corrupt self-interest, have
failed to do for too long. So Stanley is sending out Pact Warrants for the
arrest of corrupt scumbags, and they should be treated as such. What else can we
conclude about judges and officers of the "law," who want to jail and fine a man
for actually having the audacity to think he can exercise his constitutionally
guaranteed right to openly carry anywhere - even in Denver and Thornton,
Colorado.
...
"Come and get
me. I will defend myself with force of arms, in the tradition of our
forefathers, and in that same tradition, I will call out brave men, and true,
who are equally committed to defending our Rights and our Constitution."




You want this nut job speaking for you?

I don't.

Matt

NIGHTWATCH
October 5, 2003, 02:15 AM
I do. He is speaking the truth of freedom. Its about time judges and government officials fear us for a change. We run this country, not them. And if they continue to fail the people and not uphold the constitution, they can expect more, much more of this from all corners.

ojibweindian
October 5, 2003, 10:40 AM
Matt

Don't be civil just to spare me. Speak your mind, I can handle it.

Yes, I do want that guy speaking for me. He's got enough courage to stand up for his convictions, to do what is right, regardless of the cost to him.

I am not going to kiss this collective tuckus of the anti's anymore. And I believe that the time for being reasonable is past. Being "reasonable" got us to the point we are now. Also, obeying onerous "laws" that deprive us of our right to self defense emboldens those who wish to enslave us.

Obey them if you want to; I will do what I must, and suffer what consequences come about, in order to effectively defend myself and family.

Zak Smith
October 5, 2003, 12:30 PM
I think Mr. Stanley could improve his message and be more effective by communicating more clearly. We can't even figure out exactly what the facts are of these "incidents" from his "media release."

-z

Andrew Rothman
October 5, 2003, 01:00 PM
Even if this guy were 100% right (he's not -- there are other ways to resolve issues besides declaring yourself a militia), his nuttiness is a huge liability. He issues screwball communiques, then claims there is a "MEDIA BLACKOUT" because the press doesn't print them.

He's a loon. Have you read his screeds? Nutso. Bonkers. THAT is why he is marginalized. And that's why he's bad for the cause.

You know, the majority can change the Constitution. All legal and proper and constitutional, too.

If the majority become convinced that all gunowners are like him, do you think that a repeal of the 2nd would be all that hard to pass?

Fight for your rights. Vote out the bums who don't. Campaign for leaders who will.

Participate in civil disobedience. Say your say in court. Appeal if you lose.

But threatening to kidnap judges will only get you locked up. As this guy should be. Not for his pro-RKBA stance or actions, but for his terroristic threats.

Matt

[edited `cause I can spell, but I can't type]

Al Norris
October 5, 2003, 02:17 PM
See? Didn't need to say a thing. Posted a link is all.

Remember, this is the same guy who boasted of taking his "Mutual Defense Pact Militia" and wrecking the infastructure of a township up in Michigan a couple of weeks ago. Meanwhile, the real Michigan militia is settling things through the system, leaving Stanley only to call names and cast aspertions upon the integrity of people who still think there is some use for the system.

No more "headlines" to be made, so he off and goes to make some more.

Yes, give him credit for having the moxy to stand up. But also see the stupidity of making a martyr of yourself needlessly.

Morgan
October 5, 2003, 05:37 PM
Some clarification.

The Court cases Stanley speaks of are prior to the evening at Sambuca's. No charges were filed or warranted regarding that evening.

I was not on scene that night, but I'm aware that Sambuca management did not want Stanley to remain in the restaurant, which is why he was removed. He had no right to speak with or confront the woman who originally called, as she was pressing no charges and only requested police to check out the situation. Management also did not wish (or have grounds, as Stanley left when police requested it) to press any charges. The only charges possible would have been trespass if he refused to leave when asked, and disturbance if he made a fuss about it.

For those who don't know, I'm an Officer in Denver. I've met Stanley before, when he was standing on a busy street corner with a sign, wearing his trademark .357 openly. I told him I respected him and his views, but that he scared and polarized people rather than persuading and informing. We discussed for a few minutes, he thanked me for stopping, we shook hands, and I got in my patrol car and drove off.

He's a zealot, and seems to be suffering from a persecution complex, but he knows his rights and excercises them. He's not a bully or a coward. He lives as he believes, and sticks to his guns (pun intended).

Zak Smith
October 5, 2003, 07:52 PM
Morgan,

I'm currently trying to get a straight answer out of the Fort Collins Police regarding what they'll do if I go for a walk downtown carrying openly.

Maybe you can answer this: What'll happen in Denver?

regards
Zak

ojibweindian
October 6, 2003, 09:02 AM
Thomas Payne was considered by many to be a "nut job". Same with Patrick Henry et al. Their rhetoric against the British was rather heated, too.

As far as trying to appear reasonable to "the majority", they're pretty much a pack of morons. If the majority were so reasonable, why did we get 8 years of Clinton, 40+ years of the Dems controlling the the legislature, Jimmy Carter, and the joke known as the California Recall elections?

If American society, as a whole, is so reasonable and intelligent, why are we raising a new generation if mush-heads that can't think their way out of a wet paper bag in the middle of a torrential rain storm?

I am not saying that Stanley is the paragon of reason and civility. He lacks tact, decorum, and subtlety. But, in all honesty, I believe that tact, decorum, and subtlety have become useless in fighting against the inanities of today's modern American. I believe that what we need are men and women who will take a stand, boldly, to say we will no longer sacrifice our fundamental rights so that people can "feel safe".

Brian Dale
October 6, 2003, 10:23 AM
I had the impression, after reading the "Stanley Note" in the original post, that the fines were assessed as a result of the events at Sambuca's. I should have read more carefully.

Andrew Rothman
October 6, 2003, 10:35 AM
I am not saying that Stanley is the paragon of reason and civility. He lacks tact, decorum, and subtlety.

Add "coherence," "a grip on reality," "a sense of proportion" and "an eye on the goal" to the list of things he lacks. He's fighting to lose, and a lot of it looks like ego to me.

Matt

ojibweindian
October 6, 2003, 11:02 AM
He's fighting to lose, and a lot of it looks like ego to me.

I would say that at least he is fighting. How many of us would make the same kind of stand as Stanley? Also, I think many people confuse ego with conviction.

NIGHTWATCH
October 6, 2003, 11:23 AM
Here here! :)

Morgan
October 6, 2003, 05:48 PM
Zak asks:...what they'll do if I go for a walk downtown carrying openly...in Denver?

Well, you might get a lot more attention than if you did the same thing concealed.

For someone dressed as a non-thug, many will assume you're a cop or security, and most won't even notice, being oblivious to the world.

If someone does call the police, the response will likely be muted. I'd ask the dispatcher what law is being broken before even going, just to clarify. I'd then drive to the area, and might talk to you (if I'm in a talkative mood) about what you're carrying, and throw in my $.02 that concealed is much better in an urban area, or recommend a security holster. Chances are I'd just give you a nod, and go back in service.

Other cops may handle it differently, perhaps to the point of disarming you (temporarily) while they clear you and the gun for wants. Heck, Stanley was only given such attention as he's threatened to kill anyone who tries to arrest him for "unconstitutional" warrants. If, as Stanley did, you go into a business, there's a much larger likelyhood you'll be spoken with by cops, as so many shopkeepers are too cowardly to ask you to leave themselves, and don't know the law.

In any case, you're likely to be asked who you are and what's up. Most of the guys are pro-gun, and a little respect goes a long way, natch.

Andrew Rothman
October 6, 2003, 06:02 PM
I would say that at least he is fighting.

And if that does more damage than good?

Think logically. Is he convincing anyone? No. He's reinforcing the "gun nut" stereotype.

Some kind of help is the kind of help
That helping's all about
Some kind of help is the kind of help
We all could do without!


Matt

Zak Smith
October 6, 2003, 07:15 PM
Morgan,

Thanks for the reply. That sounds reasonable.

I do have a question about "clearing the gun for wants" which I assume means to run the serial number to see if it's stolen. How does this not run afoul of the 4A ?

regards,
Zak

Morgan
October 6, 2003, 07:24 PM
Zak, if someone is acting suspicious then I'd disarm him until I figure what's up. It's all in my articulation of why I found him suspicious. If I've disarmed him I'd run the number to see if that's why he's acting hinky.

Not likely to happen with open carry now legal.

Zak Smith
October 6, 2003, 07:27 PM
Gotcha,

thanks!
Zak

gunsmith
October 6, 2003, 09:16 PM
Then it's legal.

I carried open in AZ when I went there last Christmass
after living in NY/CA it felt GREAT!
More people should do it and get the sheep used to it,
it is legal isn't it?
as far as tactical considerations,doesn't it take longer to get your concealed pistol then the one on your belt?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Rick Wears A GUN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!