Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio


PDA






Ian
January 2, 2004, 11:22 PM
From http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20040101/localnews/147169.html

Troopers arrest man with multiple weapons in car


News Journal Staff Report

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

ASHLAND -- The Ashland Post of the Ohio Highway Patrol reported Wednesday troopers seized multiple loaded weapons during a Monday traffic stop on Interstate 71 in Ashland County.

Troopers stopped Jeffrey Jordan, 42, who said he is from New Hampshire, for speeding in a 1995 Nissan Pathfinder on I-71 north, according to Ashland County Jail records.

Jordan was charged with two counts of carrying a concealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony, and was incarcerated at the Ashland County Jail. If convicted, he could face up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

He was released Wednesday on a $15,000 bond, jail records said.

The investigation is ongoing, the patrol said.

During the traffic stop, a trooper saw two semiautomatic pistol magazines in a belt holder on the front of the suspect's pants, the patrol said. A search of the suspect revealed a loaded .40-caliber handgun, a loaded .380-caliber handgun, an additional loaded magazine, seven knives, a canister of mace and a handcuff key, according to the patrol.

A search of the vehicle revealed a machete and an additional canister of mace, the patrol said.

After receiving a warrant from the Ashland County Prosecutor's Office on Tuesday, troopers searched the vehicle and discovered a locked wooden case containing several swords, a .308-caliber assault type rifle and about 1,000 rounds of assorted ammunition, the patrol said.

Mr Jordan is a genuine good guy, dedicated freedom activist, and good friend of mine. He was traveling from his home to celebrate the holidays with family when he was stopped in Ohio. If anyone there can help out raising publicity in support of him, please do. Hopefully if a bright enough light is shone on his case, it'll help him out.

Ongoing discussion can be found at the Claire Files (http://www.thementalmilitia.org/clairefiles/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=409&st=0).

Thank you!

Edit: Let me add a couple things I missed in a rush to post this. Some accounts mention a "homemade remote, possibly a detonator of some type." It's the friggin' remote to his car alarm. :fire:

He is, FWIW, a longtime member and contributor to the NRA, GOA, Pink Pistols, JPFO, and KABA. He's one of us, and I hope we can help him out now when he needs it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Maimaktes
January 2, 2004, 11:50 PM
Ian, word has it that a legal defense fund is in the process of being set up for him, and that some fairly high-level legal talent is being contacted. Mr. Jordan (known to me and many on the Internet only as "Hunter") *is* a genuine good guy and a true American, and I'm sure pulling for him, and I hope I will get a chance to do something to help him. I wish I was a millionaire, or a lawyer, or better yet a millionaire lawyer, so I could do something for him. He's just too valuable to lose. God help him.

What I can't work out is what he was doing trying to cross freedom-unfriendly Ohio, which for someone like him or me would be a lot like a Hobbit trying to cross Mordor safely. I stay the hell out of places like Mordor, I mean, Ohio. The same goes for Illinazi. I wouldn't be caught dead, armed, or unarmed in either of those two police state hell-holes unless it was literally a desperate matter of life and death or some kind of world-saving quest or something.

Maimaktes

Ian
January 3, 2004, 12:02 AM
I just received this:

Friends,

Thanks to one and all for your support, ideas, information, and willingness
to pitch in. The outpouring of caring has really meant a lot to Hunter, and
given him a lot of motivation to fight this injustice.

He's becoming quite keen on making these statist thugs wish they'd never
pulled him over ... but it won't be cheap, so he's particularly grateful to
those who've pledged funds to his legal defense. Fighting will certainly
cost a bunch more than copping a plea, and it's risky for him. Not only
would he be putting his freedom on the line, but if he loses, the govgoons
will say he can never possess a firearm again.

Exactly what the final charges work out to be, and what difference a plea
might make for Hunter's future will have a lot to say about what the final
strategy. But even the minimum defense, aimed at keeping him out of jail
and able to keep and bear arms w/o further imperial entanglements, will be
costly. He's working with a SAF-recommended attorney in Ohio, James E.
Brightbill, whom several of us have spoken with and seems very competent.
He's also retained Marc Victor, the famous libertarian criminal defense
attorney from Phoenix who was kicked off the bench for recusing himself
from drug cases. Brightbill is willing to take help from more lawyers, as making a strong constitutional case will be challenging, and that could run
into some serious cash ... but there are grounds on which to challenge the
Ohio law (not to mention the bungled procedure of the traffic stop), so
this could actually turn into a big win for RKBA. Hunter is seriously thinking about liquidating his house and assets and pouring everything into
a strong constitutional challenge to the Ohio law.

So, for those who've pledged to help foot the legal bill, and those who are
now thinking they want to help, here's the scoop: http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/ has agreed to accept the funds for Hunter and manage the account. They'll be setting up a web page soon to take donations online, but folks who would be sending a check can do so already by sending them to:

Keep And Bear Arms PMB # 141
15201 N Cleveland Ave.
North Fort Myers, FL. 33903-2715
(239) 560-7566

The check should be made out to KeepAndBearArms.com, with the memo reading: "Hunter's Defense".

Please spread the word. We want to teach the Bad Guys a lesson with this one!

geekWithA.45
January 3, 2004, 12:05 AM
I just deleted my original reply, which was a scathing invitation to all those who would say he deserved it for not stopping @ the border and putting his arms in the trunk to have their say and get it over with.

Instead, I'm doing something constructive, I'm inviting THR folks to step up to the plate.

I don't know Hunter, and I don't know personally whether he's a good egg or not. The buzz and chatter on the net seems to indicate that this is the case, so I'll take a risk, and give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's a lot of honest good guys I don't know personally, and Hunter just might be one of them, and if that's the case, we need to band together to cover our own.

So, I'm in for a contribution. Who do I hit with paypal?

AZRickD
January 3, 2004, 12:31 AM
I sent this to my activist e-mail lists such as anti-antigunlobby@yahoogroups.com .

I hope it helps.

BTW, I know Marc Victor. If you want a rabid, pro-gun, but more importantly, pro-liberty attorney on your side, he's your guy. Trust me on that.

Rick

Wildalaska
January 3, 2004, 02:22 AM
Now of course if he was a "thugling" from the inner city we'd all be complimenting the police, neh?

Be that as it may, I dont know the whole story. If, however, he is convicted of violating Ohios gunlaws regarding concealed weapons, and he fails to convince a Court of his constituional right to carry same, I hope they impose they appropriate penalty under law.

WildandneverspeedwithillegalweaponsinacarAlaska

Dorian
January 3, 2004, 02:37 AM
Unfourtanetly, I am the only "active" pro-gun person I know. And I'm flat broke.

It's times like this when I wish I was a multi-millionaire, so I could contribute to this man's defense.

There are so many feelings inside me right now from reading this. Anger, disgust, and a general feeling of hopelesness.

I've heard people say this before and never really understood it before, but I fully understand it now: What is this country coming too?

An American arrested and facing jail time for defending himself by the very people who CAN'T defend him 24/7.

:(

I will keep Hunter in my thoughts. And I wish the best of luck to him.

glocksman
January 3, 2004, 02:59 AM
I just deleted my original reply, which was a scathing invitation to all those who would say he deserved it for not stopping @ the border and putting his arms in the trunk to have their say and get it over with.

He didn't deserve it, but it was a risky action to take given Ohio's gun laws.

The smart thing to do would have been to wear it openly like the demonstrators did in the Ohio CCW rallies, and as soon as you crossed the border into Pennsylvania, conceal it back up.

Assuming that the 'assault-type rifle' was unloaded, there shouldn't be any charges resulting from it as it was in a locked container and the Federal FOPA permits one to transport unloaded, not readily accessible firearms regardless of any state laws.

WonderNine
January 3, 2004, 04:16 AM
Another one bites the dust.

Honestly though, you could get arrested for that at a traffic stop in most states, not just states that are known as "TPRO".

I wish him the best of luck in fighting off this police state garbage.

Preacherman
January 3, 2004, 09:29 AM
I'm afraid I have to side with the unpopular view on this. I loathe anti-CCW laws, politicians and others as much as anyone on this forum: but a state has the right to make its own laws (which are, after all, made by politicians elected by the people of that state). If this gentleman (no matter how pro-RKBA and staunch 2A supporter he may be) willingly and wilfuly chose to violate those laws, he has to take the consequences. I carry concealed whenever and wherever possible: but when I travel through states that forbid this, I obey their laws. If I don't, not only am I subject to arrest and prosecution (thus voiding my right to own arms for the rest of my life), but I'm also portraying firearms activists as scofflaws who can't be trusted to coexist with the rest of society in that state.

Leatherneck
January 3, 2004, 09:52 AM
What Preacher said. Folks, I don't think it helps the cause of RKBA a bit to violate ANY laws willfully. I could have much greater sympathy for someone's inadvertently stepping over a line they weren't aware of. But by the very fact of Hunter's reputation as an activist and RKBA supporter, one logically assumes he knew of Ohio's laws and reputation. Still, a sad day.:mad:

TC
TFL Survivor

Highland Ranger
January 3, 2004, 10:03 AM
I'm afraid I also agree with the disentors. If we agree to have a society and we agree to the rule of law then there are ways to change bad laws.

Completely ignoring the law can often result in being arrested and is not the best way.

Don't know the man, hope he wins his case but I'm not sure this kind of case helps the cause.

Blackcloud6
January 3, 2004, 10:03 AM
He should have known the laws of the state of Ohio and obeyed them. Ohio is on the verge of getting a CCW law passed and thus incident doesn't help.

Nothing wrong with fighting for what is right, but there are smart ways and dumb ways.

El Tejon
January 3, 2004, 10:12 AM
Ohio always makes me shudder, especially their state po-po.

Best of luck to him. Hope everything turns out well.

Don Gwinn
January 3, 2004, 10:21 AM
Oh, I don't know. Those of you who live in free states may have forgotten what it was like before your CCW laws passed (remember, when you talk about "Mordor," that most U.S. states would have qualified as "Mordor" by your standards as late as the 1980s and 1990s.)

It's pretty common to ignore this kind of law. I guarantee those Ohio troopers knew that a whole lot of the cars they passed that day contained loaded weapons--and most of those were no threat to anybody. When you've been told by a state trooper in a rabidly anti-gun state that "I wouldn't let my father drive anywhere on Illinois highways without a loaded pistol," you find it hard to come down too hard on people who ignore such a law. A lot of police officers are doing it, folks, and they know a lot of "us" are doing it too. A lot of them would have warned Mr. Hunter to slow down and watch out for the next cop, and let it go at that. In fact, in some police circles it's common to use the "holster test"--since this gentleman had his gun in a holster and his extra ammo on a carrier, there'd be little chance that he was up to no good.

All that said, I comply with Illinois law, which is far more draconian than Ohio. In a vehicle, there's not much difference between a loaded and unloaded handgun as you should be using your locked doors and your car, not your gun. Only time to load and conceal a gun is if you were getting out for some reason, really. At 70mph on the highway you will have no use for a loaded handgun until it's time to stop anyway. And when he could have given himself grounds for a good defense by carrying openly, but he chose to conceal the guns anyway, that doesn't show very good judgment in my opinon.

No matter what, though, the bottom line for us on this forum has to be whether the man deserves to go to prison for the awful crime of transporting two loaded weapons. I submit that he does not. Thus his legal defense is important. We can talk about his judgment at greater length when he is not facing prison time--or after his conviction, which I have to say I don't think any contributions are going to prevent. I'll send what I can, though, because the fight is still important.

For those who talked about being "willing to accept the consequences" when you break a law, that's absolutely right. However, we may be missing the fact that Hunter did just that. He didn't fight the police; he didn't draw a weapon, nor did he try to escape. He accepted their authority to arrest him and is now pledged to fight in the courts. THAT is what is meant by "accepting the consequences." Accepting the consequences of his actions does NOT mean that he has to stand up at trial and say "I'm guilty, the state is right, I'm wrong, please sentence me to whatever you think is appropriate."

So give what you can, talk up jury nullification if you're in Ohio, but don't expect a miracle. I don't. :(

cordex
January 3, 2004, 10:28 AM
"I don't care if the law is wrong, Rosa. If we are going to have a society with rule of law, you've got to do as that law says, so get in the back of the bus, okay? The states have a right to pass whatever laws they wish, and you've got to know and follow those laws. Look, you'll get to your destination whether you sit up here or sit in the back, right? Just be a good little girl and get back there."

I recently drove through Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and back to transport a semi-domesticated wild animal to a local rescue center for such critters. Had "Wile E." somehow gotten out of his carrier while we were driving, I would not have been defenseless. I obeyed all the traffic laws and didn't get pulled over.

Derek Zeanah
January 3, 2004, 11:12 AM
Folks, I don't think it helps the cause of RKBA a bit to violate ANY laws willfully.Would you agree with that statement if I changed a single word? LIke (throws on his best Martin Luther King voice): "Folks, I don't think it helps the cause of civil rights a bit to violate ANY laws willfully."

Didn't think so. We have a tradition of civil disobedience in this country. It's a good tradition.

Would you make the same statement if Ohio produced a law that said "it is unlawful for anyone to criticize elected officials?"

Or how about "citizens must open their doors at the request of any government employee, for any reason."

Those ok with you as well? After all, it's a state that's infringing, rather than the feds.

If we agree to have a society and we agree to the rule of law then there are ways to change bad laws.That's sad. I thought the whole concept of "rule of law" was "we'll write this law, call it a constitution, and use this law to bind the federal government so it never oppresses us." Too bad that the feds aren't bound by the same set of laws they use to bind us, hunh?

suijurisfreeman
January 3, 2004, 11:23 AM
Could someone please point out where in Ohio's Constitution/Bill of Rights where the Legislature is granted the lawful authority to regulate the bearing of arms while exercising the right of self-defense? I personally believe that the Bill of Rights/Constitution is the foundation for the concept of "the rule of law".
Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 26 makes it crystal clear, "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."
How can there be "the rule of law" if public servants ignore the foundation that establishes that "rule of law"?

El Tejon
January 3, 2004, 11:28 AM
suijuris, it's called the "inherent police power" of the state. Nice to know that it trumps our rights, huh?:uhoh:

Sometimes I wonder why we left a tyrant across the sea to establish a tyranny across the states.:D

Alan Fud
January 3, 2004, 11:31 AM
May I ask, what harm was done to ANY by Mr. Jordan's action of carrying a loaded firearm? If no harm was done to anyone and no one suffered any lose, why is Mr. Jordan being charged with a crime? This is what I don't understand about gun laws.

AZRickD
January 3, 2004, 11:32 AM
Long ago I would have been shocked to read posts by "gun owners" who have essentially told this guy to fry. No more. Now I expect a large percentage of you to do just that.

What this guy did is something I do in Arizona every day. Next you'll be cheering for the cop who arrested Rosa Parks (and the jury who later convicted her).

Ohio has an "affirmative defense" to carrying concealed. It's subjective, and as unconstitutional as all get out, but that is one of his legal avenues he can pursue, and I will assist him in that.

You can choose to send him $5 or $10 for his defense or you can hang your head in shame. I'm in for $20 to pick up the slack for the rest of you worthless wimps.

Rick

Leatherneck
January 3, 2004, 11:41 AM
OK, here we go. Let me stipulate that I believe ALL anti-self defense laws to be immoral, short-sighted and symptomatic of legislators run amok.

But all over the country good folks are working slowly, steadily and diligently to change the laws in accepted ways. They (we) are meeting with success more often than not. Ohio is an exemplar, being on the verge of enacting their version of shall-issue CCW. It's not helpful at this point to assist the antis in portraying us "gun nuts" as ignorant or contemptuous of the law.

My response was a practical one, not theoretical.

TC
TFL Survivor

Sportcat
January 3, 2004, 11:43 AM
Edited by moderator.

suijurisfreeman
January 3, 2004, 12:00 PM
El Tejon,
I see that you're located in Lafayette, Indiana, I was born at the Home Hospital in Lafayette in 1948. I was supposed to attend Purdue University in the fall of 1966, but never made it, the rest is the story of my life.

"inherent police power of the state." I can't seem to find that in Kentucky's Bill of Rights! In fact what I see is, Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable right, among which are ... First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property. Seventh: Theright to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State .... Section: Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of FREEMEN exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. And of course Section 26: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

If there in fact exists a "social compact/contract between the people and their agents (government), what is the basis of that contract? Upon what foundation does that contract rest? Does the phrase, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" have any meaning whatsoever in this country today? How can George W. Bush claim that this country operates under the "rule of law", when it is quite apparent that the people's public servants ignore the very foundation of the concept of "the rule of law". If a "compact/contract" does in fact exist, then the Bill of Rights/Constitution sets the boundaries over which government cannot lawfully trespass. Government only gets away with this crap because the people allow it! It's way past time to remind public servants who's really in charge!

Erik
January 3, 2004, 12:15 PM
Going about your daily activities violating laws is a poor choice in setting the platform for a successful civil disobedience case.

Why the cuff key?

Not too bright an activist given he was trying to make a point.

I doubt he was, for what it is worth. As such, he will lose what ever public sentiment might have shielded him or pressed for a favorable outcome in court.

It will most likely end up looking damaging to the cause, all in all.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 12:17 PM
Why the cuff key?
I was wondering if anyone was going to comment on that. :cool:

Atticus
January 3, 2004, 12:29 PM
Who is this guy? Was he traveling to a gun show or something? My guess is that he would have been cited for improper transportation of a firearm if he had not been packing a loaded .40-caliber handgun, a loaded .380-caliber handgun, an additional loaded magazine, seven knives, a canister of mace, a handcuff key, mace, several swords, a .308-caliber assault type rifle and several thousand rounds of assorted ammunition. Was there a jumbo sized roll of tin oil in there? This is either a case of a normal guy caught in unusual circumstances ...or he's just plain weird....and not that, that is illegal...but it can be justification for checking someone out a little more carefully.

SFriesth
January 3, 2004, 12:40 PM
Hello Everyone,

I am new to this list. Found out about it on another list. The Liberty Round Table discussion list, which is hosted and maintained by Jeffery L. "Hunter" Jordan. The original post by Ian has a link to the Liberty Round Table web site.

The LRT hosts an annual get together where we can meet in person. Always at some rural site where we camp out and have access to a shooting range. We talk about every freedom issue under the sun. We eat some great chili. And we sit around the campfire at night and make S'mores and talk some more. Proper gun safety is taught to the people who because of financial condition (college students are still poor) or location are not gun owners. Hunter always brings a variety of guns and is unselfish about letting others try them out and burn up his ammo. He is one of the good guys.

Not sure about this "willfully" violating the law. He was coming home from visiting family at Christmas time. If he is like most of us, using the last of his vacation time. And probably driving straight through to get home and back to work. So he probably drove through several states during the day. He is used to legally carrying in his home state and might not have thought about the legal ramifications of every state he passed through on his way home.

If you are interested, the "assault type rifle", was a FAL. I hear he was a regular participant on a FAL message board.

To register for this forum they asked me what I had done to support RKBA. Sad to say, not much. A couple more payments and I will be a Life member of the NRA. Have been a Life Member of the Illinois State Rifle Association for a while now. Occasional donations to JPFO. But Hunter has done much to support RKBA. Through financial contributions, and the online forums he provides with his own machines at his expense. So I will support him and his legal defense.

Scott

Double Naught Spy
January 3, 2004, 12:41 PM
Why is it all the good guys get arrested? Sometime back, a teenager here killed a homeowner while trying to burgle the homeowner's abode, only the homeowner was home. Everybody said he was a good kid and had never been in trouble with the law before. He participated in church, was a good student at school, and helped out his neighbors. I am just continually shocked how it is that all these good people, like the kid here or the guy for which this thread is written, keep getting arrested on felonies.

While I enjoy the aspect of laughing at the guy for being so stupid as to be carrying concealed where it wasn't legal and breaking the speeding laws in the process, thereby drawing attention to himself with the local LEOs, the truth of the matter is that I feel sorry for this guy. How could he be such a moron, breaking multiple laws, drawing attention to himself, and NOT having a legal fund already established????

You know, you plays the game, you takes the chances, and if you get caught, you pays the penalty. He was dumb enough to break the law and dumb enough to get caught comitting a felony. He should fit in well in jail with all the others who have been caught committing felonies.

Bill St. Clair
January 3, 2004, 12:49 PM
Why the cuff key?
I can't speak for Hunter, but I have considered carrying a cuff key in case somebody cuffs me or a friend sometime and I decide that I don't recognize their authority to do so. Of course, it would only be useful if I had practiced using it while cuffed, and I would do so should I ever decide to carry one.

We're living in a police state, folks. The time for mindless obeisance to "authority" is over. We must constantly remind the police that they work for us, not the other way around. I hope Hunter finds a way to send these goons to federal prison or at least bankrupts them for violating his civil rights.

Our government has made it clear, with the orange terrorist alert status, that there is reason to be concerned for our safety. Travelling with a battle rifle makes perfect sense to me. And I guess Hunter likes knives and swords. He was arrested before the troopers saw the contents of his locked case. So I can't see how his FAL (my guess) or the swords have anything to do with it. His only transgression was forgetting on entering the People's Republic of Ohio that he was no longer in a free state, hence needed to store his handguns to avoid arrest by the local jack-booted thugs. He can legally carry concealed in many states.

BTW, Don Lobo Tiggre and Sunni Maravillosa, the unattributed authors of the letter that Ian quoted near the beginning of this thread, have created a page to track Hunter's case: Free Hunter: Fight Ohio's Gun-Grabbing Goons (http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/index.html)

[edited to say: my post and SFriesth's appear to have crossed in the ether :) ]

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2004, 12:57 PM
(Deep, calming breath)

As far as I'm concerned, all of you people blathering on about how Jeff shouldn't have violated the law, too bad he got caught, he must be some kind of nutcase, all of you are no better than the Bradyites. Worse, in fact. At least the Bradyites don't screw their own.

A hardcore pro-gun activist, a man who has put more of his time and money into the RKBA than any TEN of you, gets pinched for violating some unconstitutional and immoral BS law, and you can't even give him some moral support? You can't even say, "Yeah, tough break, hope he comes through okay?" You've got to crack jokes and moralize about 'obeying the law.' WHAT IN THE BLEEDING HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Jeff is a good friend of mine. He doesn't deserve to go to jail, and he sure as hell doesn't deserve to hear this kind of self-righteous whimpering from his erstwhile allies. If you can't be supportive, at least have the common goddamn courtesy to be quiet.

- Chris

Politically Incorrect
January 3, 2004, 01:16 PM
May I ask, what harm was done to ANY by Mr. Jordan's action of carrying a loaded firearm? If no harm was done to anyone and no one suffered any lose, why is Mr. Jordan being charged with a crime? This is what I don't understand about gun laws.

I agree with you Alan. Who was harmed? No one - not even the state troopers who pulled him over for speeding. I suppose if he had some criminal intent, he would have used available firearms against the OSHP.

But he didn't. What seperates this guy from a criminal? According to some...nothing. He broke a law on the books. But a criminal has harmed someone by his actions. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly who was the victim of this crime.

If the people of Ohio believe that a law can prevent someone from obtaining or carrying what they want, then I'm surrounded by idiots. I would think someone would have figured this out during Prohibition.

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2004, 01:43 PM
WOW!

I didnt realize things were in such a deplorable condition around here. Would he have been better off if he played it a bit smarter and didnt get caught, sure, but is the law he's trying to get around even just?

I'd like to know what all you die law ist die LAW folks would say regards to people who were executed for helping slaves escape or folks in Europe who were hiding people from the Nazis. Either carrying is a natural right, just the same as practicing your religion, or it's not a right.

Preacherman, would you be whisteling the same tune if someone in California was arrested for saying a prayer in town square after the govt declared it a religously neutral zone so that none of the townspeople would be offended?

It's rather amazing to see people whop claim to believe in principle sacrifice every last vestige of it on an alter of obedience to the state. I've met Jordan, ate a few burgers and downed a few beers with him, and he is a nice and decent guy. I was tempted to write that 'he's one of us' but I'm not sure who "us" is anymore, and it's certainly not some who I'd assumed to be.

Chris II, get me a link to his paypal donation fund. I'm helping out and I'll get those who I know to help out as well. The words "shall not be infringed" still mean something to me.

Daedalus
January 3, 2004, 01:44 PM
Well you see, if he has the guns in his car he might possibly harm someone with them. Life is a lot easier for the government when you legitimize prior restraint.

El Tejon
January 3, 2004, 01:46 PM
Chris, have you read Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail"? It helps me.

I hope your friend comes out O.K. In criminal law, it ALWAYS depends.

I hope his arrest spurs people to change that silly, ineffectual law.

Bill Hook
January 3, 2004, 01:52 PM
I've carried before where not legal when I didn't feel safe, which is most of the time on the open road. I did, however not hav lotsa gun paraphrenalia on my person and kept said firearm inside a backpack or tote for just this reason. I was also pulled over 3 times while doing so and never questioned about a firearm.

glocksman
January 3, 2004, 01:59 PM
I don't agree with the 'law is the law' folks.

I just pointed out that it was a risk to carry concealed in a state that not only prohibits CCW, but makes it a felony for a first time offense of doing so.

I know people here who have ignored the law when they visit another one of Indiana's neighbors *cough* Illinois *cough*.

The only thing he's really guilty of IMHO is not taking the 'concealed' part of CCW seriously enough.
If that trooper hadn't spotted that magazine carrier on his belt, Mr. Jordan would already be back in NH by now.

For God's sake if you have to carry illegally in the Mordor states, conceal the weapon.

That said, I hope he beats the charge.

Glacius_the_Invincible
January 3, 2004, 02:00 PM
Why NOT the handcuff key? I don't understand why the handcuff key was even something to list among several loaded firearms and a few swords. I've never heard of any law that prohibits the transportation of an improperly keychained handcuff key.

I carry a cuff key every day on my keyring just as a novelty item. I don't really see why it would be cause for alarm for a police officer.

suijurisfreeman
January 3, 2004, 02:02 PM
The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamental right of a free Human Being. Pennsylvania'a Bill of Rights clearly states that the RKBA shall not be questioned, Kentucky's Bill of Rights stated that way also until 1851. Many of the State's Bill of Rights, including Ohio's simply state that the people have the right to keep and bear arms - no lawful authority is delegated to the Legislature to pass "laws" regulating the bearing of arms - period!
Where's the beef? as the Wendy's commercial used to ask. Where does the Ohio Legislature presume to get the lawful authority to regulate the bearing of arms? This is the fundamental issue that should be addressed. Why can't people see this?
This is why my son and I carry a copy of Constructive Notice while carrying out and about in Kentucky. It places the LEO on notice that we are in fact exercising a right that we have the reasonable expectation is protected by the Bill of Rights. If they then violate that right, they are acting in bad faith and therefore cannot claim good faith immunity. My son has been questioned twice by LEO's since July of 2003 as to why he was carrying, but they didn't do squat after he served them a copy of Constructive Notice. Not claiming it's a "silver bullet", but it gets it on the record from the get-go.

hammer4nc
January 3, 2004, 02:24 PM
Ditto what Chris Raines said...

Of the law and order types, some seem to be unable to resist the urge to demonize. He's a "loonie"/"stupid"/"moron" (insert favorite pejorative here). I suppose expressing one's opinion in this way creates some perceived distance between oneself and the arrestee; perhaps makes one feel more secure? Good god almighty, I almost fell off my chair when one member attempted to float the "good boy burglar" analogy. Some serious introspection is in order.

But for the stroke of some bureaucrats' pen, Mr. Jordan is each and every one of us!

manwithoutahome
January 3, 2004, 02:41 PM
I hope that Mr. Jordan beats the wrap. I don't have much but I'll see what I can do in Jan. or Feb.

I really think that Mr. Jordan should have uncovered or at least had gotten a quick release lock box and it didn't come to this, as a person who is really into the RKBA, he should have checked Packing.org and did as was advised at this time.

I agree that we should have civil protests to get the laws changed but we can't do it one at a time. With each person making a point, the money will start to get low and pretty soon we are going to go broke with each case. Now, if this were a convoy of folks who could get one lawyer, and make one case then the money would be better spent.

We need large cases, not individual ones to go at this full force. www.keepandbeararms.com went broke with their case, and will probably do so with this one also. You can't expect any help from the NRA/GOA etc.. because they know that individual cases are going to put them under.

We need to pool everything and everyone together and hit this full force, not nickle and dime it, and just pour all our money into one giant "hail mary" play.

After it plays out, we can either 1) win our Right back, 2) take up arms or 3) tell our grandchildren that we tried our best.

M

I respect the man and what he is for, I don't agree with his actions at this time if it was done on purpose.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 02:49 PM
I carry a cuff key every day on my keyring just as a novelty item. I don't really see why it would be cause for alarm for a police officer.
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Edward429451
January 3, 2004, 03:10 PM
It's rather amazing to see people whop claim to believe in principle sacrifice every last vestige of it on an alter of obedience to the state.

Yep.

I hope his arrest spurs people to change that silly, ineffectual law.

In my mind, this is like striking at the leaves of a tree to chop it down. Even if we manage to pull down a few leaves, the roots are still there. It's a heck of a nice thought though. Freedom, liberty and rights begin and end on the street. This late in the game, I don't think there is a peaceful way to stand up for ones rights. An unpopular dangerous opinion, but still very possibly true.

no lawful authority is delegated to the Legislature to pass "laws" regulating the bearing of arms - period!

Somebody gets it! (Bfoto) Hey suijurisfreeman, could I get a copy of the constructive notice from you?


I carry a cuff key every day on my keyring just as a novelty item. I don't really see why it would be cause for alarm for a police officer.

Ummm, yeah! Novelty item, THATS why I have a cuff key. Jus a novelty.;)

I hope he beats it but I'm too poor to help.:(

Bill St. Clair
January 3, 2004, 03:24 PM
Somebody gets it! (Bfoto) Hey suijurisfreeman, could I get a copy of the constructive notice from you?
It's posted at http://www.thementalmilitia.org/clairefiles/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=218&

Edward429451
January 3, 2004, 03:34 PM
Thanks Bill.:)

Justin
January 3, 2004, 03:45 PM
I'm sorry, but I cannot believe some of what I'm reading here. For a web forum where we seem to pride ourselves on being able to think for ourselves, I see a lot, and I mean a lot of you regurgitating the same fear-mongering idiocy spewed by ignorant reporters.

So effing what if he had a handcuff key? Did he use it to try and escape? Is there now some sort of law against mere "civilians" possessing a set of cuffs?

So what if he had one gun, four guns, or eighty guns loaded in his car? I know that I'm not the only person here who's ever gone to the range with enough guns in a vehicle to invade Bolivia.

To all of you who are applauding his arrest, and joking about it, how would you feel if your collection was laid out for all to see after you'd been busted for breaking a law for which there was no victim, no property damage, or nothing taken?

To you apologists for the state, please, tell me, how are we all safer now that a man who was minding his own business is behind bars?

How is this just? How is it right? How is it that in a country that supposedly upholds personal liberty, a man can be arrested for simply having a pistol on his belt in the wrong location?

In short, since when do we delight in injustice being foisted upon someone over a law that each and every one of you know to be both unconstitutional, and repugnant to anyone who truly believes in personal freedom.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 03:48 PM
So effing what if he had a handcuff key? Did he use it to try and escape?
I don't know, did he get a chance to? :confused:

Atticus
January 3, 2004, 03:53 PM
Well....I'm not really a Law and Order Type, and I certainly think the Ohio law is an unjust one that will be overturned eventually. Until then, I will not strap a few guns to my body, carry swords, wear a ninja suit, or believe that I'm a chartacter out of a fantasy novel. Good luck to those who do. But I sincerely hope he beats it (and will make a donation to his defense fund).

Justin
January 3, 2004, 04:08 PM
I don't know, did he get a chance to? Well, maybe we ought to ban guns, too. After all, he certainly could have used all that hardware to much more devastating effect in an escape attempt than he could a key.

Ian
January 3, 2004, 04:18 PM
To those of you who have contributed to the defense fund or offered to do so, you have my sincerest thanks. I'll post PayPal info as soon as I get it.

To those of you who think that a man should be thrown in prison for 3 years and denied the legal right to own a gun for the rest of his life for committing the heinous crime of carrying a pistol in his car, just go away, ok? This thread isn't intended to convince anyone of anything; it's intended to find those who have a spine, a belief in freedom, and a willingness to help a compatriot in need.

manwithoutahome
January 3, 2004, 04:22 PM
Okay, this will get me banned but I have to say it.

I think that emotions (you know, those things that the anti's go off of) are taking over the situation.

Okay, not all is going to agree on the why's or how's of this thing.

One of our own is in trouble. As if we would stand up for the "black sheep" of a family, we need to step up here.

I don't know if he was just tired, wanted to get home, and forgot, or if he did it for cause, or what. It's not up to me to judge, as it is not up to any of us here. God forbide that I've gotten in trouble (or could have) because I forgot, or was tired.

We don't need to be cutting each other throats here. We all have the ability of getting into trouble, and we all know what can be done to us for not thinking, forgetting, or just wanting to make a stand.

Yes, in my earlier post, I commented that these individual cases are going to nickle and dime us to death, and they well.

I think as a collective, and getting others on board, we could do this abit more effectivily if we just go with a "hail mary" play... but, in the time being, we need to all stand together or hang alone. Sorry for the cliche'.

M

Maimaktes
January 3, 2004, 05:23 PM
This one is really going to bother me, because I know Hunter is a good guy and I know how important and valuable he is to the movement. He's easily worth a hundred "all talk, no action" Internet bigmouths like me.

I *hope* I'll at least be able to chip in *something* to his defense fund, as soon as I *have* anything to chip in. Christmas spending put me behind, and then I had to pay a *giant* phone bill in the nick of time to keep from being disconnected, and now I'm going to be hit with a fat late charge for being two days late making a monthly payment on this dadblasted computer, which I stupidly went back into debt to obtain.

This hellacious business reminds me of why I have never traveled much. It's just too dangerous anymore for an American to try to travel anywhere in his own country. There's too much "law-and-order" anymore. I have refused to fly since late *1978*, not from fear of crashing or terrorism, but because I object to having all or most of my constitutional and human rights violated to get on a plane. I don't want to get on their darn planes that bad. I seldom drive very far either, even in my own state, and I *rarely* drive out of state, largely for fear of -- *not* ordinary, common crime -- but of the police.

I think a lot of people are only for the RKBA as long as the people keeping and bearing arms all look a lot like them, with the same sort of haircuts and cars and houses and habits. A lot of LEOs, especially, when they say they are pro-gun, really just mean they are in favor of *the police*, and perhaps their immediate family members, having guns -- not "civilians" with beards or longish hair ("Must be a pothead!") driving old cars or -- worse yet! -- *walking*.

I had to give up going for walks, the police harrassment got so bad. And no, I'm not black, and I don't have dreadlocks, and I don't have any tatooes or "piercings," and I don't go around dressed in studded black leather from head to toe, nor in camouflage fatigues, nor in in karate pajamas or prophet's robes.

The few graying hairs I have left are kind of longish, and I often go a few days between shaves, but the main problem seemed to be the cane or walking stick I'd take on my walks, partly because I am slightly lame and have poor balance, but mostly as a defense measure against the roving packs of pit bulls, rottweillers, etc., that every inbred, bucktoothed meth cooker around here owns at least one of and allows to roam at large.

Every time I'd go out with a walking stick someone would anonymously tip the police about a "man with a crowbar looking in store windows (in broad daylight)," or even a "man walking down the street with a rifle." Now, a walking stick does not look very much like a rifle, but it looks a lot more like one than Amadou Diallo's wallet did, and look what happened to him.

So here I sit, a virtual prisoner in my own home, not from fear of crime, but of the *police*. I might almost as well be under a kind of house arrest. My health has deteriorated from lack of exercise and fresh air. And people wonder why I have an "attitude," and why I say I could do very well with a great deal *less* "law-and-order," and that it would suit me if all the police resigned en masse and there were no more organized police forces.

"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Maimaktes

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 05:32 PM
Maimaktes that stinks, but it doesn't sound like you have a problem with "Police Harrasent", you have a problem with people calling you in as a suspecious person, thus forcing the Police to repond. Why type of neighborhood do you live/walk in?

repsychler
January 3, 2004, 05:33 PM
Is this law in Ohio wrong/immoral/unconstitutional? Yup.
Should this guy go to jail for having a loaded gun? Nope.
Did he willfully violate that law and get caught? You bet he did!

Less than a year ago I lived in a may-issue state where few permits were issued. I didn't carry illegally, and I sure as hell wouldn't have cried for a legal defense fund if I had. I worked to help change the law and have been carrying legally since June.

Getting caught carrying illegally in a state like Ohio where folks are working hard to change the carry laws does NOTHING to help our cause. It does plenty to hurt it, though.

I got some money to spend on the cause, but I for one will spend it on those that are working to help it.

Atticus
January 3, 2004, 05:38 PM
Like it or not- what we show to the world determines what the world gives back. We all got choices to make, rewards to glean, and prices to pay.

MacViolinist
January 3, 2004, 05:53 PM
I think some confusion here somes from terminology.

A "Law" that violates a right guaranteed by State or Ferderal constitution has no more meaning than if I wrote on a piece of paper that everybody's name is now Susie. It doesn't matter if I have 99% of the people in Texas sign it and say it's a Law. It has no meaning.

So, on to terminology. What should we call these non-law gun laws? Aside from BS.....


-drew

Wildalaska
January 3, 2004, 06:29 PM
There is no constituional right to carry a concealed weapon, and until there is, face the consequences like a man if you break the law.

Comparing this crap to civil disobedience is an insult...ya wanna be civilly disobedient, then make a case out of it..openly and in full view of others...not surreptitiously breaking the law then whining when yoiu get caught.

They lock up inner city teens carrying guns, they should do the same with this joker and I dont care who he is. Whats the difference? Hes an white nternet personality instead of an poor black kid? Yall jump up in arms about all the little black and latino boys arrested everyday in the big cities, amny of them carrying a gun for self protection????...

Dont think so...not quite our crowd ducky...

Ya plays the game ya takes your chances..

Ah the heck with it, why dont we all just disobey laws we dont like...lets get real...we can justify breaking any law we want cant we...incest...violation of right to privacy...kiddie porn...freedom of speech...lets have anarchy!

WilddownwithhypocrisyAlaska

cordex
January 3, 2004, 07:19 PM
Comparing this crap to civil disobedience is an insult...ya wanna be civilly disobedient, then make a case out of it..openly and in full view of others...not surreptitiously breaking the law then whining when yoiu get caught.
This isn't just something that can be compared to civil disobedience, this is unquestionably civil disobedience. Did he flaunt it? No. Is flaunting disobedience of the law a defining factor of civil disobedience? No again.
They lock up inner city teens carrying guns, they should do the same with this joker and I dont care who he is. Whats the difference? Hes an white nternet personality instead of an poor black kid? Yall jump up in arms about all the little black and latino boys arrested everyday in the big cities, amny of them carrying a gun for self protection????...

Dont think so...not quite our crowd ducky...
Why does TheeBadOne only post stories about police officers being shot and killed, and never just some poor (maybe inner-city, black, teen, etc, etc) bloke who got gunned down before the cops ever got there?

I'll tell you why - because his "crowd" is police officers. He's more concerned about his buddies (even buddies he's never met, but extended associates through a shared profession) than some non-LEO who was probably up to no good anyway.

Y'know what? I don't have anything wrong with "inner city teens" carrying weapons to defend themselves. I don't like it when they're arrested for breaking unjust laws (carrying weapons, carrying drugs, etc). But this fellow is part of the online, firearms community. It's the difference between reading about a murder in a newspaper and learning that an associate was gunned down.

Maybe if his case plays well, those pistol-packin' inner city kids might eventually be able to legally carry.

I'm getting sick and tired of this Holier than Thou attitude you try to don whenever these sort of subjects get brought up. No matter how hard you squirm, it just doesn't fit, does it? Especially when you have your own groups that you're plenty bigoted against. Shall we refer back to the "Alaska goes Vermont style" threads?
Ah the heck with it, why dont we all just disobey laws we dont like...lets get real...we can justify breaking any law we want cant we...incest...violation of right to privacy...kiddie porn...freedom of speech...lets have anarchy!
Ah yes, the "Either you follow all laws or you're a bunch of barbarian anarchists!" comeback. I thought you saw things in shades of grey, Wild.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 07:30 PM
Why does Cordex only post stories about police officers being corrupt, foolish, inept, etc, and never just some poor (maybe inner-city, black, etc, etc) hard working bloke Cop who is doing his best in a difficult job?

I'll tell you why - because his "crowd" is LEO haters. He's more concerned about his buddies (even buddies he's never met, but extended associates through a shared hate) than some LEO who was probably up to good faith.

touché ;)

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2004, 07:45 PM
WildAlaska,

What do you not understand about 'the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed'? "Keep" means to store and own, while "bare" means to have on your person. Yes, the 2nd Amendment does protect one's right to concealed carry.

They lock up inner city teens carrying guns, they should do the same with this joker and I dont care who he is

Why does the rightness or wrongness of another action effect what is right or wrong in this situation? If there is a problem somewhere, correct it, but dont commit further injustice because you see some in a different area.

Ah the heck with it, why dont we all just disobey laws we dont like...lets get real...we can justify breaking any law we want cant we...incest...violation of right to privacy...kiddie porn...freedom of speech...lets have anarchy!

Who was he harming? We should disobey laws that infringe on people's rights. If the govt made a law that required you to get a permit if you wanted to practice a certain religion before they approved, would you apply for that permit? What about a permit for freedom of speech?

cordex
January 3, 2004, 07:46 PM
Why does Cordex only post stories about police officers being corrupt, foolish, inept, etc, and never just some poor (maybe inner-city, black, etc, etc) hard working bloke Cop who is doing his best in a difficult job?

I'll tell you why - because his "crowd" is LEO haters. He's more concerned about his buddies (even buddies he's never met, but extended associates through a shared hate) than some LEO who was probably up to good faith.
touché ;)

That's simply untrue, TBO. Utterly and completely false. No accuracy whatsoever. I'm quite confused as to how you came up with that silly lie.

Where to begin?
1. I cannot recall that I have ever posted a story about corrupt, foolish or inept police officers. Commented, to be sure, but I don't think I've started such threads.
2. I'm not a LEO hater. I defend good cops and attack bad ones. Just as I attack bad gun owners and defend good ones.

But why let accuracy stop us, eh?

Balog
January 3, 2004, 08:01 PM
At one point, the law required run-away slaves to be returned to their owners.
At one point, the law required Indians to give up their land without recompense.
At one point, the law required Indians to live where the .gov told them.
At one point, the law required a poll-tax to vote.
At one point, the law required non-whites to use separate facilities from whites.
At one point, the law required citizen's to shelter redcoats in their homes.
At one point, the law required citizen's to comply with arms confiscation. It was a group of patriots violently resisting this law that led to the foundation of our nation.

I could go on. I take it that those of you who think this man should lose the ability to legally own firearms for the rest of his life would have turned those damn "law-breaking" run-away slaves in to the local authorities, huh? And condemned those in the Underground Railroad who sheltered them. Even though they would most likely be beaten, raped, or killed by their masters. I only have one thing to say to you.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

Ian
January 3, 2004, 08:03 PM
Don't some of you guys have other pressing things to do, like turn in your rifles to the proper authorities? :mad:

Wildalaska
January 3, 2004, 08:04 PM
I'm getting sick and tired of this Holier than Thou attitude you try to don whenever these sort of subjects get brought up.

Why? becasue Im not a hypocrite? Because I dont beleive that all people should be able to carry firearms will nilly? Becasue I dont view all law enforcement officers or the ATF as jackbooted thugs? Becasue I dont beleive that all persons should even be able to possess a firearm???

Ah yes, the "Either you follow all laws or you're a bunch of barbarian anarchists!"

Least I dont make up my own intepretation and pick and choose which ones I will obey

Yes, the 2nd Amendment does protect one's right to concealed carry.

Got some legal authority from the Federal Courts that establishes that?

We should disobey laws that infringe on people's rights.

Michael Jackson loves that one...

WildsameargumentreduxAlaska

Jeff Thomas
January 3, 2004, 08:09 PM
Geez. If everyone on this board was busted for every law we've ever broken, none of us would probably have our freedom now ... and that applies to 95% of American adults. There but for the grace of God would go many of us.

The guy's choice and quantity of hardware is interesting, and he didn't set out to commit civil disobedience from the sound of things, but ... he sounds like a peaceful guy, now trapped by bad laws.

Blind obedience and acceptance of bad laws is dangerous. Being a scofflaw is dangerous and wrong. But there is a happy medium there where most folks reside ... and he'll get a contribution from those of us tired of dangerous, anti-self defense laws.

In the meantime, I think it is the decent thing to refrain from mocking the man from the safety of our keyboards ...

Regards from TX

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 08:14 PM
The States can pass laws the mirror Federal law, or are more restrictive then Federal law, but not less restrictive than Federal law. As an example:

Federal Law says BAC for DUI is .10

State Law can set the BAC for DUI at .08, but not at .15

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

Ok, now with that in mind, it's the entire reason that the 2nd Amendment is used whenever addressing RTKBA. It's the best chance to iron out the whole mess. In one swoop address the matter as Constitutional (prohibitting CCW) or Unconstitutional (laws against CCW). It's still important to keep the 1st part of my post in mind when we veer off into other areas.

Just my 2 cents I wanted to add.

TBO

Wildalaska
January 3, 2004, 08:24 PM
I take it that those of you who think this man should lose the ability to legally own firearms for the rest of his life would have turned those damn "law-breaking" run-away slaves in to the local authorities, huh?

The mere fact you would equate the ownership and sale of a human being to a prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons demonstrates how out of touch with political, social, and legal reality your position is.

By the way keep in mind what else the law prohibited at one time....Gay Marraige. Abortion. Hopefully youll be consistent

I repeat what I have said before on numerous threads. It aint the Brady Bunch that will end gun ownership in the US...its the radical gun owners that will

WildisupportNICsAlaska

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2004, 08:37 PM
Wild,

Got some legal authority from the Federal Courts that establishes that?

I dont need any, it seems to be written in English, and I know how to read. If a Federal court told you that it was Constitutional for the govt to ban religion X, would you just turn off your brain and do what they tell you?

Michael Jackson loves that one...

I dont know what your point is. I think he's a child molester and it looks like he's going to get what's coming to him, whats wrong with that?

Please just answer 2 questions for me.

Where was the harm? Show me the slashed tire, stolen money, or assaulted person.

If the govt required a permit to speak in public or to practice your religion, would you apply for such a permit?

Please answer those questions, as it seems that you've dodged them or you're not comfirtable with what your answers will be.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 08:44 PM
Where was the harm? Show me the slashed tire, stolen money, or assaulted person.
There in lies an age old quandry. How do you measure prevention? (just addressing the quote, not as it applies in this particular thread)

Preacherman
January 3, 2004, 08:53 PM
Folks, can we let a little daylight into this smoky room, please? There's too much heat, and not enough light, being generated.

Let me use an analogy to describe the situation in which this gentleman finds himself. If I know that a certain town has a mandatory speed limit of (say) 30 miles per hour on Main Street, and (knowing this) I choose to drive at 60 miles per hour down Main Street, who can I blame except myself if I'm stopped by a cop? I can't blame him - he's enforcing the law, as he is sworn to do. I can't blame the people who designated that particular speed limit - they were doing the job assigned to them by the legally elected government of that town, exercising the authority "of the people, by the people and for the people". If the people didn't like what they were doing, they'd have voted them out of office and replaced them with others. No, the only person to blame here is myself. (I'm ignoring the possibility of extenuating circumstances, of course - if I was rushing to hospital with a snakebite victim in my truck, that's a different scenario altogether.)

In the situation we have here, isn't it basically analogous to that I describe above? This gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, chose to ignore (heck, flagrantly violate!) a law known to him to be in existence. He is now facing the consequences, and has no-one to blame but himself.

To those who say that the Constitution gives them the right to carry a concealed weapon, and that this is an unjust law: fellow shooters, I'm sorry, but you are absolutely, totally and completely WRONG on this point. In centuries of jurisprudence, related not only to the Second Amendment but to every part of the Bill Of Rights, local, state and Federal courts have consistently upheld the view that any and every right is subject to reasonable regulation, and have maintained that for reasons of public safety, governments and their agencies are entitled to regulate the exercise of rights. They may not do so in so strict or severe a manner that the right is fatally undermined or rendered impractical: but they may do so in ways that allow the right to be exercised in safe, legitimate ways. For example, the "right to keep and bear arms" can legally be restricted (as in New Jersey, or **********, or Massachusetts) to certain types of firearms, with restrictions on caliber and/or ammunition capacity and/or "evil" features, and can also be restricted to certain places (e.g. your home or the firing range) and modes of carry (e.g. open carry only, or no armed carry except when the firearm is unloaded and locked away in your vehicle).

No court challenge to any of these rules on the grounds of the Second Amendment has EVER succeeded. Whether you like it or not (and believe me, I don't! :fire: ), that's the reality we live with. It's also why the gentleman under discussion, having made his bed, is going to have to lie on it.

repsychler
January 3, 2004, 09:01 PM
The Preacherman speaks the unfortunate truth.

As far as I'm concerned, until the point when we need to do what the Founding Fathers did, we have to play by the rules as they are set forth. Instead of helping change the rules in Ohio, he ignored them. He undermined the work of those giving their all to change Ohio's CCW law. And frankly thats what pisses me off about this.

Again, I don't think he should go to jail, and I don't think he did anything truly wrong, but he dang well knew the rules, he danced, now he can pay the fiddler.

mpthole
January 3, 2004, 09:01 PM
TheeBadOne said: The States can pass laws the mirror Federal law, or are more restrictive then Federal law, but not less restrictive than Federal law. As an example:

Federal Law says BAC for DUI is .10

State Law can set the BAC for DUI at .08, but not at .15
... Unless they refuse to accept federal (highway) funding - then they can pass whatever laws they want (AFAIK).

IMO, the guy should go free and all of you who say "By golly, ya gotta obey the 'law'" are not on our side. And that's me putting it nicely.

Derek Zeanah
January 3, 2004, 09:08 PM
P-man:

If the state made it a mid-level felony to criticize the state government without prior consent, and that was "the will of the people," would that make it ok?

How about placing limits on the number of children people can have unless they get a waiver (based on income, say) first?

Are these OK? If this was the law, is disobedience OK? Or are we required to follow the law untl we use the vote/courts to change it?

WHat if, heaven forbid, we're in the minority on an issue. Is the "tyrrany of the majority" an OK situation, provided it's on a state-by-state level and not national?

How 'bout my Muslim friends and I all move to deleware, get registered, and push through a law outlawing Catholicism? That one OK too?

Atticus
January 3, 2004, 09:10 PM
I'll take the word of people here that Hunter is a good man...and a righteous proponent of gun rights. Unfortunately, his choice (or absent mindedness or whatever) will be used and abused by the anti-CCW folks in Ohio and elsewhere. He will likely become the focus of the news critters - and he will not be portayed as a law abiding citizen who had a desire to protect himself. He will be portrayed as a wacko...and it will be a very easy thing to do.

Derek Zeanah
January 3, 2004, 09:10 PM
(I wasn't clear. It sounds like P-man is arguing that the results of a 'democratic process' outweight individual rights. In such a case, the individual just needs to suck it up or s/he deserves what they get...)

Balog
January 3, 2004, 09:11 PM
I can't blame him - he's enforcing the law, as he is sworn to do.

That's known as the Nuremberg defense. It was ajudged to be insufficient for the Nazi soldiers using it at Nuremberg. I agree with that ruling.

I'm curious. At the time of the Dred Scot decision, slavery had always been upheld as legal. Run-away slaves by law had to be returned as stolen property. Would you therefore defend those who turned in run-away slaves to be beaten or killed for escaping? If a person knowingly violated this law by sheltering run-away slaves, would you say "This gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, chose to ignore (heck, flagrantly violate!) a law known to him to be in existence. He is now facing the consequences, and has no-one to blame but himself."?

Or let me put it this way.

Let's say we suffer another huge terrorist attack. Only this time, the radical Muslims who committed the act were American citizens born and raised in the CONUS. Let's then say that in the national outcry that arose, the fed.gov passed some "reasonable restrictions" on the freedom of religion. Let's say these included tracking sales of the Qu'ran, disallowing foreign born teachers at mosques, and governmental monitoring of the sermons presented at all mosques. Would you accept this? Why or why not?

zahc
January 3, 2004, 09:18 PM
They may not do so in so strict or severe a manner that the right is fatally undermined or rendered impractical

and I think Ohio's ban on concealed carry does just that.

Balog
January 3, 2004, 09:23 PM
I got to thinking. To all those who say that we must obey the law.

You do understand that this country was founded by people who made a conscious decision to violently resist governmental forces, right? You do know that the war began on April 19th after local militia members killed a number of government officials who were "just doing their job" by trying to confiscate their arms, right?

Are you familiar with the Boston Tea Party? A group of patriots destroying government property simply as an act of protest. Would you view this as a bad decision? Would you contend that they should have been arrested and punished? Here are a few links to info about the event
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/bostonteaparty-edenton.html

http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/episode1.html

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/teaparty.htm



So we see two events where people were killed and property was destroyed "unlawfully." Ask yourself this. If you were alive back then, which side would your present views have placed you on?

Oleg Volk
January 3, 2004, 09:31 PM
Seems to me that by mounting a legal defense instead of hunting the officers who arrested him, the person in question is playing by the rules now.

repsychler
January 3, 2004, 09:36 PM
Yeah, he wants to play by the rules now, and have other people pay for it. Feel free to send him money, I don't care. My dollars will go to someone actually helping RKBA.

Balog
January 3, 2004, 09:42 PM
repsychler: from what I've seen this fellow is a rabid activist who's done a lot to help the RKBA.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 3, 2004, 09:44 PM
WildAlaska:

There is no constituional right to carry a concealed weapon, and until there is, face the consequences like a man if you break the law.

Comparing this crap to civil disobedience is an insult...ya wanna be civilly disobedient, then make a case out of it..openly and in full view of others...not surreptitiously breaking the law then whining when yoiu get caught.


Why do you say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect concealed carry? Can you point to a part of the Federalist papers that discusses this point, or other contemporaneous writings that discuss it?

As for civil disobedience, the Russians practiced it on a massive scale, and at the same time, largely surreptitiously. They had to since they didn't want to wind up going to jail for merely exercising rights garuanteed under the Soviet Constitution...Their actions were no less legitimate for being covert.

Alexander Solzenitsyn used to carry his manuscripts concealed on his person to avoid their confiscation.

Blackcloud6
January 3, 2004, 09:47 PM
To you apologists for the state, please, tell me, how are we all safer now that a man who was minding his own business is behind bars?

As I recall, he was speeding.

riverdog
January 3, 2004, 09:54 PM
For those interested in what Ohio's law actually is, check packing.org] (http://www.packing.org./) under Ohio's "Car/Gun law summary" section:

Date updated: Saturday, January 3, 2004

note: Recent developments indicating that openly carrying a firearm is a fundamental right protected by the Ohio Constitution did nothing to alter the language in 2923.16. Without further changes in the law, an opinion from the attorney general, or direction from the courts the following section of law remains intact. There is no way to "open carry" a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle, and improperly transporting a firearm with a loaded magazine is very risky based on the vague language in this statute:

Section 2923.16

(A) No person shall knowingly discharge a firearm while in or on a motor vehicle.

(B) No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.

(C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless it is unloaded and is carried in one of the following ways:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

(4) In plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

Note: Some case law exists that deems a loaded magazine within reach of a handgun as a "loaded handgun". While the scope of this decision is not known it is likely statewide. Improper transportation is a misdemeanor, concealed carry is a felony.

So it's fair to say that Ohio is fairly draconian, however, the last line says a lot regarding my feelings in this case, "Improper transportation is a misdemeanor, concealed carry is a felony." There are ways to have a gun fairly close by and fall under the misdemeanor rules rather than the felony rules. Under the misdemeanor rules, the LEO wouldn't have seen anything but an innocent bag on the floor.

That said, I follow the law to the letter and normally travel with all firearms in cases locked in back such that para (C) (2) applies. I've had my truck searched by LE called on me by an anonymous caller and the fact that all weapons were in back under a locked bed cover saved my ???.

Personally I would prefer to see a law such as Colorado's "(I) the handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense" applied nation-wide. This would allow folks traveling "through" states via the interstate highways to do so without threat of varying firearm laws state-to-state.

I also keep my speed down and don't draw undue attention to myself regardless of firearms laws.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 3, 2004, 09:57 PM
Preacherman wrote:

To those who say that the Constitution gives them the right to carry a concealed weapon, and that this is an unjust law: fellow shooters, I'm sorry, but you are absolutely, totally and completely WRONG on this point. In centuries of jurisprudence, related not only to the Second Amendment but to every part of the Bill Of Rights, local, state and Federal courts have consistently upheld the view that any and every right is subject to reasonable regulation, and have maintained that for reasons of public safety, governments and their agencies are entitled to regulate the exercise of rights. They may not do so in so strict or severe a manner that the right is fatally undermined or rendered impractical: but they may do so in ways that allow the right to be exercised in safe, legitimate ways. For example, the "right to keep and bear arms" can legally be restricted (as in New Jersey, or **********, or Massachusetts) to certain types of firearms, with restrictions on caliber and/or ammunition capacity and/or "evil" features, and can also be restricted to certain places (e.g. your home or the firing range) and modes of carry (e.g. open carry only, or no armed carry except when the firearm is unloaded and locked away in your vehicle).


Im going to have to disagree with you here. Governments at all levels must show a compelling need for a restriction that must constitute a widespred public good in order to place any restriction on a fundamental Constitutional right.

Where is the compelling need to regulate concealed carry that necessitates liscensing the practice?

The laws against concealed carry don't stop armed robbery, never have and never will. So that can't be the reason. Vermont, as will Alaska in time, has demonstrated that unrestricted concealed carry does not lead to an increase in crime, so there can't be any public good served by these laws.

As for other firearms laws, they are even less worthy when reviewed under the standard of strict scrutiny.

repsychler
January 3, 2004, 10:02 PM
repsychler: from what I've seen this fellow is a rabid activist who's done a lot to help the RKBA.

I know. And I appreciate that. But he screwed up, and now he's hurt the cause. Do I think he should go to jail? Heck no. If I was a lawyer, I'd gladly defend him, pro bono if I could. If I were on his jury, there's no way I'd convict. But am I going to send money, thinking I'm doing some good deed for RKBA? Not a chance.

And to those who call myself and the others apologists and asking when we're going to turn in our rifles, are you going to grab your rifle if this guy gets convicted? If not, don't talk to me about the boston tea party.

Balog
January 3, 2004, 10:25 PM
And to those who call myself and the others apologists and asking when we're going to turn in our rifles, are you going to grab your rifle if this guy gets convicted? If not, don't talk to me about the boston tea party.

Pssst, the BTP didn't involve shooting people. Why should I have to be willing to immediately start an armed rebellion to refer to it? Illogical.

Ian
January 3, 2004, 10:59 PM
repsychler - Just to clarify things, Hunter didn't ask for anything. The people doing the asking are just his friends, who don't want to see him go to jail.

Blackcloud6 - If his only endagering action was speeding (which as a general rule doesn't endanger anyone anyway) then why don't you call the Ohio governor and suggest they drop all the other charges?

Atticus - Why don't you write a letter to the editor or two and help us prevent him from being paraded about as a nutcase?

Wildalaska - If we all just surrender our guns when they become politically incorrect, the Brady Bunch won't even have to break a sweat to see their goals become reality. If you can't support this man, for whatever reason, then PLEASE don't help string him up!

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 11:05 PM
Something's missing here......oh wait, I know what it is!

"Have you read Unintended Concequences by John Ross"?!! :D

Bill St. Clair
January 3, 2004, 11:14 PM
Yes. Those hogs are getting mighty hungry. We've kept them waiting way too long.

No4Mk1*
January 3, 2004, 11:39 PM
He is facing three years in prison for keeping and bearing 2 pistols in an unapproved manner.

Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Balog
January 3, 2004, 11:39 PM
I rather doubt that was the result TBO was going for Bill.

TheeBadOne
January 3, 2004, 11:52 PM
He is facing three years in prison for keeping and bearing 2 pistols in an unapproved manner.
I don't know Ohio law, but I'd be very suprised if he was sentanced to jail time. (unless there's more charges we don't know about).

Ian
January 3, 2004, 11:56 PM
The charges carry a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It's a 4th degree felony there. All it would take to get that penalty is a rights-ignorant jury and an anti-gun judge (both of which seem to be a great supply today).

Tippecanoe
January 4, 2004, 12:00 AM
This is definitely an interesting forum, and topic.

However,
Preacherman says:
-----------------
"but a state has the right to make its own laws "
-----------------

I just can't agree. A state does have the right to make its own laws, so long as they do NOT abrogate the Constitution of the US and of the State in which the laws the law is being made.
The laws that Ohio has made here, and enforcing abrogate *both* the Constitution of the US *and* the State of Ohio.
That is appalling.

And this man should immediately be set free. If he were but in Indiana, he would be fine. To be considered a *felon* for merely crossing the state line, where Constituional guarantees (whre are they?) should be in effect, is just crazy.

P95Carry
January 4, 2004, 12:05 AM
He has been negligent, foolish - or both. I am not going to ''enter the fray'' .... most aspects have surfaced already many times over. I do though imagine he is both regretful in the extreme .. and fearful for what the future holds - I sympathize with his predicament because it seems a potentially very big hole has been dug.

It is perhaps sad to see this sorta case act as a divisive mechanism .... splitting THR people almost into 2 camps. In part maybe predictable but sad nonetheless .... when normally we would expect to all be pretty much on the same page.

It does tho perhaps in that light ... provoke a great deal of deep thinking - perhaps all the better with which for people to ask themselves where they really stand - on rights, ''the law'' and ''justice''. And why!

I return to my ringside seat.

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 12:07 AM
WildAlaska said:Because I dont beleive that all people should be able to carry firearms will nilly?Isn't that the new law in Alaska? Would you work to repeal concealed carry (and open carry) without a permit as allowed by Alaska law?

Maybe you should change your name to Mild Alaska.

For those of you who think that the 2A doesn't apply to the states, one has to remember that the 14A was drafted and introduced by Senator Jacob Howard, in part, to keep the states from infringing on the newly freed slave's right to keep and bear arms (from GunCite):To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be "for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature" to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution ... [including] the right to keep and bear arms ... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.

In the Dred Scot case the Opinion read that if he were a citizen with rights: it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
And before that from William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution" 125 (2d ed. 1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point:"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country .... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

444
January 4, 2004, 12:49 AM
Along a different line, I believe that everyone, everywhere has the GOD given right to defend themselves when nessessary. One simply has to look at nature to see that this was and always will be the right thing to do. Even the smallest mouse will defend it's life if cornered. I don't recognize the government's authority to give or take that right away from me.
This man was on a long trip by himself. At any time he could have broken down along the road, or gotten a flat tire. Every time he stopped for gas, or took a nap, or used the restroom there was at least some chance that he might be in danger. So, rather than look to someone else to protect him, or to gamble on the good nature of others he chose to arm himself for his own protection.
The sin in the whole matter is that the state of Ohio doesn't agree that he has a God given right to defend himself.
Let me ask you this. If you or your family were the victim of a violent crime, would it comfort you to know that you didn't defend yourself because the state said you couldn't ? If one of your children was murdered in front of your eyes and you did nothing to stop it, would you feel better about it because you didn't break any laws by having the means nessessary to defend them ?
To me, there are laws that are moral and just. And there are laws that are unjust and imoral. And yes, I believe that we have the right and obligation to decide which ones we are going to obey. As was mentioned, the Nuremberg defense doesn't hold water.

Sergeant Bob
January 4, 2004, 01:02 AM
P95Carry It is perhaps sad to see this sorta case act as a divisive mechanism .... splitting THR people almost into 2 camps. In part maybe predictable but sad nonetheless .... when normally we would expect to all be pretty much on the same page.
Exactly, those who believe in freedom....and those who want to control it.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2004, 02:19 AM
For AZ

Isn't that the new law in Alaska? Would you work to repeal concealed carry (and open carry) without a permit as allowed by Alaska law?

Yes I would support efforts to repeal non permit concealed carry...

Maybe you should change your name to Mild Alaska.

Maybe you should try taking the High Road...o I forgot, you are on the side of the name callers...whats next...calling me "traitor"?

For 444:

And yes, I believe that we have the right and obligation to decide which ones we are going to obey.

If you want do that fine, as long as you are prepared to pay the price.

For Sarge Bob:

Exactly, those who believe in freedom....and those who want to control it.

I assume your idea of freedom includes all of the social issues that the usaul run of freedom lovers so happily oppose.

Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...

WildneveragainAlaska

Publicola
January 4, 2004, 03:01 AM
First of all I disagree with the man's decision to carry an FAL in his trunk. It should've been a Garand. ;)

When I go out of state - or even out of town - I always have at least 1 long arm with me in addition to any handguns I carry, & enough ammo to last a while in each.

So other than not having a Garand I see nothing wrong with what the man did.

Carried illegally? I'll concede that after y'all concede that the law that made carry illegal is an infringement of a constitutionally acknowledged & protected Right.

Cops just doing their job? Lemme put it this way;

"If the cops insist on playing their role of being an occupying force then the people should play their roles as well - Vive Le Resistance!"

(I forget the source of that quote so if anyone can name the author lemme know)

Cops have a choice as do every one of us; we can either examine the law & support it or hinder it based on our understanding of its legitimacy, or we can blindly follow the law as we march slowly towards Hell.

So if the guy was speeding - which is not concluded unless you value the word of a cop over the word of a citizen - then he should have been ticketed. No problem with that.

But arrested for exercising a Right???

& WildAlaska - mind pointing out to me the exception to "keep & bear" in the 2nd amendment to allow concealed carry laws? I'm aware of the courts logic about this - that regulating the manner in which they are carried does not conflict. I'm also aware that the courts are fallible, & in their logic over this flawed.

But to condemn someone because he violated a prior restraint based prohibition that IS conflicting with at least the federal constitution if not the state???

Disgusting is too mild a word for the attitudes of some here.

What would it take for y'all to back someone facing an immoral law? If the guy was duck hunting with a muzzle loading single barrel shotgun using steel shot & had all the required permits, etc... & charged with some prior restraint based offense (such as not having a pink & yellow ribbon tied around the muzzle as required by law) would you stand up for him or would you dismiss him by saying he should have damn well tied the pink & yellow ribbon on before he went hunting? Course if said fellow was a cop I'm sure personal bias would change your minds. After all, citizens must obey the law - cops must enforce it & never the twain shall meet, right?

Want to know how this should have played out? The gentleman in question should have informed the cop that he'd gladly take the speeding ticket & deal with the matter in court if he chose to contest it, but any attempt at searching him for weapons without probable cause for a violent offense would not be permitted. Then if the cops persisted said cop should have had to contend with immediate & disproportionate force.

To put it simply, the cop attempting to disarm him should have been shot as he attempted to do so.

In this matter the cop in question acted no better than a thief or thug y'all might joke about if he were taken out by a cop.

& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this. A court stating that we do not have the Right to Arms (of which concealed carry is a part) holds no more weight than a court telling me what color my hair should be or what religion I should practice. Yes, they're will always be simple fools who blindly follow any dictates by a court or legislator or president or king or dictator, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them.

& further, it does not matter if the gentleman in question carried purposefully as a protest or simply carried discreetly. He wasn't robbing anyone, threatening anyone or even taking any action at all. He was merely possessing. His motives are & should be his alone & not for us to question.

He should have followed the legal process to get concealed carry legalized before he carried? Aside from the fact that he was not a citizen or resident of the state he was kidnapped in (to call it an arrest is to give it much more legitimacy than it deserves) we are not subject to the legislative process when it comes to Rights, especially those acknowledged by the Constitution. He broke no legitimate law, therefore no process was needed.

But you refer to the idea of a permit system to justify the exercise of a Right? This is as conflicting with the constitution as would be an outright ban on all firearms. It is not "legal" to require a person to pay a fee in order to beg for permission to exercise a basic, fundamental Right. All CCW laws that require such are no damned better than laws that prohibit carry of any kind. But the allure of being one of the chosen few blinds many people to this fact.

& WildAlaska again, I would terrify you. You contend that this is not civil disobedience & that anarchy is a bad thing? First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family, just like I have little sympathy for un-uniformed criminals who get killed in the course of committing violent crimes against citizens.

Second, it's attitudes such as yours which make anarchy a desirable situation. You seem to revel in the authority of the state over others - even going so far as to say that not only who may carry should be restricted, but who may own a firearm should be restricted.

How dare you even mention the word hypocrisy! You own firearms yet you would deny them to others because of superficial criteria. Again disgust is too mild a word. Out of curiosity if I were ever deemed unfit to possess arms (as I'm sure I would be under your criteria) would you attempt to disarm me yourself, or send someone else to carry out your dirty work?

& I say your dirty work because you & people such as yourself are every bit as complicit in disarming people as the cops y'all send to do it. The only thing materially different is the fortitude to be the first one in the door yourself. In principle you & those who would support your erasure of our Rights are possibly worse - since a cop can attempt to plead that he was just following orders. (I say attempt; you do recall the Nuremburg Trials don't you?)

(& WildAlaska - don't feel I'm picking on you. TheeBadOne & others have parroted your lack of respect for the citizen many times here. Yours was just the most convenient to refer to.)

& will somebody please teach logical discourse if not reading comprehension around here? The Rule of Law is not the concept that every citizen should blindly obey any & every law - it's the idea that the government is not above the law. So if a government passes a law that conflicts with its constitution, that law is not to be obeyed. That is the essence of the rule of law.
It would seem that some think the Rule of Law means that every person must subject himself to the whims of the government until he can beg or bribe said government into retracting the law. Tell me, since when did governments need a concept such as this to encourage obedience? Hasn't the government almost always had a monopoly on force?
The Rule of Law was an idea to prevent a government from disobeying its own rules. Thus a King could not order a man's wife to sleep with him so long as the law prevented such. A democracy could not vote 20% of its population into slavery so long as a rule prevented such.
But it has nothing to do with a citizen obeying a just law, let alone an unjust one. Rule of Law is a concept to protect us from government, not to protect government from us or even each other from each other.

So please refrain from using the Rule of Law as justification for the adolescent condemnation of a man exercising his Rights.

& someone opined that the pro-gun extremists will ultimately hurt the "cause". I couldn't agree more. Ya see, us pro-gun extremist will do our damndest to hurt the cause that some of you support - which is gun control for everyone but yourselves & gun prohibitions on every type of gun that you dislike.

In fact pro-gun is not an accurate term for y'all. You cannot be pro-gun & still support prior restraint based gun control. You can't be pro-Life & support first trimester abortions. You can't be pro-religion if you think all but officially recognized ones should be outlawed, you cannot be pro-literacy if you forbid some people to read. & y'all definitely aren't pro-gun when you condone & support laws that are anti-gun, now can ya?

So the cause y'all want to support & see through, I'm opposed to because I am pro-gun. What y'all should realize is that I'm not a pro-gun extremist, or a gun owning radical; I'm simply pro-gun (I prefer pro-Right to Arms but that's beside the point). Another thing that y'all should realize is that if I'm pro-gun & y'all aren't hip to it (or at least support some prior restraint based gun control), then that makes y'all anti gun now doesn't it? What you should do is stop lying by claiming that y'all are pro-gun & decide how far anti you are & describe yourself accordingly.

More info on that can be found here:

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_publicola_archive.html#107267077693252002

& TheeBadOne,
What happened with the BAC limit is that Congress told the states that unless they lowered there's to .10 then they'd have a portion of the money promised to them with held. It's not an accurate example in the context you meant - unless you reject the principles of federalism & view extortion as a legitimate means to achieve your ends. In fact it's even worse than that because the feds have taken money from the people of a state & then used that money they stole to extort them with. It's kind of like a contractor you work for breaking into your house & robbing you then threatening to with hold your paycheck unless you do as he says. Just thought I'd point that out.

To the rest of you - here's a question that I've been trying to find an answer for. If this man can be kidnapped, have his property stolen & face further detainment for exercising a Right, then what about the rest of us? Couldn't we be in this man's shoes? & if we were, what would you want done? Would a legal defense fund be enough, or would you prefer a couple hundred of your friends assemble outside the jail & demand your release Right Now?

If you have the cash I'd recommend contributing to a legal defense fund. But (& admittedly I'm not an optimist about this sort of thing anymore) I doubt the courts will provide relief no matter how expertly the defense is handled. They simply have too much invested in the governments’ power to risk losing a portion of it to the people. So do y'all think this is enough for purposeful civil disobedience, or would you require years more of being persecuted for exercising your Rights & perhaps a more clean cut example in order to justify taking any kind of action?

In short, if this country's war for independence was started because government troops came to disarm the people, then why have we stood idly by for so long as we're being disarmed one by one? Is one person being disarmed not enough justification? Would ten be enough? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?

Sergeant Bob
January 4, 2004, 03:13 AM
I assume your idea of freedom includes all of the social issues that the usaul run of freedom lovers so happily oppose.

Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...
Yes, and you have the freedom to engage in ridiculous hyperbole.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2004, 03:19 AM
Yes, and you have the freedom to engage in ridiculous hyperbole.

Better that than ridiculous hypocrisy.

Wildandtheanswertomyquestionwas?Alaska

Wildalaska
January 4, 2004, 03:49 AM
If the cops insist on playing their role of being an occupying force then the people should play their roles as well - Vive Le Resistance!"

Want to know how this should have played out? The gentleman in question should have informed the cop that he'd gladly take the speeding ticket & deal with the matter in court if he chose to contest it, but any attempt at searching him for weapons without probable cause for a violent offense would not be permitted. Then if the cops persisted said cop should have had to contend with immediate & disproportionate force.

To put it simply, the cop attempting to disarm him should have been shot as he attempted to do so.

& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this.

Aside from the fact that he was not a citizen or resident of the state he was kidnapped in (to call it an arrest is to give it much more legitimacy than it deserves) we are not subject to the legislative process when it comes to Rights, especially those acknowledged by the Constitution. He broke no legitimate law, therefore no process was needed.


First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family,

And there you have it...todays rational and reasonable gun owner...just what we need..an advocate for shooting down cops...

& WildAlaska again, I would terrify you

O trust me you do. Its people like you who I fear the most..its people like you who ensure that I keep a gun...people, criminals, who think that violence is the answer.....dont like abortion?...hell shoot a doctor...dont like a law prohibting concealed carry?...hell shoot a cop...

Make up your own law as you go eh?...just like the Cossacks made up their own law on the spot, just like the Nazis perverted the idea of law, or the Red Guards, or the White Guards...to people like you...order, justice, the mechanics of a civilized society mean nothing UNLESS each and everything in your life is EXACTLY to your liking....its "Rights" remember...and you are the one that defines it for us all right...?

No Mr Publicola, and others of your ilk, I dont fear the US government at all. I work, I come home, I pay my taxes, I fill out all the silly paperwork I have to fill out and I try everyday to obey the laws no matter how silly they are. If I dont like them, I dont sit here and whine about my rights being violated, I work to change them or just shut up about it. But I donrt advocate killing cops. Or indeed killing anybody willy nilly.

How dare you even mention the word hypocrisy! You own firearms yet you would deny them to others because of superficial criteria.

O really...superficial criteria? Like convicted felons, murderers, people whose criminal histories have demonstrated total DISRESPECT for everything good decent Americans work hard for? Besides killing cops, your advocating for them too...???

People like you dont deserve to own firearms in a civilized society. Luckily for you, warped thinking is not a disqualifying criteria on a 4473.

Sometimes I wish it was.

Reading crap like this makes me want to work to tighten gun control laws. The thought of you with an AR15 and a grudge against anyone who doesnt think like yopu scaresx me.

WildrantmodeoffAlaska

Publicola
January 4, 2004, 06:30 AM
WildAlaska,
let's get one thing straight right now - I wouldn't have an Ar-15 or any other version of the M-16. So try to use a real rifle (preferably the Garand) when you indulge in an attempted justification of your anti-gun philosophy.

& among those convicted felons you dare not defend, you have people accussed of non violent crimes. Does it make you feel all warm & fuzzy that because of a bar room fight 35 years ago which he didn't even start that a 68 year old man is denied a firearm in his home for defense? Does it turn you on somehow to sit back & think about a woman being defenseless because she gave a ride to someone with 2 pounds of hash in his bag & got busted for it, even though she was unaware of the contraband? Or is it just the thought that people who do not enforce the law & people who do not mindlessly submit to those that do should be denied their basic Rights in order to generate compliance?


"& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this. A court stating that we do not have the Right to Arms (of which concealed carry is a part) holds no more weight than a court telling me what color my hair should be or what religion I should practice. Yes, they're will always be simple fools who blindly follow any dictates by a court or legislator or president or king or dictator, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them."

That was my statement in full. You quoted only part, which could be easily misconstrued. If you're going to quote me please keep it in context.

& you condensed yout interpretation into something inaccurate concerning my views. I did not advocate "...shooting down cops." as you miscorrectly stated. I advocate using any degree of force necessary to prevent your Rights from being violated. That would not exclude cops from receiving said force if they attempt to deprive you of your Rights. That's a bit different than advocating the random shooting of a person because of his job.

& to tell you the truth I'm not a big fan of violence. But I do realize that sometimes violence is the only answer. Wars have proven this, as well as citizens defending themselves from criminals.

But seeing as how I'm a guy always open to options, then care to explain how a non-violent solution could result in securing our Rights & our property?

It seems to me that Mr. Jordan chose the non-violent route. He was then held against his will & his property confiscated. He will face charges in a court & likely he will be convicted. He will either spend more time being held against his will or he will at minimum receive permanent second (or possibly third) class citizen status.

That is unaceptable. The goal is much like the goal when a woman is confronted by a rapist; not to be raped. Proving that the aggressor's actions were wrong after the fact does nothing for the victim. It helps future victims but for the one in question it cannot take away the pain & sufferring caused.
Similarly tell me how we can non-violently prevent a cop from enforcing a law that violates our most basic human Rights. Tell me how we should respond to the threat or use of force to deprive us of our freedom, dignity, property & Rights?

Until you come up with a non-violent method to accomplish those goals then I'll have to assert that violence in some cases is in fact a correct answer.

& contrary to your misconceptions, no one is talking about making up their own law. What all seem to be saying is that the law is being violated by the kind of persecution that Mr. Jordan is going through.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That ring a bell? I see no exception that allows for prior restraint based gun control laws.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Considering that the search was instigated by the observance of objects relating to the exercise of a Right that the Constitution forbids interfering with, I'd have to say the search & arrest qualify as unreasonable.

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Last time I looked, due process was not the word of a cop. & considering the 2nd & 4th amendment objections, I'd say that he was deprived of liberty & property w/o due process. Further since the law prohibiting concealed carry is unconstitutional, I can think of no legitmate reason for the state to deprive Mr. Jordan of his property, thus the state's actions also run afoul of the last part. Clearly Mr. Jordan's property was taken for public use w/o just compensation. I say public use because the state cannot claim it is evidence of a crime, since the crime they accuse Mr. Jordan of is merely the exercise of his Rights.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It's worth mentioning again that requiring someone to pay for their freedom because they were caught exercising a Right is not only excessive, but cruel.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, just because the constituion names certain Rights, that does not mean those are the only ones there are. The Right to Defense comes to mind as something being denied Mr. Jordan whil they unlawfully detain his property. There are others such as the Right of Liberty - which is being able to travel freely That has been denied Mr. Jordan because of the state's theft of his property - namely his car.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means a state law which interferes with the Right to Arms as guaranteed in the 2nd & 9th amendments to the U.S. Constitution is null & void on the spot. Clearly the state of Ohio has made & is enforcing a law contrary to the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly Mr. Jordan was denied due process as his property was taken from him & his liberty denied him based on the enforcement of an unconstitutional law & before a trial or hearing of any sort could be conducted.

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

That seems to be the Ohio constitution's provision concerning arms. So the law Mr. Jordan was charged with violating seems to have run afoul of two constitutions.

This link is to JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=177&invol=529) It's a case where a conviction of a man killing a policeman was reversed & remanded by SCOTUS because the trial judge erred in denying that the defendant could have used force to resist arrest against the policemen if they were acting beyond their scope of authority. In essence SCOTUS held that if a policeman acts beyond or outside his capacity, that the use of the minimum amount of force, including deadly force, to resist the arrest is justifiable.

This is an excerpt from TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I Sec. 1985 of the U.S. Code. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1985.html)

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;
...in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."

This is TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 242 of the U.S. Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html)

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Both should clearly demonstrate that according to the law any person, badged or unbadged who denies or attempts to deny someone of their Rights is in fact breaking the law. Being criminals of an active & violent nature, it is therefore not inappropriate to recommend the use of force, including deadly force, in order to prevent them from causing the harm they intend. Or do you not support the idea of using deadly force to defend yourself against a violent forcible felony?

So again, please attempt to fact check yourself before making wild accusations. It's not that we are making laws up as we go, we're simply demanding that our Right be respected as the supreme law of the land requires the governments to do.

oh, & it seems to me because of my opinions, not any actions of mine, you have deemed me inappropriate to own firearms. Need I elaborate any more on the dangers of the suspect criteria you'd view as reasonable? Felons are people who could receive more than 1 year in jail for a crime. They are not necessarily untrustworthy with firearms. But even if they were, do you think a law prohibiting them would stop them should they choose to do harm? If that were the case, Chicago & DC & NYC would have the lowest crime rates in the nation, since their laws prevent the law abiding as well as the violent criminals from legal possession of a firearm.
No, what you want would disarm the innocent while not being a major hinderence to those with harmful intent. Because of a court case or an opinion you disagree with we'd all be beasts, on all fours hoping a good steward will protect us from the wolves. No thanks. I'll take my chances with others such as myself that you would deem untrustworthy.

& ya see, you're the one who seeks action against those who do not think like you do:

"Reading crap like this makes me want to work to tighten gun control laws."

All i have done is advocate taking action against those who directly & immedietely deprive someone of their Rights or attempt to do so by force. You would deny me the Right to Arms based upon your dislike of my opinions & you contemplate working for yet more gun control because my words intimidate you.

But I never said anything about taking out anyone for their ideas. I did say that using force against someone who uses force against you is justifiable, even if that person is a cop. There's a distinction in there if you care to actually look.

But my question still stands: how could Mr. Jordan have prevnted the officers from violating his Rights w/o resorting to violence?

Bill St. Clair
January 4, 2004, 07:37 AM
Well said Publicola. One of the big problems we have in this country is blind obedience of authority. Someone puts on a black uniform, a badge, and a funny hat, and many believe that they're somehow special. Anyone who attempts to steal your stuff or kidnap you is a criminal, and you have the absolute right to defend yourself and your stuff, with deadly force if necessary. That is as basic as your right to life, and no legislation can make it otherwise, no matter how many people vote for it. Calling it "confiscation" or "asset forfeiture" or "tax" does not make it other than theft. Calling it "arrest" does not make it other than kidnapping.

No prior restraint law is valid. If there is no victim and no criminal intent, there is no crime. The law has been perverted. No legislature has the authority to invent a new crime out of whole cloth. All crimes that are or ever will be have been part of the common law for centuries. There are particulars to scope out because of new situations, but there are no new crimes. The prior-restraint paper "crimes" that have been created by legislation are tyranny incarnate. We must fight them and those who make and enforce them tooth and nail.

I'm talking here about every gun law, every drug law, every tax law, every licensing and registration law. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

repsychler
January 4, 2004, 08:06 AM
Publicola, Mr. St. Clair, and the others comparing Hunter to Rosa Parks and the Founding Fathers...

If (God forbid) Hunter is convicted and sent to jail, what rifle will you use to alleviate him from this injustice and break him out?

Blackcloud6
January 4, 2004, 09:19 AM
The charges carry a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It's a 4th degree felony there. All it would take to get that penalty is a rights-ignorant jury and an anti-gun judge (both of which seem to be a great supply today).

Then why did he take this risk?

JohnBT
January 4, 2004, 10:36 AM
"First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family, just like I have little sympathy for un-uniformed criminals who get killed in the course of committing violent crimes against citizens."

Little sympathy for him or his family either, huh?

I've heard enough out of you to know I don't want to hear anything else.

John

Ian
January 4, 2004, 11:05 AM
repsychler - That's really not a wise topic to discuss on a public board, IMO.

Blackcloud6 - He took the risk because the law is immoral and unconstitutional. Or perhaps he forgot about OH law and didn't intend to take the risk at all.

repsychler
January 4, 2004, 11:25 AM
repsychler - That's really not a wise topic to discuss on a public board, IMO.

That's OK. I'm not really expecting anyone to back up their blustering about unconstitutional/immoral laws and what the Founding Fathers did about them.

He took the risk because the law is immoral and unconstitutional.

That's exactly right. HE took the risk. HE danced, HE can pay the fiddler.

Or perhaps he forgot about OH law and didn't intend to take the risk at all.

A staunch RKBA activist suddenly forgetting Ohio carry law? I don't even know him and I'll give him more credit than that.

cordex
January 4, 2004, 11:37 AM
WildAlaska,
Least I dont make up my own intepretation and pick and choose which ones I will obey
Sure you do. Or at least I sincerely hope you do. You just happen to feel that all laws currently on the books are appropriate. As soon as one struck you as so morally vile and reprehensible as to be an offense against your values to comply with, I hope you'd have the depth of faith to violate the law and fight against it.
The mere fact you would equate the ownership and sale of a human being to a prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons demonstrates how out of touch with political, social, and legal reality your position is.
Way to sidestep the issue.
How can you claim that all laws must be followed (you don't get to pick and choose) and then whine when someone brings up a law they think should not be followed?
Or do you get to pick and choose?
Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...
Is he harming someone? Assuming the allegations are true, yes. Is he responsible for that harm? Again, if the allegations are true, yes. Should he be punished for harming people? Same answer. That you would compare the act of raping children to the harmless carrying of a firearm shows "how out of touch with political, social, and legal reality your position is. "
It aint the Brady Bunch that will end gun ownership in the US...its the radical gun owners that will
Nah. It's the elitest gun owners that are working the hardest at bringing us into line with the Brady Bunch. Don't worry, Wild. They'll probably
still let you play with your toys because you'll make the neat things that LEO/military folks get to play with.
Becasue I dont view all law enforcement officers or the ATF as jackbooted thugs?
Implying that I do? That's the second time someone has implied that I hate all LEOs or view them as thugs. THIS IS NOT TRUE. If you'd bother to
go back and read some of my posts on the subject, you'd realize that. But it's just so much easier to stop thinking and say "Typical gun-nut.
Must hate all cops."
Heck, I don't even view the ATF (to a man) as jackbooted thugs. From what I gather, they're mostly just bored clerks.
Publicola, Mr. St. Clair, and the others comparing Hunter to Rosa Parks and the Founding Fathers...

If (God forbid) Hunter is convicted and sent to jail, what rifle will you use to alleviate him from this injustice and break him out?
Huh? What armed group stormed the jail that Rosa Parks was in?

suijurisfreeman
January 4, 2004, 11:39 AM
Once again I will ask, where does the Ohio Legislature presume to have acquired the lawfull authority to regulate the bearing of arms?

The Constitution of the State of Ohio, Article I, Section1: "All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possess, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety."

Section 4: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

The right of self-defense is a natural right of a free Human Being, not a civil right granted because you are a member of a civil society.

Section 5: "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, except that, in civil cases, laws may be passed t authorize the rendering of a verdict by the concurrence of not less than three-fourths of the jury."

The right of a trial by jury is not a natural right, jury trials are not found in nature, it's a civil right granted because you are a member of a civil society. But notice that there has been included in Section 5 of Ohio's Bill of Rights an exception. Where is the exception in Section 4 (the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves)? Obviously, it's not included in the wording! Therefore the Ohio Legislature does not have the lawful authority to regulate the people's right to bear arms -period!

The bedrock that the concept of "the rule of law" rests on is that, "All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, these rights cannot lawfully be regulated by the people's agent (government). The Bill of Rights is the people's NO TRESPASSING SIGN, don't treat here warning to their servants (government).

So again I will ask, where does the Ohio Legislature presume to get the lawful authority to regulate the people's right to bear arms?

Highland Ranger
January 4, 2004, 11:45 AM
The NRA learned this lesson in the 90's - rabid, "let's overthrow the government" "gun nuts" are what lost us our rights. And man, a lot of you guys are making me rethink my participation in this board because you are foaming at the mouth.

Calm, measured, thoughtful working of the system is what got our rights back.

This gentleman, and I wish him no harm because it could be any one of us, was NOT engaged in civil disobedience, he was engaged in ARROGANT flaunting of the LAW.

And as we all know, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Had he driven across the state line in an act of civil disobedience with Press cameras flashing then that would be something different.

That was not the case; this man doesn't bother with the law, thinking it doesn't apply to him. And as such he dismisses our (or at least my) society as a whole.

Comparing this man to anything having to do with slavery or civil rights is disgusting. Comapring law abiding citizens to Nazi's is ignorant. Both of these comparisons are WAY out of scale with what we are talking about here.

He obviously has good friends and I wish him luck - but this action does not make him a hero by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as legal defense funds, has the NRA or any of the other pro 2a groups been contacted? I wonder if they will render assistance?

My guess is they will not . . . .

geekWithA.45
January 4, 2004, 12:06 PM
A fundamental premise of America is that the Power of the State and its agents are limited and constrained, in the favor of the individual.

The State, (comprised of and reflecting the Majority of the People ) MAY NOT LEGITIMATELY DO CERTAIN THINGS.

The power of the Many is indeed checked, stopped dead in its tracks and confounded by the Rights of the One who dares stand his ground and claim
them.

Acts of Congress and States that are not pursuant to (made in accordance with) the Constitution are immediately repugnant, null, and void:


The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
--16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177; late 2d, Sec 256



Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187

There is absolutely NOTHING more dangerous to Liberty than simply yielding it, and living as if you don't have any.


Argue For Your Limitations, And You Get To Keep Them.
--Richard Bach


The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

{emphasis mine}


Now, if this community, arguably one of the most sane and rational can't agree in principle that a person, any person, has the rightful prerogative to belligerently claim their Rights, then we really don't have any, and there isn't a whole lot more to discuss.

{Hat Tip to Mark ODell for the link to many of those quotes}


Relevent section from
AGS Memo Revisited (http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_12_21_geekwitha45_archive.html#107206495184679322), a blogpost from last week that touches on this subject:


I have to convey an additional warning to the RKBA community at large.

The RKBA community understands that in order to retain respect, it needs to be comprised of upstanding, law abiding citizens. To that end, a certain self corrective defensive dynamic has taken shape, where in members who don't obey the law to a T are essentially expelled, and the citizens in good standing are pretty quick to close ranks and carry on.

I understand, and generally support this important principle, because we genuinely don't want to associate with, or be associated with the Tim McVeighs, Lee Malvos, skinheads, neo-nazis, and haters of the world.

That being said, take heed: The outrages that we will suffer as gun owners won't begin with the upstanding pillars of the community. ... The waters will be tested first on those for whom little public sympathy is likely to materialize, and the meters and guages of public opinion and outrage will be watched closely.

The danger is that if we scrutinize each individual event of outrage so closely to see if the victim of oppression was pure of heart and possessed of golden virtue, we can loose sight of the overall picture and the emergent pattern.

I am NOT saying that we shouldn't continue to police ourselves, what I am saying is that we need to remember that the greatest of us is only as free as the least of us, and that I will rain down moral opprobrium and disgust upon the next person who says the equivalent of "Well, he should have paid more attention to filling out his paperwork, or packing his range bag carefully in full accordance with the laws and regulations, and therefore he therefore deserves what he got."

That is called "blaming the victim", and it's no joke. In NJ, CA, MA, MD, and IL any of us can get caught in the web of legal landmines all too easily, and damn near every violation is a FELONY. In NJ, for example, stopping for milk on the way home from the range with your guns unloaded, in locked cases in your trunk is enough to qualify.

I ???? you not.

Is THAT the future you want?

If it was someone you know, would you really tell them to their face they should have gone home, humped their gunboxes out of their car, locked them in the safe, and then gone back out for milk? Well obviously, they should have, because now they have to spend their time and money in a desparate defense, but that makes it pragmatic. It doesn't make it right. Yes, keeping arms comes with some serious responsibilities, but those natural and valid responsibilities are small compared to the unnatural burdens that can be created by law and regulation.

I do not object to maximum enforcement against genuine violent criminals and terrorists. As far as the predators of the world go, GOOD RIDDANCE TO THEM, THROW AWAY THE DAMNED KEY.

The problem is that "gun crime" is on the verge of undergoing a sea change from predators using guns to take what they want, be it life, limb or property, to "gun crime" being defined as any of a myriad of minor violations of rules that have no real bearing on anything beyond themselves. In some corners of the USA, the level of discipline and awareness required to lawfully retain your arms and stay out of jail far, far exceeds what is natural and just.

And if that sea change should ever become complete, it won't be the marginal folks they'll be going after, it'll be guys like you and me, who are bold enough to stand up in public and claim and publicly act upon our right to own a battle rifle.


While I don't agree with Hunter's decision to proceed in the way he did for pragmatic reasons, It is not my place to tell him he had no prerogative to "belligerently claim his rights."

standingbear
January 4, 2004, 12:14 PM
instead of attacking the man with the guns or the trooper that stopped him..why not take a look at how it became that hes in the doo doo that he is in.ohio has draconian gun laws,we all know this yet many people would rather shrug at it from out of state because thats ohio and not the state theyre in.it doesnt affect them as a whole.Well..now it does.its all about control and thats not just here in ohio.the situation in ohio is this-there is a shooter driving up and down the freeway taking pot shots at cars and houses.Govt agencies involved yet no one can catch the shooter.rewards offered locally(something like $40k now?) resulting in profiling.people will do anythintg for that much money.it could be someone saw his sidearm-being from out of town..maybe he was profiled.i dunno.that whole area is being monitored now because of the 270 shootings along with connecting roads and interstates.the arrest drew alot of attention and the media played it like an ace.the sheeple think he's a terrorist or even the 270 shooter.the rest of us know whats going on,we just cant decide who to blame.ohio is just 1 piece of a gun control puzzle..it affects all of us.

Glock Glockler
January 4, 2004, 12:45 PM
I've got a very few simple questions that no one seems to want to answer:

If the govt passed a law requiring everybody to apply for a religion permit, would you go and do it?

Would you do so because the law required it, even though you didnt agree with the law but work to change the law?

What about a speech permit?

Ian
January 4, 2004, 12:50 PM
Update: KABA.com will be taking credit card donations - hopefully their page for that will be up and running by Monday.

Also, anyone interested in making a non-credit-card donation is requested to contact Sunni Maravillosa (sunni at free-market.net) about logistics. If you have PGP, her public key is:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>

mQGiBDyDq1oRBADIdAvbHy+gesiS7Xm4udy4oM4NuQrXNiyC1wGUE5+UdIqox1xl
aGrcbYymlX7FYb0TtEK6rCVx3Te3BWINLzo0aOLqg9vKgxBIl9Gy7ky5fukTvwgE
Q1JL6FOj6tTTNd1+H/EUTVVExU0VC7Ipc3fIa4T3xUoRXOMyK2WL090K4QCg/wrW
E3+VfziLKpUfhF2BfFcNKcUEAMHGSwxSmQehqGzjr4hqkv8G2+T4zpXhbw2ZLqMi
bLkzAfxFvryOd0BFA4tKYnGwLE5ysuUWQ/uo7wBk7eqCGsrm/urcCLgaEQs6cl4b
/t9jr15BSNY2vIgFcJH3lSPvzcFDeUnS2tfWFk/qG6UoGkzsz9z26FmIZ1YhU9Bk
xJ9mBADBtZiFYGHTEEeIrlsvDsOG7TpjbXeCyb5tn3nQHOWH4u+zdxVKagf7nk0v
6+XyDAEKStcanriOCsgA2K7IsN5e6Run9Syrc905kmG+C/7RpMybp6FrAs1Eu0Dg
lwKWBFuoN0fe6qFmjKhR8+TSrDdc82/MyVEf3Gx3Ch6pndtlobQwU3VubmkgTWFy
YXZpbGxvc2EsIFBoLkQuIDxzdW5uaUBmcmVlLW1hcmtldC5uZXQ+iQBYBBARAgAY
BQI8g6taCAsDCQgHAgEKAhkBBRsDAAAAAAoJEFnxTRdgrGQ+K1kAoIeeBuuhUYuQ
NNBoR7+vDmvgTc2jAJ9Gc4bRvKhzMzzLanzyRYhsR0Wq4okARgQQEQIABgUCPMMm
kAAKCRCwXG43Ovqyk4dIAKDmiOdZpk9+XFC+aCpgeUAcw12XrQCfYLLOJV25PCMW
FnqnhRMa9+ubi9S5BA0EPIOrWhAQAPkYoH5aBmF6Q5CV3AVsh4bsYezNRR8O2OCj
ecbJ3HoLrOQ/40aUtjBKU9d8AhZIgLUV5SmZqZ8HdNP/46HFliBOmGW42A3uEF2r
thccUdhQyiJXQym+lehWKzh4XAvb+ExN1eOqRsz7zhfoKp0UYeOEqU/Rg4Soebbv
j6dDRgjGzB13VyQ4SuLE8OiOE2eXTpITYfbb6yUOF/32mPfIfHmwch04dfv2wXPE
gxEmK0Ngw+Po1gr9oSgmC66prrNlD6IAUwGgfNaroxIe+g8qzh90hE/K8xfzpEDp
19J3tkItAjbBJstoXp18mAkKjX4t7eRdefXUkk+bGI78KqdLfDL2Qle3CH8IF3Ki
utapQvMF6PlTETlPtvFuuUs4INoBp1ajFOmPQFXz0AfGy0OplK33TGSGSfgMg71l
6RfUodNQ+PVZX9x2Uk89PY3bzpnhV5JZzf24rnRPxfx2vIPFRzBhznzJZv8V+bv9
kV7HAarTW56NoKVyOtQa8L9GAFgr5fSI/VhOSdvNILSd5JEHNmszbDgNRR0PfIiz
HHxbLY7288kjwEPwpVsYjY67VYy4XTjTNP18F1dDox0YbN4zISy1Kv884bEpQBgR
jXyEpwpy1obEAxnIByl6ypUM2Zafq9AKUJsCRtMIPWakXUGfnHy9iUsiGSa6q6Je
w1XrPdYXAAICEADeeEBMqveJzpizNbEj18NKXcAGTYifDGFrwgxi2HeyPc8YeCAI
mPeL1MEfappmPGToyOwk0Et8HRYwBkvGgsSs2i77TnKFjdE63UDJ+rIUR4WRRQEp
LGlSkgAisko0JRnNgUqtBWf/9oDVOEY2TmOH+0B29N5iDmxpF3qAg9+E7CmsGG8D
n3XFwmfo151QyMhRPa9DVaVcrn29vknsIFEBciRRTP/1fsiJ8QDOLqBjxUqNzP88
55X2xLnVTPGRmXhecZLJPEtbtqtYply/uL/gR440sC8T4oeAce3sB7EcOS/gYDiZ
gSjdRxjeYCPr1uhmsOxewbg24OAX9a+Un6UOAX+ukSMLzL3S1vOgCJ9+ki/HPuVe
b0yERP2fmfhIU/YBtP5O/8sPa/+x4FJsWz4X0CIO4usbcuKrG3wL9j4lweHYAtar
5K+Lfcmd7QMIKVx6vrxG6vnzTAAlzTVFRcclwy9EETYAKl7GXytjoJAETqbhx/BY
Ko8abPmSFRqte6ybAeXAbFTGKrh9iU5CEG22uOeAynWsD/xu5a8ShuTdzMnsyh1O
NluFgOTDA/4tpNC70aVa4UiBQtrJbh1nIiA2HH/mmFvyuRcg4XChvNyGfyQqyPOh
oTKbWKN8mLfN7a9UjiLAvaRixXsFZF2Y8krv+fc8OvEvPve9n8mdwO/yBYkATAQY
EQIADAUCPIOrWgUbDAAAAAAKCRBZ8U0XYKxkPnv5AKDKZS4Avi0gZqkt+G1yr5lQ
Rtj2YQCfYY+xzbBfb3BW31RzXH+Xq1tNbjM=
=Tug0
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

El Tejon
January 4, 2004, 12:57 PM
Speech permit? Isn't that campaign finance "reform"?:D :uhoh:

rock jock
January 4, 2004, 01:31 PM
dedicated freedom activist
Well, if that means an extremist libertarian, ala Rick Stanley, than he has neither my sympathy nor support.

repsychler
January 4, 2004, 01:56 PM
I've got a very few simple questions that no one seems to want to answer:
If the govt passed a law requiring everybody to apply for a religion permit, would you go and do it?
Would you do so because the law required it, even though you didnt agree with the law but work to change the law?
What about a speech permit?

Strawman argument, as well as not applicable. This case involves the second amendment, not the first.

Up until this spring, I couldn't get a carry permit. I didn't ignore the law and carry anyway, I, along with many others, worked to change it. Now I have a carry permit. Yup, I have to have a permit to exercise my natural right to self defense. But once again, I do not choose to ignore the law. I get my permit, and I carry in accordance with that law, and will continue to do what I can to change the law to the way it should be. (Vermont/Alaska)

So here we come to Mr Jordan, while traveling though a state known to be extrememly hostile for those that wish to carry, chooses to ignore local law and carry anyway. That's fine, I don't blame him. I don't think he did anything truly wrong. But he did knowingly break the law, and there will be consequences for it. He didn't do this for us, the RKBA community. He did it because he wanted to carry, local law and local RKBA'ers be damned.

So I'll say it once again, Hunter did nothing morally wrong. He should not go to jail. The state of Ohio is wrong. But I will not rally behind him like this is some great crusade for RKBA.

One day, heaven forbid, it may no longer be possible to work for change within the confines of the law. On that day, we may need to invoke the true meaning and the full force of the second amendment. But for now, I will work within the laws as they are set, to change them for the better. Its working. I believe it will continue to work. So unless you are ready to follow in the Founding Fathers footsteps today, I grow tired of listening to hot air about how I'm pissing on George Washington's grave.

Publicola
January 4, 2004, 01:56 PM
Pardon me, but there's a slight misconception here I must briefly address;

The NRA didn't learn that a hard line no compromise approach didn't work in the 90's. In fact they have NEVER taken anything close to a hard line approach.

Ya see, there were 4 yeard where the 2nd amendment took real big hits; 1934, 1968, 1986 & 1994.

Now would someone tell me where were the hard line gun nuts in 1934? They were out shooting their damn Thompsons, that's where. They weren't in DC fighting the passage of the NFA. Know why? Cause before '34 there was no federal gun control law. It simply wasn't an issue. There wasn't an outcrying of a sizable minority to pass gu control laws; it was simply an attempt by congress to A; push its authority & B; keep all the damn revenuers employed (prohibition had just ended).
In 1968 it was almost the same thing. Gun owners were perhaps a bit more aware but they didn't really think it'd happen, at least those not on the inside of the bigger clubs & orgs. & ya know what? It simply didn't generate that much debate. Certainly not to the point where millions of gun owners were engaged in a heated battle with the anti's.

1986 - ah, almost a good year. the FOPA passed, but at the last minute the Hughes amendment was slipped in. That effectively froze the supply of machine guns available to civilians. But again, gun owners weren't really aware that it was gonna happen as it did, so there was no mass protest. However it was closer to the level of outrage that you'd expect over any similar gun law today.

1994. There were a lot of gun owners watching closely & visibly upset by the Brady Bill & the AWB ban. It passed anyway. A lot of politicans lost their seats because they voted for it, but that was more revenge than prevention.

So in all those years their is one consistent thing; The NRA. They worked out a compromise to every gun law that was proposed, save the NFA which they were on board with as soon as the language relating to pistols was dropped. The NRA has supported every gun control law that came down the pike. Not explicitly, & in a few cases their support of said law was limited to claiming it was useless to fight. But right now they support the strict enforcement of evey law on the books. they have since I remember.

In the 90's one thing happened that made me think there was some hope for the NRA: LaPierre made his famous "jack booted thugs" statement about the BATF. He later retracted. I coudl be mistaken but I seem to recall that the NRA gained a lot of members after LaPierre's statement.

But the anti's played it as the radical view was not approved of by the majority of NRA members. Bush Sr. dropped his membership b/c of the "jackbooted thugs" comment but I'd wager he was in a very small minority.

So it is not true that the NRA backed off a hard line approach because it didn't work. They backed off from one comment uttered by a VP. why they did it? probably cause it pissed off the jack booted thugs & they complained to their favorite congress critter.

& as to calm & measured approaches getting us our Rights back? When the hell did that happen? The only difference that could be possibly misconstrued as being an improvement between 75 years ago & now is that some states let ou beg & pay for approval to carry. Everything else is worse. There are more gun control laws on the federal level now than ever & I can only think of two that have been amended favorably.

As to the comments about no one being above the law, please re-read my post concerning the Rule of Law & its proper application. To sum up the "no one is above the law" quote was used in the context that a king or other ruler is accountable to the law just as we are. But re-directing it towards the citizen or subject you're turing its original meaning on its head.

But look at it this way - Mr. Jordan broke a law. But that law conflicts with 2 constitutions. So it is not a case of breaking a valid law, but rather one which is void on its face because the law itself violates the law.

If there was a constitutional amendment saying you did not have to jump when an officer of the law directed you to & they passed a law later one whcih said that when an officer tells you to, you must jump - would you look on any non-jumpers as criminals deserving of the penalty they recieve? Or would you say that the law conflicts with the Constitution & therefore its out of governments power to enact or enforce said law?

& I do not recall comparing Mr. Jordan to either Mrs. Parks or the founding fathers.

But I will offer you this:

in 1775 the rightful government of Massachussetts ordered the army into Concord for the purpose of confiscating arms. Certain citizens organized into paramilitary units met this army & fired upon them. Those citizens commited treason against their country & fired on government troops.

Now Mr. Jordan vilated an Ohio law that conflicts with the constitutoons applicable there. Mr. Jordan peacefully complied with the officers orders & depsite being armed he allowed himself to be arrested & held.

Y'all would condemn Mr. Jordan for acting peaceably when he wa wrongfully arrested, berate anyone who says that armed resistance to such intrusion upon our Rights would be justified, but still hold the citizens at Concord in high esteem? Doesn't anyone else see a disconnect in logic there?

Finally as to the question concerning whcih rifle I would use to break someone out of jail after ebing convicted of violating an unconstitutional law - well my first choice would be a Garand. :cool:

But you seem to misunderstand; breaking one person out of jail, even if successful won't do much good (except to that person who'd be damn thankful). It'd take a whole community to march on the jail & demand the fellow be released. Of course the state & or the feds would get involved & it'd get messy, which is why you'd need numbers on your side, as well as a good strategy.

But the goal is not to bust someone out: the goal is to keep someone from going in. Just like rape: it's preferable to stop the aggressor BEFORE the rape occurs. Doing it after is of no immediete benefit to the victim. Doing it during is better than nothing, but still not comparable to stopping the rape before it happens.

That being said, if the people of Ohio got together & marched on the jail after Mr. Jordan was convicted & demanded his release, I would regret not being there with them.

But don't worry. That won't happen. Not for him, not for me, not for you. We cannot seem to get enough of us gun nuts extremist types together in one place to accomplish anything like that. & the rest of the people are torn between condemning people like Mr. Jordan for committing a "felony" & watching prime time t.v.

Daedalus
January 4, 2004, 02:32 PM
Since everyone else is staking out their opinion on this, I think I shoudl elaborate mine.
In my opinion the law is an unjust one due to prior restraint, and I think it should be overturned. I do not live in Ohio, and therefore the Ohio legislature is out of my reach. When someone is charged with a beaking this law, and requests help in funding a legal defense that may end up overturning the law, I now have an opportunity to help change the law in Ohio.
If this man goes to court, puts up a defense that calls the law unconstitutional and wins, then I think it goes a long way for gun rights in Ohio, and potentially across the nation. If he goes to court and loses his case, he goes to jail. He chose to break a law, and he knows the consequences of his actions. Using the judicial system to effect change is one of the ways to overturn unjust legislation, and also the riskiest.
If you disagree with the law in Ohio and want it taken off the books, helping out "Hunter" is one way you can do that.
If you think the law is a good one, you can call him a criminal, but in my experience not all criminals are bad people.

Ian
January 4, 2004, 02:37 PM
So, repsychler, Hunter's right, Ohio's wrong, and you aren't even willing to give him any verbal support. Hell, you aren't willing to say nothing rather than help Ohio try to condemn him. That is disgusting.

Don't you understand that fighting this in court rather than plea bargaining - at great risk to one's own freedom - IS working within the law? And that working within the law requires a vast amount of publicity and financial support?

Highland Ranger
January 4, 2004, 03:05 PM
The NRA didn't learn that a hard line no compromise approach didn't work in the 90's. In fact they have NEVER taken anything close to a hard line approach.


I'm paraphrasing here but my recollection of the NRA approach in the early 90's was, "we need these guns to overthrow the government if they get out of line" to "we need these guns for self defense"

Which is why I let my membership lapse in the 90's and also why I am now a member again. And why I will not become a life member.

Label those however you like (hard line, soft whatever), but the fact is that most people's perception of the NRA is the former and they need to do something about it. That early 90's hard line approach is basically scary as hell to most people, even most gun owners.

Maybe some of this is just window dressing - "defense" implies defense against any threat no? So what's the difference? None. Just being smart in the world of TODAY.

Re your argument about better and worse: my understanding is that more states have right to carry laws than ten years ago, correct? Like a lot more.

So references to how many flintlocks Thomas Jefferson owned not withstanding, this is the RIGHT direction. That would be things getting BETTER. Now if you compare today with another historical time frame perhaps not . . . . but that's irrelevant no?

Re: No one is above the law - has no head; it means just that. NO ONE. King or peasant. You play, you pay. And remember, the guy wasn't just carrying a single gun and stopped for a papers check at a roadblock. Multiple weapons and caught speeding. Come on now - not horrible, but really, is this completely unreasonable? I mean you're asking for trouble no?

Re Ohioians marching to jail: For what? A "Gun Nut" who may be shooting at their babies on the highway? Fat chance.

Use the bear hunt in NJ as an example: we had our first hunt in something like 30 years this year. Why? Because regular people, not "gun nuts" or "redneck hunters" realized that it was the right thing to do for public safety. I hope that someday we'll be able to say the same about a right to carry law in NJ.

But the way to this is not by speeding down the NJ turnpike with a car full of guns . . . . its in educating the masses . . . .

This guy is no hero and did no one any favors in Ohio least of all people trying to advance the RKBA cause.

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 03:08 PM
What about a speech permit?

Strawman argument, as well as not applicable. This case involves the second amendment, not the first.
Strawman? You may recall that The City of Chicago is now registering reporters. It's for the children, they say... there might be felons among the reporters who might do a story on, oh, a juvenile detention center.
Yup, I have to have a permit to exercise my natural right to self defense. But once again, I do not choose to ignore the law.
You chose not to ignore the law because you hadn't the need. Recently in the news a New Jersey woman who had been raped was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.

Is she a good person or a bad person? If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?
So here we come to Mr Jordan, while traveling though a state known to be extrememly hostile for those that wish to carry, chooses to ignore local law and carry anyway...He didn't do this for us, the RKBA community. He did it because he wanted to carry, local law and local RKBA'ers be damned.
And what of Ohio's Mr. Feeley? You know, the wholesale food delivery person who carried a gun because his co-worker was robbed? I don't know if he had you in mind either, but he felt that he came under Ohio's "affirmative defense" as a "prudent person." Talk about vague. But Ohio v Feeley was a landmark case. Tell us, how would you have voted on Feeley's jury? Did you contribute to his legal defense? I did. Can you think of any case where you might contribute time or money?
But I will not rally behind him like this is some great crusade for RKBA. Oh, I guess you just answered that question, didn't you?

Rick

repsychler
January 4, 2004, 03:13 PM
So, repsychler, Hunter's right, Ohio's wrong, and you aren't even willing to give him any verbal support.

Beyond what I've already said, no. I've already said he shouldn't go to jail. I've already said if I were a lawyer I'd defend him. But I'm not going to rah rah rah rally around him like he did this to be a champion of RKBA. He did this, knowing full well the consequences, out of his own desire to carry. If anything, he hurt RKBA in Ohio by giving fuel to the anti's fire.

Hell, you aren't willing to say nothing rather than help Ohio try to condemn him. That is disgusting.

What exactly have I done to help Ohio condemn him? Did I tell him to carry those pistols? Did I tell him to make little or no attempt to conceal them? Did I tell him to speed while doing it?

Don't you understand that fighting this in court rather than plea bargaining - at great risk to one's own freedom - IS working within the law? And that working within the law requires a vast amount of publicity and financial support?

Well then why didn't he have his legal team and funding set up before he began his great crusade to bring freedom, justice and the RKBA to the oppressed peoples of Ohio?

Ian
January 4, 2004, 03:20 PM
Highland Ranger - He had a carry pistol and a BUG, just as many of us do. They're perfectly legal in his home state of NH, and a handful of other states he's also licensed in. His FAL was unloaded and locked away in a box in the back (his truck doesn't have a trunk, so he build a storage box in the back). The swords were replica Lord of the Rings blades he had taken to show his neices over Christmas and a machete he uses fairly regularly to clear roads in NH. The "knives" were a variety of things from folders to Leatherman and Gerber tools, some on his person and some locked up in the case with the rifle.

Furthermore, as a person who's made a number of long interstate road trips, I can tell you that virtually everyone breaks the speed limit on highways. Speeding and reckless driving are two totally different things.

repsychler
January 4, 2004, 03:21 PM
You chose not to ignore the law because you hadn't the need.

*** do you know of my needs?

Recently in the news a New Jersey woman who had been raped was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
Is she a good person or a bad person?

I don't know. All I know about her is she was raped and she carried a concealed weapon, neither of which qualifies her as a bad person.


If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?

Have you read my posts? I've already answered this question.

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 03:36 PM
Feeley didn't have a legal team set up before his arrest. Are you condemning him as well?
I'm paraphrasing here but my recollection of the NRA approach in the early 90's was, "we need these guns to overthrow the government if they get out of line" to "we need these guns for self defense"
Since your argument depends on that phantom quote, I suggest you go find it. And that "Jack-Booted Thug" quote was actually coined by liberal Democrat Congressman John Dingel who, with folks from both sides of the aisle were peeved at the roughshod manner in which BATF agents were conducting "business" and violating peoples' rights.

But, dang. You don't even like the reference to self defense? Talk about nambi-pambi. This from James Madison in Federalist #46 must really soften your stool:Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.Madison is talking about rebellion, there. He was well aware of the meaning. Are you?
Which is why I let my membership lapse in the 90's and also why I am now a member again. And why I will not become a life member.You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws." That's what they say...
That early 90's hard line approach is basically scary as hell to most people, even most gun owners.I'd bet they would shivver at the words of Madison in #46, Hamilton in #29, and Patrick Henry or Richard Henry Lee. So, why should I care? The point is where is right and wrong? I'm comfortable being on the side of the Framers, are you?
Maybe some of this is just window dressing - "defense" implies defense against any threat no? So what's the difference? None. Talk about strawmen...
Re your argument about better and worse: my understanding is that more states have right to carry laws than ten years ago, correct? Like a lot more.No. Only one more state has a right to carry. That would be Alaska. The rest are permitting systems with fingerprints and background checks and databases. That ain't no right.
Re: No one is above the lawThe Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. They choose to ignore it.
And remember, the guy wasn't just carrying a single gun and stopped for a papers check at a roadblock. Multiple weapons and caught speeding. ..I mean you're asking for trouble no?Heck, that's me everyday. And I drive 80mph (with another 10,000 friends) down to work along I-17 in Phoenix). So what?
we had our first hunt in something like 30 years this year. Why? Because regular people, not "gun nuts" or "redneck hunters" realized that it was the right thing to do for public safety.It would be foolish for a gun rights activist to claim this argument. The antis are quite willing to say, "we don't want to take away anyone's hunting rifle..." Hunting is a permitted (licensed) act as well. And believe me, they will take it away. In 30 years when bears become over-populated again, or deers get run over enmasse, NJ might just as well have all of the LEOs volunteer to do the hunting for you, because they're more trustworthy.
But the way to this is not by speeding down the NJ turnpike with a car full of guns . . . . its in educating the masses . . . .I don't want a softie doing the education for me. You'll end up agreeing to replace the Brady BackGround Check with a computerized database. Gee, thanks.
This guy is no hero and did no one any favors in Ohio least of all people trying to advance the RKBA cause.Tell that to Mr. Feeley.

If you're an activist, you mobilize to make the statists work harder. You don't bury your head in the sand and let the lions eat a member of your herd (heck, he was sick, old, weak). You band together and take your hooves to the side of the predators, be they bearing criminal records or LEO credentials.

Rick

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 03:41 PM
*** do you know of my needs?
You actions speak of your needs and willingness to meet them. If there is more to your story, please post it here. Otherwise...
All I know about her is she was raped and she carried a concealed weapon, neither of which qualifies her as a bad person.
I have more respect for her than someone who wouldn't
If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?
Have you read my posts? I've already answered this question.
I didn't pose that question before.

You can answer it or not. One word: either "guilty" or "innocent."

And would you contribute to her legal defense fund? She wasn't an RKBA crusader. No TV cameras in tow for her.

Rick

Malone LaVeigh
January 4, 2004, 03:46 PM
Wow. Interesting (and telling) discussion here. See my comment elsewhere about some people around here making good body servants. Then I would like to make a few points:

1) Yes, this could be considered civil disobedience. He was, it sounds to me, simply doing what any responsible adult should be allowed to do. I don't know if Rosa Parks intended to get arrested that day or was just too tired to move to the back of the bus, or thought she could get away with it. It doesn't matter. She disobeyed an unjust law and it became a test case.

2) The point of CD is to disobey an unjust law, and, if there is an arrest and charges filed, to use it as a forum for fighting the unjust law. It then becomes a test case and it is for everyone who has an interest or passion about the cause to try to see that the case is won. That means supporting the defendant in any (legal) way possible. I don't know if Mr. "Hunter" is the ideal poster child for our movement, I might have very little in common with him or see eye-to-eye on any other issues, but I will support his legal defense as generously as I can as soon as I am assured that this thing is legit.

3) To be effective, CD must be NON-VIOLENT! Any other approach is not only a mockery of the concept, but a sure loser in the court of public opinion. Please tone down the rhetoric, people.

Don Gwinn
January 4, 2004, 03:49 PM
My dad has a handcuff key on his keyring. He's a law-and-order guy (or at least, he thought he was. I guess some here would tell him different.) He just thinks it's a "neat" key. Like his grandson, he's fascinated by guns, keys, locks, and mechanical devices of all types. The filthy, anarchist SOB. :rolleyes:

Just because there appear to be police on one side and a regular citizen on the other doesn't mean you can shut off your brain. As you may have guessed, although I'm glad some of you find it so funny, I wasn't terribly impressed by the implication that my dad is a raving lunatic because he carries a KEY.

The sheer nonsense is killing me.

BTW, you might remember my last post in which I mentioned a state trooper who told us that grandpa should definitely be carrying a loaded pistol (a felony) while driving on Illinois highways. Does anyone remember why he had occasion to say that? No? Well, it's been a long time since last I told that story, so I'm not surprised. The topic came up because the state trooper was buying something in dad's gun shop and dad asked him what he should say to keep my grandfather from carrying his pistol on his trips. Like I said, dad is a law-and-order guy. It's a shame he has to be condemned as a no-good criminal because he has the wrong key on his ring.

Hey, wait a minute! I almost forgot! My son has a ring with about fifty old keys on it (remember, the kid loves keys and locks) and one of them is the dreaded handcuff key!

Do you think I'm duty bound as a father to turn him over to the police, or is it all right if I just beat him with a belt? :rolleyes:

TheeBadOne
January 4, 2004, 03:56 PM
Don Gwinn I think you're getting caught up in the emotions of this thread. Relax. No one said that meer posession of a cuff key is grounds for someone being charged/seen as a criminal (unless state law prohibits it). All that was mentioned is that posession of a cuff key may get you a second look as many criminals (gang bangers, dope dealer, violent felons etc) carry a cuff key for the explicit reason of defeating Police handcuffs. Nothing wrong at all with giving someone extra scrutiny when something out of the ordinay is observed.

All the best

Don Gwinn
January 4, 2004, 03:59 PM
Malone, Parks is on record saying she sat down in front because she was tired and her feet hurt. I've never seen evidence that there was any plan; in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite.

And if you could go back to the day after and eavesdrop in the coffee shops, barber shops, etc. I bet you'd be hearing a lot of the same stuff people are saying here.

"All that woman's gonna do is get the white folks riled. Things are bound to get worse now."

"I know ya get tired of it, we all do, but we gotta know our place in the world."

Don Gwinn
January 4, 2004, 04:07 PM
TBO, he was not given extra scrutiny and then released. He was arrested. He was arrested on a matter entirely unrelated to what keys he carried, and yet the key got prominent mention in the subsequent attempts by the police to justify his arrest by press release (along with apparent lies about a "detonator.")

Then, after he'd been arrested, and after the arrest had been justified after the fact by nonsense about swords, detonators and handcuff keys, you and others on this site implied that the arrest made sense because he had a handcuff key. You did not say "Well, it's too bad he was arrested, but they would have been right if they'd limited themselves to giving him a second look and then let him go when it was apparent that he was no criminal."

No, instead you pointed and laughed. You'll have to excuse me if I took you at your action. But take heart. I'm not actually angry. Just using a bit of emphasis to point out the silliness of an age where possession of a key justifies being arrested for breaking an unrelated and unConstitutional law.

TheeBadOne
January 4, 2004, 04:20 PM
TBO, he was not given extra scrutiny and then released. He was arrested. He was arrested on a matter entirely unrelated to what keys he carried, and (A) yet the key got prominent mention in the subsequent attempts by the police to justify his arrest by press release (along with apparent lies about a "detonator.")

Then, after he'd been arrested, and after the arrest had been justified after the fact by nonsense about swords, detonators and handcuff keys, (B) you and others on this site implied that the arrest made sense because he had a handcuff key. You did not say "Well, it's too bad he was arrested, but they would have been right if they'd limited themselves to giving him a second look and then let him go when it was apparent that he was no criminal."

(C) No, instead you pointed and laughed. You'll have to excuse me if I took you at your action. But take heart. I'm not actually angry. Just using a bit of emphasis to point out the silliness of an age where possession of a key justifies being arrested for breaking an unrelated and unConstitutional law.
A) It got mention, but not prominent, heck it's not a crime.

B) I never said that it made sense that he was arrested, period, much less that because he had a cuff he deserved to be arrested.

C) What I laughed at was someone with no practical experiance/training/knowledge commenting; "I carry a cuff key every day on my keyring just as a novelty item. I don't really see why it would be cause for alarm for a police officer."
That comment (laughing smiley) didn't have a thing to do with Mr. Jeffrey Jordan.

If you really want to know how I feel on something, ask.

Do I think Mr. Jeffrey Jordan is a big bad, bad guy? No
Do I think he broke the law? Yes
Do I think he should go to prison for a long time? No
Do I wish him well in court? Yes
Do I want to send him some money? No

All the best

Malone LaVeigh
January 4, 2004, 04:40 PM
Parks is on record saying she sat down in front because she was tired and her feet hurt. I've never seen evidence that there was any plan; in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. That's funny, I read somewhere she was already an activist and it was done to create a test case. But it still doesn't matter. She had a human right to sit any where she pleased (on that bus), and this person had a right to have a gun in his car.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2004, 04:47 PM
You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws."

Well guess what...contrary to the militia pamphlets I see quoted in this thread, "senssible" gun laws are entirely constituional...and in the eyes of the vast number of owners of guns and the general public. appropriate.

Thus....felons and the disturned cant own guns
States can regulate the carrying of guns.
Background checks can be performed

Those are all laws that have or can pass contstituional muster and all the whining and crying for example about grandpappy felons who have led blameless lives for 35 years not withstanding...

If you think they arent constituional, file a lawsuit.

And for those who would call me a Bradyite, I think the AWB is unconstituional, I think that the 86 ban on new machine guns is unconstituional, and a ban on posession of guns in a local jurisdiction is unconstituional.

As others have said, ya play, ya pay, and this guy is nothing more than a criminal if convicted.


WildicantbeleivesomeofthestuffireadAlaska

El Tejon
January 4, 2004, 04:48 PM
Malone, are you thinking of the Griswold case perchance???:confused:

Highland Ranger
January 4, 2004, 05:28 PM
Since your argument depends on that phantom quote, I suggest you go find it.
The quotes refer to me paraphrasing what I felt was the NRA's stance at the time - not an actual quote. Sorry if that's not clear. Could I be wrong? Anything can happen I guess, but I remember specifically canceling my membership because I thought the "throw down the government" crap (again, my quotes) was a bit too much. We live in the greatest nation in the world, with all its warts. I guess there is a place for the paranoia - I'll let you hold it. Stockpiling weapons/ammo for civil unrest is one thing, maybe even prudent. Stockpiling for the black helicopters . . . well at this stage of the game I'm fairly certain I'm not that important. But it sounds like you are so good luck.

But, dang. You don't even like the reference to self defense? Talk about nambi-pambi. This from James Madison in Federalist #46 must really soften your stool:
Not sure where I gave you that impression, but if so, not correct. I think self defense is the core of where our success will be because it appeals to everyone (except the British apparently). Its REASONABLE, which is what the “gun nut” arguments always lack. Also, I'd rather not discuss my bowel movements publicly. You're a bit rude BTW.

You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws."
Give me a break and get with the times. The Revolutionary War is over. We live here and NOW and the fact is that no-laws like those in Vermont and Alaska just are not going to happen in the more populated states. And for good reason. Let's shoot (pun intended) for what is attainable, and then maybe we can talk about this in ten years. One thing is for sure, rabid "gun nuts" will get nowhere with the general populace. That'll kill us for sure.

No. Only one more state has a right to carry. That would be Alaska. The rest are permitting systems with fingerprints and background checks and databases. That ain't no right.

OK first of all YAWN. Do more states allow people (law abiding citizens who pass a background check) to carry guns now or in 1990? Yeah OK, not a "RIGHT", a privilege, but all the same, you can get a CCW permit in more states now than before (10 years ago) right? That's progress. And in more populated areas, it’s a good thing you do have to pass a background check.

As I'm writing this it occurs to me that a lot of you guys need to go find a lawless frontier somewhere because you don't live in the same world I do. Maybe that's the difference between Midtown Manhattan, and some Bayou or Mountain Hollow or desert somewhere . . . who knows. Frankly, if it wasn’t for everything else in my life, I’d join you.

Re Speeding - Know when the rev limiter on a Suburban cuts in? At about 105 mph . . . . but if I was driving through a gun unfriendly state with guns in the car (oh I do every day) I sure wouldn't be getting her up on two wheels. And the guns would be kept in accordance with the states laws. Its not civil disobedience, its, well no insult intended here, but not the smartest thing to do otherwise. And certainly not heroic or worthy of any donation.

If you're an activist, you mobilize to make the statists work harder. You don't bury your head in the sand and let the lions eat a member of your herd (heck, he was sick, old, weak). You band together and take your hooves to the side of the predators, be they bearing criminal records or LEO credentials.


Never said I was an activist . . . I give when I can, what I can but I'm busy with my LIFE. No time for dueling with windmills . . . again, sounds like you have it covered. Good luck.

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 05:57 PM
DELETED by jimpeel

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 06:11 PM
May I ask, what harm was done to ANY by Mr. Jordan's action of carrying a loaded firearm? If no harm was done to anyone and no one suffered any lose, why is Mr. Jordan being charged with a crime? This is what I don't understand about gun laws.This is part of what I term the death of motive.

American jurisprudence relies on three tenets for a conviction of a crime -- means (or method), motive (or intent), and opportunity.

Surely, this man had the means to great destruction; and he certainly had the opportunity with every person he met. What he lacks is motive. What was his motive with carrying and transporting these arms?

If his motive was to wreak destruction on every passing individual, robbery, murder, terrorism, then he should be held to the highest order of the law.

If, however his motive was simple self defense from those who would seek to wreak destruction upon him, then his motives were honorable and peaceful in their nature; and he is simply guilty of the crime of fear.

Now, those who would fail in their duty to protect him from those he fears are intent on placing him in the confines of the very people he feared the most and armed himself against -- hardened criminals.

If state troopers in Ohio do not want people arming themselves for protection against a predatory criminal element, they should escort those who pass through the state from one end to the other. Fat chance of that ever happening, though.

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 06:17 PM
I wonder if they found an almanac in his car also.

This guy could have defused the entire situation if he had, when the red-n-blues came on simply taken his firearms out of his belt and thrown them on the passenger seat. The "assault weapon" was in a locked case as it is supposed to be, and the only thing he is charged with is the CCW violation. :rolleyes:

TheeBadOne
January 4, 2004, 06:24 PM
Motive (intent) in an element in some offenses, and is not and required elemetn in others. IE: the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent. Speeding/DUI do not require intent. I suspect that Jeffrey Jordans' charges of two counts of carrying a concealed weapon will not be met with a defense "I didn't know (intend to) I was carrying".

2 cents

Bill St. Clair
January 4, 2004, 07:02 PM
jimpeel:
This guy could have defused the entire situation if he had, when the red-n-blues came on simply taken his firearms out of his belt and thrown them on the passenger seat. The "assault weapon" was in a locked case as it is supposed to be, and the only thing he is charged with is the CCW violation.
That would have made it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, though it may actually have been the trooper dragging him out of his car that caused that distinction.

Does anybody else agree with me that this is absurd? Guns covered by coat = felony. Same guns one foot away on car seat = misdemeanor. Bizarre.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 4, 2004, 07:47 PM
Deleted by CHL 22:36

Not worth flogging the same point repeatedly.

Cactus
January 4, 2004, 07:56 PM
This thread ties in quite nicely with the thread about obeying laws you feel to be immoral. I want to start out saying that I hope Mr. Jordon is found innocent of these charges and that I also hope that all states adopt concealed carry laws.

It does seem odd to me that Mr. Jordon would not be aware of the laws regarding CCW in Ohio if he is such a Second Amendment activist. This is a lesson to all to be aware of the laws of a jurisdiction you plan to travel through.

Whether or not one finds these laws just or unjust or constitutional or unconstitutional, this law is currently real. I'm sure that Mr. Jordon can attest to how real this law is. A good portion of Mr. Jordon's fortune will be spent defending himself and his freedom. That's about as real as it gets!

If Mr. Jordon (anyone else for that matter) was intent on committing civil disobedience (cd), they need to realize that cd is NOT breaking the law with the intention of getting away with it. The entire point of cd is to break the law and dare the authorities to arrest and prosecute you. It is through this arrest and prosecution that you hope to show the unjust nature of those laws. To do so is an act of great moral courage, one that not many people have.

If this was Mr. Jordon's intent, he is a courageous man. If not he is simply a criminal at this point but can still perform a great service to the people of Ohio by prevailing in his court case. However, I feel that he will most likely fail in court. The point of civil disobedience is to create a public outcry and force a change through the legislature as was done during the civil rights battles of the 1960's.

As for the gun board commandos who will "shoot it out" with the police if they try to arrest them for carrying concealed, grow up. Anyone who does this is no different than the Black Panthers who murdered police and judges and the members of Weather Underground and SLA who robbed banks and bombed office buildings because they didn't like the laws. It makes you nothing but a terrorist. You may like to think of yourself as the modern day incarnate of the Minutemen, but those kind of actions make you nothing but the equivelent of the Brownshirts.

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 08:28 PM
I don't know Ohio law, but I'd be very suprised if he was sentanced to jail time. (unless there's more charges we don't know about).Even if he gets probation, or nothing at all, the fact that the charges could have resulted in jail time in excess of one year excludes him from firearms possession or ownership for the remainder of his years.

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 08:32 PM
Well guess what...contrary to the militia pamphlets I see quoted in this thread, "senssible" gun laws are entirely constituional...and in the eyes of the vast number of owners of guns and the general public. appropriate. Great. Now quoting James Madison is quoting a militia pamphlet. Sorry, MildAlaska. If we can't come to terms on the principles lain down by the Framers, I don't think we have much to talk about. You don't want to contribute to Hunter's legal defense fund, fine. But attempting to justify your lack of action by saying most gun owners would agree is just plain lazyiness or cowardice.
Thus....felons and the disturned cant own guns
States can regulate the carrying of guns.
Background checks can be performed

Those are all laws that have or can pass contstituional muster
That's an utter, outright lie. The lower Federal and Supreme Court in the 20th Century has upheld just about every gun prohibition law that has come its way. Morton Grove bans guns. Okay with the Robed Ones. California bans semi-autos. Fine with the Robed Ones. Machine guns taxed. Okay. New Machine guns prohibited. Okay, too, I suppose.
If you think they arent constituional, file a lawsuit.I've been around this too much to know that a court filing is worth no more to me than the press it can generate. Ian is not asking you to file a court case, he's asking for people to contribute to a Legal Defense Fund. And as you have proven, it is so much easier to say no and whine than it is for you to write a check for $5 and send it to KABA. Your excuse-making is grandiose to the extreme.
I think the AWB is unconstituional, I think that the 86 ban on new machine guns is unconstituional, and a ban on posession of guns in a local jurisdiction is unconstituional.Well, then. By your own definition, you are out of step with the mainstream and are harmful to the cause of RKBA, whatever you define it to be ("please allow me to get fingerprinted for my laminated card, and while you're at it, repeal Alaska and Vermont carry.") Sheesh.
Never said I was an activist
Good. If you and Mild were, you'd try to repeal Alaska carry. I think we're better off if you just stay home.
Stockpiling for the black helicopters . . . well at this stage of the game I'm fairly certain I'm not that important. But it sounds like you are so good luck. I ask you to find the NRA quote and you come back with this?
Its REASONABLE, which is what the “gun nut” arguments always lack. I'm not going to let you get off so easy. You label some (which?) argument a "gun nut argument" and then fail to say what it is and why it is wrong.
You're a bit rude BTW.
You bet. See http://www.unarmedvictimzone.com and click on the "Activism On The Cheap" link to see just how rude I can be when a bureaucrat infringes on a rape victim's right to self defense. That web page sits there as a warning to any other politicos who would try to mess with us. Politics is Personal. They hate that.
The Revolutionary War is over. We live here and NOW
But the Constitution was written then too. The Declaration of Independence was written then too, and is cited in Supreme Court cases. You can't dismiss it. The right to self defense does not end because 200 years have passed. Yours is another Brady Center argument. Congrats.
Let's shoot (pun intended) for what is attainable,No. Let's shoot for what is right. Freedom. Anything else is a compromise that allows the bad guys turf they should not own. One thing is for sure, rabid "gun nuts" will get nowhere with the general populace. That'll kill us for sure. Really? We did so well with the NRA. InstaCheck? I'd rather go for a no-compromise, GOA-style attack.
Do more states allow people (law abiding citizens who pass a background check) to carry guns now or in 1990? Yeah OK, not a "RIGHT", a privilege,The permit system says the government, with a vote of the legislature, has the Power, to disarm its populace. It also registers hundreds of thousands of people as gun owners. Bad.
And in more populated areas, it’s a good thing you do have to pass a background check.Why is it a good thing in big cities and not a good thing for Vermont and Alaska? Do criminals in big cities decide not to carry guns because they can't get a permit?Know when the rev limiter on a Suburban cuts in? At about 105 mphWhen I was in Ohio last August, the mass of people were driving between 75 and 85 mph on I270 and SR33. The police could pull them over for speeding, or pull them over for not flowing with traffic. Your choice.

Rick

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 08:39 PM
Watch out or WildAlaska will wish you into the cornfield -- by putting you on his ignore list -- like he did me. He can't take the heat of getting scolded for some of the absolute tripe he posts here.

riverdog
January 4, 2004, 08:44 PM
I'm sure that Jeffrey Jordan AKA "Hunter" is a great guy and I wish him the best of luck in jury selection. However, the fact is he willingly (ignorance of the law in the case of an activist is a tough sell) violated the law and was caught in a routine traffic stop. This was not a case of CD, it was a case of getting caught. He knew the rules, he broke the law in Ohio and he will now live with that decision. Hope for a procedural error on the part of LE, but don't count on it. That said, I hope he prevails.

Highland Ranger
January 4, 2004, 09:03 PM
This my last reply because this has become silly and I'm sure boring for everyone else. Any way:

I ask you to find the NRA quote and you come back with this?
You didn't read my reply; let me try again: THERE WAS NO NRA QUOTE, THIS WAS MY IMPRESSION AT THE TIME. My point is that if it was my perception, it could have been someone else's and certainly now, today I run across this NRA is anti-government argument all the time.

I'm not going to let you get off so easy. You label some (which?) argument a "gun nut argument" and then fail to say what it is and why it is wrong.
You lost me with this one but GUN NUT = Person who thinks they need their guns to overthrow the US Government. This person is considered unreasonable by the majority of people and from my perspective is also most likely clinically paranoid.

This "gun nut" argument will not help the RKBA cause. If embraced openly, it will sink it. Most people, myself included believe in this country - problems? yes, but the best there is.

Re Rude - it's typically never good. Try be nicer, you'll find that people may stop and listen to you for a moment.

But the Constitution was written then too. The Declaration of Independence was written then too, and is cited in Supreme Court cases. You can't dismiss it. The right to self defense does not end because 200 years have passed. Yours is another Brady Center argument. Congrats.

All of those documents were crafted to be LIVING DOCUMENTS which is the reason why they withstood and hopefully will withstand the test of time. I'm not saying they are invalid - exactly the opposite. But they can be changed! And we don't want the second amendment to become the Right to Keep and Bear Slingshots . . . . think about a more reasonable approach.

The permit system says the government, with a vote of the legislature, has the Power, to disarm its populace. It also registers hundreds of thousands of people as gun owners. Bad.

Not sure that this is true but if that happens in our lifetime, then I guess we'll be standing shoulder to shoulder then eh? That is, if I had any guns, which I don't. ;)

When I was in Ohio last August, the mass of people were driving between 75 and 85 mph on I270 and SR33. The police could pull them over for speeding, or pull them over for not flowing with traffic. Your choice.

You should stay away from the "evil police" arguments. Immature. Like being mad at the credit card companies for charging interest. Cops are people like everyone else, paying a mortgage, saving for kids college. They have bad apples, so does every other profession. Most cops are good people just making a living.

Why is it a good thing in big cities and not a good thing for Vermont and Alaska? Do criminals in big cities decide not to carry guns because they can't get a permit?
I guess I'd like to know that a Psycho can't just go into Walmart and pick up a gun. Don't like the registration part, it should be a check on the persons record and then the request and any evidence of the transaction should be destroyed.

But it is reasonable to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns can't just walk into a store and buy one.

Ian
January 4, 2004, 09:17 PM
Another Update:

Claire Wolfe has offered the use of her e-Gold account for donations. If anyone would like to donate via e-Gold, the account number to use is 106974 (be sure to note that it's for Hunter's defense).

Thanks!

AZRickD
January 4, 2004, 09:33 PM
Your "impression?" No NRA quote? Then from where did you derive your anti-NRA opinion a decade ago?GUN NUT = Person who thinks they need their guns to overthrow the US Government...most likely clinically paranoid. That would be James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Samual Adams, Paul Revere, etc. My guess is you've not paid close attention to the Federalist Papers or the Federal Farmer. Better eat some roughage before you do.
Re Rude - it's typically never good. Try be nicer, you'll find that people may stop and listen to you for a moment.You haven't a clue. Being rude is what makes me successful as an activist. It makes the others seem more moderate. "Hey, Mayor Scruggs, better go with what the GOA says, cuz we can't get Rick to stop leafleting your neighborhood." My guess is you've never gotten so much as a splinter carrying a protest sign as armed police look on.
All of those documents were crafted to be LIVING DOCUMENTS
GASSSSP!! What utter nonsense. They either mean what they say or not. If they are subject to the slow-motion anarchy of Judicial Activism, are any of our rights safe? Tell me, is the 13th Amendment (end of slavery for those not following along) not absolute? Is that a living document as well? What might that mean in 100 years? Does Article V of the Constitution mean nothing to you? Does the phrase "inalienable rights" mean anything to you?They have bad apples, so does every other profession. Most cops are good people just making a living.
Other professions do not have guns, badges and the acceptance of the local prosecutor. To compare them is nonsense. You've never been held at gunpoint for lawfully carrying a gun, I take it? I have... right here in Arizona.
But it is reasonable to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns can't just walk into a store and buy one.
Do you actually read the other threads here at THR? IF you did, you would already know that there have been no criminologists able to show that any of our gun laws reduce crime (Wright & Rossi, Cook & Ludwig, CDC, etc). If people are dangerous, keep them in jail. I suppose you would also require that newspaper sales be banned. How about sales to friends and family? Do they require a Brady check too? Jacobs & Potter as well as Cook & Ludwig could find no reduction in crime from the Brady Law. Crooks still get guns. Even in England, which is a friggin' island with strict gun control laws. The only people who are disarmed are the good guys.

As for this thread, you have two options. Support Hunter with your $$$ or not. We will all judge you for your actions.

Let's all have a show of hands of those who will not be sending at least $1 to Hunter. $5? $10 $15 $20?

Rick

biere
January 4, 2004, 09:59 PM
This has to be one of the best threads I have read here recently when it comes to seeing how some folks really feel about the rkba.

I will scrape some change together and get a money order and mail it tomorrow since I feel for anyone who is in ohio and gets in trouble while carrying a weapon. I sort of feel responsable for out of staters who did not know what they were getting into. I do not want that to sound like I think he is innocent, I just feel he did not fully comprehend the silliness of how police folks enforce stupid laws in this state.

I do feel some of the statements made about how to deal with police were a tad strong. However, I also feel that someone simply doing things because it is their job should not be in a position of power because they are not being a responsable person.

Police often use their discretion when pulling someone over, how many folks have been pulled over and then allowed to go on their way without a ticket?

In my opinion the discretion is where thinking comes in.

It is sad to see folks who enjoy owning firearms wind up on both sides of the fence. But then again many governments enjoyed owning firearms when their subjects did not enjoy that right.

Many wish to own firearms. Only some have them for the proper reason.

Glock Glockler
January 4, 2004, 10:05 PM
Strawman argument, as well as not applicable. This case involves the second amendment, not the first.

I could care less about amendments, my rights do not come from them nor any other piece of paper. I'm talking about basic human rights here and it applies whether one is on their knees praying or if they are walkind down the street with a chunk of metal (gun) on their person or if they are publishing their thoughts.

All are actions that impose neither obligation or harm on any other person. For someone, either govt bureaucrat or regular person, to take action against someone for those activities is an uncondonable act of aggression. You, either or your own nor through whatever petty bureaucrat you've hired, have any business telling me that I may or may not carry a gun. If I'm not inflicting some harm or imposing some type of obligation on you, leave me alone.

Highland Ranger
January 4, 2004, 11:31 PM
OK you've baited me in one last time but only because biere thinks we're entertaining. I live to be entertaining. :D

Here we go:

Your "impression?" No NRA quote? Then from where did you derive your anti-NRA opinion a decade ago?
Don't remember. Also possible that I'm not the man I was 10 years ago so may be more me or more them, who knows. Accept it as a data point and move on. That means that if I thought it, others might and I'm telling you others do TODAY. If the vast majority thinks the NRA is a bunch of gun nuts then the anti's win. RKBAers loose. We need to change that image and make sure the NRA holds true to it as well.

That would be James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Samual Adams, Paul Revere, etc. My guess is you've not paid close attention to the Federalist Papers or the Federal Farmer. Better eat some roughage before you do.

OK we were fighting the Brits back then no? Yeah ok they were the "Government" but they're not THIS Government today, in this time. Gun nut definition stands - no personal insult intended of course. If you think you’re going to be shooting at the US Army anytime soon, or gunning down the local Sheriff (who you probably went to school with, or coached in Little League) THEN YOU ARE A GUN NUT. A bad thing in general and specifically for the RKBA movement.

You haven't a clue. Being rude is what makes me successful as an activist. It makes the others seem more moderate. "Hey, Mayor Scruggs, better go with what the GOA says, cuz we can't get Rick to stop leafleting your neighborhood." My guess is you've never gotten so much as a splinter carrying a protest sign as armed police look on.

Do you make a living as an activist? Because if so, I can't compare professional resumes with you. If not and you are as active as you say, then that has to mean that you don't have a wife, or kids or if you do, you don't spend much time with them. Everyone makes choices - yours is just as valid as mine, and my choice is to live my life based on the things I consider important. Like family.

GASSSSP!! What utter nonsense. They either mean what they say or not.
Wow, a BLACK and WHITE guy. How basic. I am certainly no historian, but I know the reason why these documents survive today is the fact that they are living, that means they can be AMENDED. That's not nonsense; it's what our system of Government is based on. For someone who proclaims to be a (rude) activist, seems like this basic fact is missing from your knowledge base. Curious. Makes me think you are just a troll after all.

Other professions do not have guns, badges and the acceptance of the local prosecutor. To compare them is nonsense. You've never been held at gunpoint for lawfully carrying a gun, I take it? I have... right here in Arizona.
Too easy. Guns and badges represent things that can do harm to others if misused. Let's see, what other professions does that apply to? Doctors. Bus Drivers. Airplane Pilots. Nuclear Reactor Engineers. Lawyers.

Do I have to go on? Practically EVERYONE. Hell, if the guy in McDonalds doesn't throw away the old meat he qualifies too when he kills ten kids with e-coli. You can do better than that, convinces me all the more that you're not for real.

Although based on those two points I have concluded that you are a Troll and I am tempted to resort to some base humor but I'll finish seriously:

Do you actually read the other threads here at THR? IF you did, you would already know that there have been no criminologists able to show that any of our gun laws reduce crime (Wright & Rossi, Cook & Ludwig, CDC, etc). If people are dangerous, keep them in jail. I suppose you would also require that newspaper sales be banned. How about sales to friends and family? Do they require a Brady check too? Jacobs & Potter as well as Cook & Ludwig could find no reduction in crime from the Brady Law. Crooks still get guns. Even in England, which is a friggin' island with strict gun control laws. The only people who are disarmed are the good guys.

I have both of Professor Lott's books and have read them cover to cover. Had you done so you'd realize your conclusion is wrong or at least unsubstantiated.

Lott demonstrated (quite well I might add) that enactment of CCW laws i.e. allowing law abiding citizens to obtain and carry firearms for self defense, REDUCES CRIME.

Even the CDC which had no business doing any studies on guns came to a complimentary conclusion, that Gun restrictions like the 1994 AWB (don't specifically remember which) do not reduce crime.

Great news for the RKBAers.

Both of these conclusions are DIFFERENT from yours. You are saying that "all gun laws do not reduce crime" so let's do away with all of them.

I do not think that a study to support that particular conclusion has been undertaken by anyone as yet - but again, my common sense says that if ANYONE including criminals, psychos etc can just go to Wal-Mart and buy a gun we would be worse off.

You need to take a walk down a street in DC or Manhattan . . . . the asylum doors have been open for many years, and although many of those folks are harmless and I bear them no ill will, I am happy that they aren’t packing.

I am in favor of record-less background checks to weed out the mentally ill and criminals.

Not sure how I feel about the permitting process. Don't like the idea that the state has a list but I do like the idea that people who want to carry, just like driving a car have to qualifying for a CCW permit.

Maybe the permit, with no gun registration and the instant background check is the most reasonable way to go. They’ll know who has guns, but not how many. Since they can probably figure out who has guns from our Visa statements I don’t think freedom suffers much and the goal is reasonable and achievable as well as marketable to the masses.

Now be a good troll and go to some other board. In the event you're not a troll, I'd recommend that instead of replying, you take some time to brush up on your facts and assemble your arguments so they hold water.

(If you really are an "activist" let me know so I can go bury a gun or something - that RKBS (right to keep and bear slingshots) modification to the 2nd will be along any time now and I want to be prepared.)

Ryder
January 4, 2004, 11:33 PM
Ohio is an exemplar, being on the verge of enacting their version of shall-issue CCW

I thought the Ohio supreme court was forcing this enaction through a deadlined ultimatum which the legislature has failed to meet due to attempts to appease the whims of the govenor and his police force. That's exemplar? Sounds like a royal circus to me and if not for this they wouldn't be having protest marches.

I won't be giving 1,2,5,10, or 20 dollars. I've already been in his situation. The crime is being in possession of your own property. It is that simple. My conscience won't allow me give anything less than a couple hundred dollars. Check goes out in the morning.

I've been reading The Hunter's writing. He's good. Some of you should read it too. Maybe you can figure out why some people have the principle to sacrifice for the good of others.

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 12:07 AM
You are coming dangerously close to WildAlaska putting you on his "ignore list". He doesn't like it when you take him to task for his rants.

Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 12:26 AM
Highland Ranger you are wasting your breath (or fingers as the case may be).

WildtoobadforextremistsonbothsidesAlaska

Ian
January 5, 2004, 12:34 AM
I've been reading The Hunter's writing. He's good. Some of you should read it too.

Say, that's a good idea, Ryder (and thank you for the donation!). He's archived many of his articles (most from his Sierra Times column) at vader.com (http://www.vader.com), just above the bottom of the page. In addition, I know he recently published an article in Doing Freedom: 50 Ways to Leave Leviathan (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/1203/50ways1203.html). If I can dig up a more comprehensive list, I'll post it.

AZRickD
January 5, 2004, 12:41 AM
OK we were fighting the Brits back then no? Yeah ok they were the "Government" but they're not THIS Government today, The Framers wrote specifically about this government, today, tomorrow, whenever. They studied history. They knew what could happen.

After the Constitution was drafted, someone asked Ben Franklin what kind of government had been drafted. Franklin responded, "A Republic, madam. If they can keep it."

We didn't keep it.

You question my activism? Do a search on "Rick DeStephens" +gun and see what you get.

More later. Too much subject matter from Highlander not to have some fun.

Rick

El Rojo
January 5, 2004, 12:53 AM
From Highland Ranger If you think you’re going to be shooting at the US Army anytime soon, or gunning down the local Sheriff (who you probably went to school with, or coached in Little League) THEN YOU ARE A GUN NUT. A bad thing in general and specifically for the RKBA movement. Sorry Highland Ranger, but the entire right to keep and bear arms was for the security of a free state. The entire purpose of the RKBA is to overthrow and more importantly to deter a despotic government or individuals from attempting to impose their will on the People. That doesn't mean I want to shoot it out with the army or the local sheriff, but that is technically the reason we keep and bear arms. This might not be popular with middle America or the liberals, but that is what it is. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it is not about the National Guard, and it really isn't about recreational shooting. It is about keeping power centered with the People. Now you might want to argue that hunting and recreational shooting are fine and dandy, but that is not what the 2nd Amendment is about. You might not agree with it and you might think any emphasis placed on this position is a step backward for the 2nd Amendment and that is fine. However, to imply anyone who thinks this is a "gun nut" I believe is misguided and neglects the true purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment. You might want to follow your own advice, "take some time to brush up on your facts and assemble your arguments so they hold water."

What is my plan for supporting the 2nd Amendment. I am going to teach government and I am going to get young adults to see what the 2nd Amendment is about. I am also going to encourage them to be more liberty minded and remind that that "those who trade liberty for security deserve neither". That way we won't have citizens like Highland Ranger that think that good honest people are "gun nuts".

Back to topic, I will not be sending this guy any money. Mainly because I don't have any he knew the rules and he took the risk. I once did the same thing but I also drove a lot slower too.

Ryder
January 5, 2004, 02:25 AM
My pleasure Ian. Thanks for the new link. My favorite so far is "Useful Idiots". Those kookie enablers. What tools! Hard to feel sorry for them.USEFUL IDIOTS (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/30/hunter.htm)

Given my experience with these illegal laws I'd say we haven't seen nothing yet from The Hunter. This is really going to open his eyes and put some lead in his pencil. :D

I've completed reading the thread now. It's a biggie! I'm ok with differing opinons. They can't help but vary. It's a free country. I don't understand why do so many here accuse Ohio of being rabidly anti-gun though :confused: Ohio has open carry and light sentences. In comparison to other places that just isn't my definition of rabid. I sure wouldn't use it in the same breath as places like Chicago, NYC, or NJ.

atek3
January 5, 2004, 02:26 AM
I'll second biere's post re: the quality of this thread. Really is a good filter separating those people who think guns are nice toys and those who think that guns are 'the teeth of liberty'. I'm glad we've got a few Tories on this board just to spice things up. I mean it would get so boring if we all were a bunch of self-congratulatory RKBA supporters. Hunter is a really good guy, one who actually got angry at me for making light of the situation in this country, looks like he was right and I was wrong. Doh. I know I'm going to donate. Just think of it as a kind of 'free-market' insurance system, aka "It could be you in that cop car." Well not WildAlaska, we know he'd never violate a LAW relating to guns. Good for you, may your chains rest lightly.

atek3
loves hate mail

MacViolinist
January 5, 2004, 04:07 AM
Let's face it people. Either you support what the constitution says or you don't. If you want to change it to conform to your personal ideal of how a government should function then don't go trying to sell yourself as a supporter of freedom. The language is clear. The people have the right to own and carry guns. Period. No restrictions, background ckecks, permits, fees. Nothing. This right was, by the admission of the framers, to be preserved not for hunting or personal protection, but because the framers were more afraid of the government that THEY FOUNDED than any criminal or bear overpopulation. Not only do the founders say that citizens have the right to overthrow THIS government if it becomes corrupt, it has been said that we as citizens who love freedom are obligated to do so if it infringes on our freedoms. That is all. Either with or against.

I am really glad that this thread was started. I now know who I can trust when the ???? hits the fan.


-drew

Moparmike
January 5, 2004, 06:03 AM
I hope the case goes well for him. If I had an ammo budget to give up, I would send him a month's worth.


I sat here and read this entire thread. I am flabberghasted and stupified as to how anyone can not say that 98% of the gunlaws are abhorent to the very nature of the original principles the USA was founded upon. The only people who shouldnt own firearms are violent felons and the mentally ill. Everyone else should be able to carry what ever they damned well please, in any manner they please.

That said, I would find it unsettling to see someone open carrying a loaded AR or Mini-gun in the square. Hopefully if anything like that comes to pass, the people will exercise a little discretionary common sense.:uhoh: Get a violin-case for that Thompson, for Pete's sake.;)

Bill St. Clair
January 5, 2004, 06:25 AM
Highland Ranger:
Wow, a BLACK and WHITE guy. How basic. I am certainly no historian, but I know the reason why these documents survive today is the fact that they are living, that means they can be AMENDED. That's not nonsense; it's what our system of Government is based on. For someone who proclaims to be a (rude) activist, seems like this basic fact is missing from your knowledge base. Curious. Makes me think you are just a troll after all.
Yes, the U.S. Constitution and state Constitutions can be amended. In the case of the U.S. Constitution it requires a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratification of 2/3 of the state legislatures. It has happened a number of times. Great! That's not a problem. The problem is that the various governments don't bother to amend their constitutions any more. They just go ahead and make blatantly unconstitutional "laws", and the courts usually uphold them.

"Shall not be infringed" is very strong language with an obvious meaning: no gun laws, period, no restrictions whatsoever on possession or carrying of arms. No amendment has ever weakened that language, and many here, I among them, would argue that the Bill of Rights may not be amended; without it the Constitution would never have been ratified, and it highlights basic human rights that may not be denied.

The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919. It prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." It was repealed in 1933 by the 21st amendment. The Constitution still had meaning in those days. The members of Congress realized that they had no constitutional authority to ban alcoholic beverages, so they amended the Constitution. Congress has no authority to regulate other drugs, either. But they have banned a whole list of "controlled substances" without bothering this time to amend the Constitition. Congress is expressly forbidden to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. But they have passed bill after bill (I won't call them laws, since, being unconstitutional, they aren't) doing exactly that.

America was created as a constitutional republic. Legislation in the tiny domain in which the Constitution allowed the government to operate, was decided by democratic means, but anything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was off limits. No more. We have morphed into a pure representative democracy, guaranteed by the laws of nature to have a short life.

I'll close with a quote I'm sure is familiar to many. This version came from http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/002541.html :

An observation by the Scottish Historian Professor Alexander Tyler, circa 1787, on the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence. From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back into bondage."
I would put the U.S. in the "from apathy to dependence" part of this cycle, rapidly falling into bondage. I hope the courageous amongst us can push us back to liberty quickly, but I doubt I'll live to see it.

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 5, 2004, 10:46 AM
An observation by the Scottish Historian Professor Alexander Tyler, circa 1787, on the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence. From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back into bondage."

Most feel that we are experiencing the "first" true representative republic with the ebb and flow of freedom as a consequence of experimentation. We are so naive. History does repeat itself. Because of that, this Republic will not endure unless we perform proper hygiene.

I have read this entire thread and have performed additional research concerning this matter. As I see it, there are three camps. The absolutists which demand inalienable rights (absolute), the "reasonable control" folks (compromise), and the confiscators (authoritarian).

The gun is a tool. It serves two purposes for the good citizen: self-defense (a moral right) and a counter-balance to tyranny (a duty to preserve the republic). We started with an absolute right and it has been incrementally infringed. We are not asking for anything new, but just the return of what we lost. Any discussion of gun control should be limited to the technical aspects of hitting your target.

We are a herd of dependent sheeple. Our republic is rapidly decaying from dependence to bondage. Others quote is better, but there are studies that show indentured servants paid less in taxes that do the productive now. Moroever, 50% of the sheeple no longer pay federal income tax. This is a two-fold problem in that the non-productive are rewarded and the legislators assume more power more quickly. This scenario can be expanded to all types of isses. The tyranny of the majority is happenning during our watch. The "compromisers" have been drawn in to the "progressive" thinkers camp which supports the erosion of absolute rights.

There will be no big-bang for the announcement of bondage. It will be incrementally applied just like gun control, or limitations on free speech/assembly, or tax code/welfare. For all I know, we are there, or we may be at a tipping point, or there may yet be a way to turn it back using the system. Far greater minds than mine have divined the information, studied it, and developed conclusions.

I always fear adopting the "chicken-little" approach. But I fear tyranny more. If we are moving to tyranny/bondage, and I think we are, based on the evidence, then we must be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for the Republic and for our children.

hops
January 5, 2004, 01:22 PM
7.62FMJ - Well done!

Nightfall
January 5, 2004, 01:38 PM
Best of luck to all efforts at Hunter's defense. I'll try 'n send a few bucks to his fund soon.

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 05:14 PM
Yes, the U.S. Constitution and state Constitutions can be amended. In the case of the U.S. Constitution it requires a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratification of 2/3 of the state legislatures.Not accurate. For the edification of all ...

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Bill St. Clair
January 5, 2004, 05:38 PM
Jim,

Thanks for the correction. I should have looked it up instead of typing from memory.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:48 PM
assume your idea of freedom includes all of the social issues that the usaul run of freedom lovers so happily oppose.

What do you mean?

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:53 PM
Even the CDC which had no business doing any studies on guns came to a complimentary conclusion, that Gun restrictions like the 1994 AWB (don't specifically remember which) do not reduce crime.

Actually, the research IIRC also included earlier federal restrictions.

Ian
January 5, 2004, 06:02 PM
Another update:

A comprehensive page has been put up on the Liberty Round Table site (http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/contributions.html) for people wishing to donate to the defense fund, and it includes snail-mail, e-Gold, and PayPal info.

As the situation currently stands, he will be arraigned on Fedruary 2nd. Ohio requires grand jury indictments for all felony charges, and grand juries meet monthly in Ashland County (where he was arrested) - hence the delay in the arraignment. His lawyer is currently working on several motions, including one to return at least some of his possessions from his vehicle.

Again, my thanks (and Hunter's) go out to everyone who has offered their support, in whatever form.

grampster
January 5, 2004, 08:55 PM
Well......it has been an interesting hour or so.....reading all the comments here. Those comments cause an emotional ebb and flow with me, and with a number of you also, it seems. But......the crux of the matter.....

Here's a guy who had some guns locked up, and a pistol on his person along with some knives locked up and on his person.... He is stopped for speeding in Ohio and leo sees some gun stuff with his eyes on the seat, without searching the car. This gives him the right, actually the obligation to find out what the story is. He has "reasonable cause" to pursue the matter further. He would be derilect in his duty to not look into the situation.

Leo has a process he can go through to find out what the story is from the involved person as well as by radio checks, consultation with superiors etc. He then has a choice to let the man go because he has a plausible story with no intent to break a law, or if a law appears to have been broken, felony or misdemeanor in the leo's presence, he can arrest. He did so in this case for whatever reason.

Mr. Jordan submitted. Now it's up to the legal system to work or not.

The question is......do you want to help him in his time of trouble....regardless of whether he did a bonehead thing or not? After all, he did not hurt anyone, only did something stupid. ...All the ancilliary BS notwithstanding.....Period. Actually, whether you sympathize with him or not....you could help him anyway....depends on how you feel, I guess.

I'm sending money. I think he was stupid for not having all his stuff locked up or hidden in such a fashion that if he got stopped for a minor trafic infraction, he would not have anything to worry about. If it could not be seen, so no reasonable cause to search or cause suspicion. Have I done stupid things? Yup. Don't make me a bad guy or not worthy of my friends, acquaintances and anyone else with a soft spot helping bail me out.

I'm up for it.....In fact makes me feel better that I can help someone I don't know, who thinks like me, but does something stupid once in awhile.
the Good Samaritan did not ask any questions nor argue about ambiguities....he merely helped. Rather be a Samaritan than argue about nits.

grampster

Gmac
January 5, 2004, 10:48 PM
:) Grampster yours is a welcome voice of reason!

Bill St. Clair
January 5, 2004, 10:58 PM
I second the motion. Thanks, Grampster.

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 11:06 PM
Took a lot of posts to get here. Good to be out of the ditch and back on The High Road with a little help from Grampster's Towing Service. :)

Atticus
January 5, 2004, 11:15 PM
"I'm sending money. I think he was stupid for not having all his stuff locked up or hidden in such a fashion that if he got stopped for a minor trafic infraction, he would not have anything to worry about. If it could not be seen, so no reasonable cause to search or cause suspicion. Have I done stupid things? Yup. Don't make me a bad guy or not worthy of my friends, acquaintances and anyone else with a soft spot helping bail me out."

Well put Grampster. Ditto on the donation.

P95Carry
January 5, 2004, 11:31 PM
Grampster, Atticus, et al ..... Sure he screwed up but ... I think now is ''his hour of need'' ... and however much I might be criticized for so doing ... I have sent $100 in that direction.

Knowing legal costs I doubt that will buy an attorney a cup of Folgers!

I have to imagine if my son had gotten into deep water ... screwed up and been foolish ... would I defend him and back him? ... of course I would. Criticize ''Hunter'' all you will .. he needs help right now.

AZRickD
January 6, 2004, 12:03 AM
Gramps said: "his gives him the right, actually the obligation to find out what the story is. He has "reasonable cause" to pursue the matter further. He would be derilect in his duty to not look into the situation."

Sheriff Dan Beck of Allen County (Lima, Ohio), has instructed his deputies that they are not to arrest individuals they find carrying concealed but otherwise peaceable citizens.

Rick

Ryder
January 6, 2004, 04:51 AM
Sheriff Dan Beck of Allen County (Lima, Ohio), has instructed his deputies that they are not to arrest individuals they find carrying concealed but otherwise peaceable citizens.

WOW!!!

I think any gun owner that crosses the state line of enemy territory is wrong. Those states don't get one cent of my money. Regardless, I sent out a substantial check for Hunter's Defense this AM as promised.

GIVE EM HELL HUNTER! :D

Sergeant Bob
January 6, 2004, 05:05 AM
assume your idea of freedom includes all of the social issues that the usaul run of freedom lovers so happily oppose
MicrobalrogWhat do you mean?
That was his response to my statement:
Exactly, those who believe in freedom....and those who want to control it.
Although I didn't get into it with him, I expect it would be the "usual" gay bashing, rascist, anti immigrant "social issues" people who believe in the Constitution are often stereotyped with. He was throwing a red herring at me and I wasn't catching it.
Then he went in the completely opposite direction with:Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...
Trying to intimate that by "freedom" I meant people should have the freedom to molest children.
That's aside from the fact that
WildMr.lawabidingcitizeneverythingshouldbesettledbyjudgesAlaska has already convicted "Mikey Jackson" without him even having his day in the courts which he is so fond of.

Ian
January 6, 2004, 01:00 PM
Wow! You guys are awesome - over $5000 have already been contributed to the defense (about half of which has been used already in atty fees).

Also, there's something else that could be a big help - this is from Sunni Maravillosa again:

If anyone would like to help but can't make a financial contribution, I'm looking for someone to make a much-needed contribution of another sort. Hunter's OH lawyer has asked if we can put together a thorough report on concealed carry statistics for him to use in the case. Ohio crime statistics, and other state crime statistics both pre- and post-CCW law enactment will be of most help. The report doesn't need to be written like a school research paper, or anything like that. It just needs to be thorough, and easy for the lawyer to follow and understand. If he does it, it will cost Hunter more FRNs ... and this is the sort of thing a bunch of volunteers ought to be able to toss together fairly easily.

Her email address is sunni at free-market.net.

Also, we've gotten a fantastic piece of coverage from the Mansfield News Journal, an Ohio paper in the area: Gun-toter has 'Liberty' on his side (http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20040106/localnews/173866.html). Letters to the paper thanking them for their balanced reporting would be very helpful. The contact info provided for the article's author is rkent@nncogannett.com, or (419) 521-7274.

Again, thank you all!

Sportcat
January 6, 2004, 01:05 PM
Pretty balanced story, except for the "assualt-style" comment.

The Undertoad
January 6, 2004, 03:01 PM
Ian - sounds like a good guy got a raw deal. I'll scrape together some cash and send him a MO. I'm actually in Ohio right now...definitely not my favorite state. ;) :p

Cosmoline
January 6, 2004, 03:28 PM
That's harsh. I hope he's able to get out of Ohio.

Myself, I never leave Alaska anymore.

Blackcloud6
January 6, 2004, 07:44 PM
I've been following this thread from the start. I have felt that what Mr. Hunter did was not prudent and I still hold this belief. At first it came across to me that he entered Ohio fully aware of what he was doing and thumbing his nose at the law; this also is not prudent.

But after reading all this and linking to the Liberty Round Table, it appears that Mr. Hunter just made a mistake by not putting his pistol away before entering Ohio... and speeding while transporting firearms in Ohio which is notorious for pulling people over.

I hope he prevails as he does not deserve to be a felon for this simple error of omission.

I still feel that if one carries, one should obey the laws fully. There is just too much at risk. There's other ways to fight unjust laws.

I am sending a contribution to his defense fund. You reap what you sow.

Wildalaska
January 6, 2004, 08:15 PM
Myself, I never leave Alaska anymore.

Funny thing, my wife, who is not originally from from the US and who has never lived anywhere in the US but here, asked me if I was gonna bring a gun with me when we went to NY and when I said no, she said "not safety with no gun"...

Living in Alaska sure influences ones outlook...

WildeventheleftleaningmayorofAnchoragehasapermitAlaska

dadman
January 6, 2004, 08:21 PM
I wasn't familiar with Jordan/Hunter until this story. I've read where he wrote some articles and was involved in RKBA. What has he published, and what kind of RKBA activities was he involved in?

12-34hom
January 6, 2004, 09:08 PM
If you carry a gun and start traveling through jurisdictions where thier state firearms laws differ from where you live, you owe it to yourself as a responsible gun owner to know what the laws are and comply with said laws to avoid situations just like this one.

I don't see it as capitulation of my beliefs, just common sense & respect for the law in general.

As in all walks of life there are those willing to futher thier goals on the backs of others. This should concern everyone who carries a gun for self protection. The repercussions have a ripple effect - for behaviour done not out of malice; none the less still have a toll, and reflect on gunowners as a whole - right or wrongly.

The name calling and finger pointing contained in this thread are meaningless....

Blame is reserved for God and little children.

12-34hom.

Gewehr98
January 6, 2004, 09:13 PM
But I'm heading over to the other website to contribute funds.

That is, once I dig out that handcuff key I squirreled away years ago and put it on my keychain.

(The extra insight into some THR members' character was, well, interesting)

Ian
January 6, 2004, 09:29 PM
Dadman - He's written for both The Libertarian Enterprise and Sierra Times. You can find his article archive at vader.com (http://www.vader.com) down at the bottom of the page. He also has a recent piece on Doing Freedom! ezine (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/1203/50ways1203.html). Besides these, he's a long-time member/contributor of the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols, JPFO (including being a doner to the Innocents Betrayed project), and probably a couple other RKBA groups I don't know of. He's also very active in local and state politics in New Hampshire, and teaches gun safety.

BTW, if anyone saw the horrible "lone nut with a gun" photo that a couple of the news stories have been running, here's what he looks like when not in the middle of a road trip and arrest:

http://www.libertyroundtable.org/images/hunterwork.jpg

ctdonath
January 6, 2004, 10:37 PM
If you carry a gun and start traveling through jurisdictions where thier state firearms laws differ from where you live, you owe it to yourself as a responsible gun owner to know what the laws are and comply with said laws to avoid situations just like this one.
Have you actually read your own state's gun laws? all of them? How about the gun laws of neighboring states? How many people ACTUALLY know the relevant gun laws? I read the NY gun laws every year - a time-consuming mind-bending task wherein I discover something new and significant each time; as such, I find it practically absurd to expect anyone else to do the same.

Easy for you (and others here) to say "just follow the law". HA! I have here the BATF book consolidating state gun laws into nearly 500 pages of dense fine print - and it admits to NOT including many laws highly relevant to this discussion.

I've read this whole thread - nowhere has anyone actually comprehensively quoted the relevant Ohio laws!

Gun laws in most states are so complex, and so muddled by varying jurisdictions, and written in a language incomprehensible to common folk - never mind impossible-to-find relevant court cases - that ignorance of the law due to obfuscation by the legislature should be an affirmative defense, especially when the offense in question has no victim, jeopardy, or intent.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's easy to understand. Everything that re-interprets that is, on the whole, incomprehensible (trust me, I've tried).

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 10:44 PM
Have you actually read your own state's gun laws? all of them? How about the gun laws of neighboring states?
Yes.

When the wife and I went on vaction I traveled through many states. I made sure I knew the laws before I left. In some states my pistol was loaded and on me, in others it was unloaded and cased in the trunk.

I encourage others to read them as well, knowledge is power.

AZRickD
January 6, 2004, 11:12 PM
When I did my road trip from Ohio to Arizona last spring, I called every state and several city (LEO) jurisdictions as well as going to packing.org, state web sites and my "Traverlers Gun Guide."

With the mish mash of CCW states (some with recip, some without) and open carry states and peaceful journey states and no-carry states there here was no way safe and *legal* way for me me to consistantly transport a firearm with me other than utilizing the 1896 FOPA (in the trunk).

I could CCW in Indiana, but one has to pull off the interstate to store it for Illinios... oops, did I just pass the state line or is it up there somewhere? Then you get into Missouri which is open carry but has no preemption. I was told by the State Police that they had no way to keep track of all the county, city, township, and village laws that may or may not be on the books.

As for Mr. Jordan, why would he not think that he would be a "prudent person" under Ohio law, as was Mr. Feeley, of Ohio v Feeley fame?

A few thousand dollars worth of weapons and ammo as well as a vehicle and money to protect, let alone his life. Wouldn't a "prudent person" as per Ohio Statute take steps to protect himself and carry concealed as the law suggests he is permitted to do?

Oh, yeah, that prior restraint thing of an affirmative defense that makes you prove your innocence in a court of law.

Just dandy.

BTW, a confession, all the whining I've done and I still haven't sent my $20 dollars yet. It's grant-writing season and I've been pullling 15 hours days and working weekends.

Forgive me. ;)

Rick

12-34hom
January 6, 2004, 11:18 PM
Yes i have read and know what the laws concerning CCW here in Iowa, and the laws concerning the justified use of deadly force.

If i travel across state lines and plan on having a concealed firearm , i know what their laws are and comply with them.

It's merely a matter of common sense and what any reasonable and responsible gun owner should do.

12-34hom.

dadman
January 6, 2004, 11:37 PM
Ian,
Thanks for posting the info.
I know of a person who crossed into Oh, Canada! from the USofA with a firearm. Person remembered item was in vehicle after driving around Windsor, Ontario awhile.
Don't know if this was Mr. Jordan's situation, but can see how it could happen.

cordex
January 7, 2004, 02:15 AM
Wild even the left leaning mayor of Anchorage has a permit Alaska
Not hard to find left-leaning politicians who want to carry weapons themselves (see: Feinstein et all). The hard - but not impossible - part is finding left-leaning politicians who want their electorate to carry weapons. Not that all right-leaning politicians are pro-carry either ...

Kim
January 7, 2004, 11:01 PM
Well MrAlaskaguy made my claws dig deep and give 100.00 to an excellent cause. Good Luck Hunter from a new FRIEND.

jimpeel
January 7, 2004, 11:04 PM
Welcome to THR!

Well MrAlaskaguy made my claws dig deep ...He has that effect on people. :D

I recently had the honor of making his ignore list. My only regret is that I was number three. :evil:

There are, as of this posting and courtesy of me, 1767 big ol' blank spots in the threads he sees -- or is that "doesn't see" -- and I no longer have to put up with him. I wish there were a reverse ignore list that would allow you to put yourself on someone else's ignore list, so you could dispense with their nonsense sooner, without having to wait for them to place you on it.

JohnBT
January 8, 2004, 11:01 AM
Yeah, like anybody cares. :banghead:

___________

I just kicked in half a C-note.

I hope he puts his brain in gear first next time before he drives armed.

John

Russ
January 8, 2004, 01:51 PM
This guy is either stupid or does not have access to the Internet. If one goes to a number of sites on the Internet, it is fairly easy to determine what the rules are. He can twist in the wind as far as I'm concerned. One site I know is www.KC3.com

I go through Ohio now and again as I live in a neighhoring state. I take it upon myself to know the rules. Agree or not, until the laws are changed (which will be a cold day in Hell) you have to obey them or face the consequences. What is the old saying " ignorance of the law is no excuse". I wouldn't give this guy 5 cents. Too many others vying for my money. Stupid people need not apply.

ojibweindian
January 8, 2004, 02:17 PM
Russ

So we should all be good little boys and girls and do what our MASTER tells us?

I'll opt out, thank you very much, and you can continue to be a slave.

Where can I cough up some dough to help out the good guy?

Ian
January 8, 2004, 02:21 PM
ojibweindian - right here. (http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/contributions.html) Thanks!

ojibweindian
January 8, 2004, 02:37 PM
Check is in the mail.

Russ
January 8, 2004, 02:41 PM
Ogibweindian,

That unfortunately is the way the world works. It won't change in my lifetime so keep tilting at windmills. someone has to do it. Had you ever been arrested and run through the system for anything, I bet your views would change in a heart beat. Be my guest and break the existing laws. See where it gets you. Hope you have a boat load of money of your own to fight with. Don't come begging for my money when you have to pay the price.

ojibweindian
January 8, 2004, 02:44 PM
I don't take money from yes-men and cowards.

Bill St. Clair
January 8, 2004, 02:48 PM
I have never been arrested and run through the system, yet I am already a big-time foe of bad laws. Had I been arrested for a crock like Ohio's law about carrying firearms in motor vehicles, I would be even more strongly opposed to this garbage and more likely to support others who were wrongly arrested.

We all have, from birth, a concealed carry permit that is valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It requires no background check, no fingerprints, no safety training, no fee, and no wait. It is part of our right to life. It is guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution.

Russ
January 8, 2004, 02:49 PM
Ojibweindian,

Oh please. You really need to get a clue. Perhaps you could buy one.

ojibweindian
January 8, 2004, 03:03 PM
Perhaps. Do they sell clues at Wal-Mart? Are they on sale? Oh, how I wish I had a clue...

cordex
January 8, 2004, 05:28 PM
Perhaps. Do they sell clues at Wal-Mart? Are they on sale? Oh, how I wish I had a clue...
Board games. By the toy department.

Oleg Volk
January 8, 2004, 05:55 PM
Keep the discussion civil, please!

Don Gwinn
January 8, 2004, 09:50 PM
We don't call each other cowards here. Knock it off.

On another note, much has been made of who has read his state's laws and who has not. Just a reminder to everyone--don't just read the law, carry it! The average police officer you speak to will NOT know the law. Most of them have never seen the actual code. In some circumstances, you have more recourse under the law if you make a good-faith effort to show the officer the law and he arrests you illegally anyway.

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 11:03 PM
In some circumstances, you have more recourse under the law if you make a good-faith effort to show the officer the law and he arrests you illegally anyway.Which brings us to suijurisfreeman's Constructive Notice (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36552).

Ian
January 9, 2004, 09:10 PM
I realize this is awfully short notice, but I just got it. Hunter's finally getting his vehicle back and returning to NH (to return to OH next month for arraignment). So:

For those within driving distance of north central Ohio, please join us for breakfast with Jeff Jordan, Liberty Round Tables' The Hunter. Jeff was recently charged with carrying a concealed weapon by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Jeff is coming back to Ohio to get his vehicle and belongings back from the OHP. You can show your support for RKBA and Jeff by showing up tomorrow. Please dress respectful, business causal would be good. Everyone who values freedom is welcome to attend.

I spoke to Jeff this afternoon and he will be in Ohio this evening along with DLT.

When: Saturday, January 10th at 9am
Where: Bob Evans Restaurant 1304 E MAIN STREET, ASHLAND OH 44805

Just exit off I-71 at St. Route 250 and head west toward Ashland. The Bob Evan's is on your right about 2-3 miles from the Interstate. Ashland is about 80 miles north of Columbus, just off of I-71.

For a map just go to: http://www.mapquest.com and enter the address.

We'll meet in the parking lot, and then have breakfast together. Just look for a 2003 Black Ford F-150 Supercab as a rally point. Our presence will mainly serve as a respectful send off for Jeff and to provide moral support. Other details will be provided in person.

For additional info you can contact me on my cell phone at 614-313-5722 or DLT at 608-345-7731.

Regards, Matt Gaylor-

http://www.freeohio.us

BogBabe
January 10, 2004, 09:36 AM
I've asked publius to click some e-gold to Hunter's legal defense fund.

Hunter is one of the good guys, and we need to rally 'round and support him.

Ian
January 11, 2004, 03:25 PM
Situation Update:

I just heard from Don Lobo on the return of Hunter's SUV. He's had a tiring, stressful day and wasn't much in the mood for talking. A fuller picture will emerge once he's home and rested, but here's what he told me.

Getting the Pathfinder back was the usual bureaucratic c-f^*k. The trooper took his sweet time getting the paperwork, and when they got to the impound lot, although it was well within its hours of operation, it was closed. They called, and waited a while for someone to come release his SUV.

Finally, it was released -- and in total disarray. The battery was dead, and the interior looked as though a tornado had been through it. All the Christmas gifts he'd had in it for friends were opened. Nothing was visibly damaged.

These items are among the things NOT returned by the OHP:

all firearms
all ammunition
all knives on his person (Leatherman and Gerber tool)
Lord of the Rings swords, and other swords
Hunter's certificate from being made a Liberty Round Table Knight Defender
several books
International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) pamphlets
work laptop computer

That last item -- the computer -- was not listed on the receipt. Oddly enough, the machete, which was mentioned in the reports as being part of his "arsenal", *was* returned, as was a double-edged axe he also had in the SUV.

Lobo described the experience -- which was captured on video -- as "stomach-churning" for him. I can imagine what it must have been like for Hunter. He is driving the Pathfinder home, but may not keep it, for obvious reasons.

Carl [a friend] met up with them in Ohio, and is escorting Hunter home.

Please forward this message to anyone you know who has an interest in Hunter's story. I'll continue to keep you updated as I'm able.

I continue to receive contributions for Hunter -- thank you all so much for helping him so generously. The LRT contributions page will be updated with new information on how to contribute or help Hunter, too (we've still not heard back from KeepandBearArms on getting a credit
card donation page set up).

http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/contributions.html

Thanks to you all,

Sunni

I'll post more as I hear it.

OF
January 15, 2004, 10:58 AM
I will be contributing as much as I can to this fund, as meager as that amount may be.

I am absolutely disgusted by some of the attitudes on this thread. I always knew we had some members here who were nothing more than statists with a gun fetish, but I guess I never realized how awful that position really is. How sickening it would be to see these people actively lobbying that a man should rot in prison for standing up for his personal rights. Hell, there are plenty here arguing that men do not even have rights, of even the most basic sort! - save those granted by the collective at any particular point in time (and subject to change without notice).

I may not have the balls to flagrantly oppose the gov't's unconstitutional and immoral laws in the fight for freedom, at great personal peril, as this man has done, but I sure as ???? have the balls to support those who do.

One day, people are going to have to make a choice. Someday, they are going to finally move on something you do care about. It is only a matter of time.

Who's going to help you then? And if you lose in the courts, and one of you makes a stand, will you throw him to the wolves and say "Tough break buddy! Should have known better!"?

- Gabe

El Rojo
January 15, 2004, 01:38 PM
You know it is pretty simple. How do you change laws? Through the courts? Hell that is what most of us complain about all of the time. How the people make a decision and then it gets thrown out or interpreted wrong in the courts. The place to change laws is not in the courts, it is in the legislatures and in the Congress. Here we are throwing all of our weight behind an obviously good guy that obviously broke the law. Argue how we have the right to keep and bear arms all you want, he broke the law. So now what exactly are we fighting for here? Either this thing goes all the way to the supreme court and they decide that the government has no power to keep us from carrying concealed weapons or he beats the case because the DA decides to drop the issue or he gets off on some technicality.

I am sorry if I am not that enthusiastic about this fight. You have to pick and chose your battles and this isn't a very good battle. That is from my perspective from the PRK. From Hunter's perspective he has to fight it and there is no way he can give in on this, but that is his battle. He should have realized this was what he was facing when he was traveling through Ohio like that. He should have thought ahead and realized if he were to get caught breaking the law, he was going to have to take this thing on and take it all the way or he was going to end up being a felon and lose his ability to lawfully possess arms forever. He took that risk, now he has to do the best he can.

However, to fight every single one of these things all over the country and start throwing money around like that, I think that is foolish. Unless his case goes to the Supreme Court, nothing will have changed. Most likely the only way he is going to beat the charges is on a technicality or on a plea bargain. What does that do for all of our rights? Nothing, absolutely nothing. People will still get arrested in Ohio for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. You all will get fired up and spend more of your money to protect HIS right to keep and bear arms and still nothing will change.

Now what if we would have spent this money trying to lobby the Ohio State Legislature or attempting to inform the electorate why law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed weapons? We might still face the same odds as in the Hunter case, but if we succeed there, we change the ball game for everyone.

The only way my analysis above is going to be proved wrong is if this thing makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. Anyone care to take some side bets on the odds of that happening? I think it is great that so many of you are willing to help this guy out. However, don't fault me for wanting to spend my money more efficiently on causes that have a better chance of effecting wide spread change rather than just a change for Hunter who knowingly broke the law.

OF
January 15, 2004, 03:00 PM
If you don't want to help, fine. But to say this guy deserves to get hung out to dry for making a stand on what we all know is right is crazy. That he should have known better? I'm sure he did know better! Maybe he chose to make a stand. Do I go out and wave my gun in the face of the cops where I am forbidden to have it, no. But do I always disarm wherever they tell me I'm supposed to? No. By not disarming am I risking trouble? Yes. That's as far as I'm prepared to go right now. If I get caught and a friend of mine comes on this board and asks for some help in my name, in a million years I would not have expected that I'd get turned down the way this guy has. That people here would say "Gabe knew what he was doing, packing heat into that Post Office. Screw him. He knew the law. What does he expect? We're going to spend our precious time writing a letter or sending him a 10-spot? He knows the gov't forbids exercising our rights in Post offices, yet he went and did it anyway. He deserves what he gets. We help him out and the next thing you know it's anarchy!" :barf:

Here's an RKBA activist, for crying out loud, that for whatever reason is in the position of having to fight for his life against the very unjust laws that everyone knows are illegal and immoral, that we all (most of us anyway) profess to be in active struggle against, but not only will people not lift a finger, not even keep their mouths shut (!), instead they berate him for being "stupid". People here are actively lobbying to keep others from helping him. Actually spending time typing huge posts on the internet about how he should not be helped and people who would throw in with him are wasting their time, because, after all we'd just be "spend[ing] more of your money to protect HIS right to keep and bear arms" God forbid.

Insane. Completely insane. Nobody is asking you to go to jail with the guy. If you don't want to help, the least you can do is get out of the way.

- Gabe

grampster
January 15, 2004, 09:46 PM
grd,

I have read your last couple of posts and I agree, in principal, with what you say. I have backed that up with a donation to Mr. Jordan.

You say some have called Mr. Jordan "stupid". That raised a hackle with me as I think I used the word in my earlier post, (on page 8) so I went back and re read it. The context I used was it was "stupid" to not have all his weapons out of sight so that a cursory look see into the car from the exterior would not reveal any weapons. (Probable Cause) Upon reflection, I stand by my statement but admit that "stupid" was a bad choice of words. I should have said "indiscreet", a much kinder term. I have traveled with weapons many times. Many times into states with draconian firearm laws. I have never been indiscreet in doing so. I operate on the theory of "I'd rather have you (police) catch me with it, than them (goblins) catch me without it." But discretion is always paramount. Covering ones six is a lifelong habit. A good one, I think.

My other point in my earlier post was couched in the context of..... "Whosoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Evidently we have a plethora of non-sinners in the room. Or in the case of the unreligious.....those with out fault or bad judgement...ever.

Mr. Jordan exhibited a lack of discretion. But as in my earlier post......The Good Samaritan did not argue nits, he merely helped. Helping is a personal decision......Being a critic, sometimes is an unwelcome intrusion into a opportunity for an act of faithful charity.

nuff said,

grampster's towing service

OF
January 15, 2004, 09:51 PM
Well put, grampster, and I wasn't targeting anyone specifically re: stupid, I remembered seeing that word used more than once in the previous pages and it got my attention.

Re: Mr. Jordan's lack of discretion: What if he left the guns out on purpose? What if he, even unconsciously, was prodding the law to arrest him?

The way I see it, it makes no difference. He either made a mistake and got caught, or he made a stand and is taking the fight to them.

Either way, he gets my donation and my support.

- Gabe

grampster
January 15, 2004, 10:05 PM
Gabe,

Judging from the tone of Ian's posts which are keeping us up on the situation, It doesn't sound like Hunter was seeking a confrontation. It appears he has been shaken to the core as a result. If he were deliberately attempting to challenge the Ohio laws, I think he would be much more confrontational...and it doesn't appear to be the case, I don't think.

grampster

geekWithA.45
January 17, 2004, 05:05 PM
However, to fight every single one of these things all over the country and start throwing money around like that, I think that is foolish. Unless his case goes to the Supreme Court, nothing will have changed. Most likely the only way he is going to beat the charges is on a technicality or on a plea bargain. What does that do for all of our rights? Nothing, absolutely nothing. People will still get arrested in Ohio for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. You all will get fired up and spend more of your money to protect HIS right to keep and bear arms and still nothing will change.

Hey, you don't have to help.

As for me,

(From http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_geekwitha45_archive.html#107343170583587949)

Somewhere buried in the THR thread concerning Jeff Jordan someone voiced the sentiment along the lines of "we're going to go broke fighting every individual case that comes up, it's better to be selective and fund the cases that are likely to effect wide change for everyone".

I disagree, for a number of reasons. The first is that this sort of precedent setting, wide reaching case is supported by the NRA Civil Defense Fund.

Quote:
--------------
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was established by the NRA Board of Directors in 1978 to become involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.

To accomplish this, the Fund provides legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms.
--------------

In other words, if your case of isn't of golden virtue and isn't likely to help gun owners collectively, you're pretty much ???? out of luck as far as the NRA is concerned.

What this teaches the statist bastards is that they can get away with all the nickel and dime weapons charges they can bring against marginal everyday folks.

The other main reason I disagree with this sentiment is that while our .gov has concentrated vast wealth with which which to prosecute this sort of unconstitutional nonsense, We, The People, by definition, have more.

I propose we all spend some of it opposing these bastards at every single turn.

Can you imagine a world in which each and everytime an honest Joe Normal is busted on a bull????, unconstitutional gun charge thousands of other honest folks spring up out of the woodwork and fill his legal defense coffer?

I can.

How long do you think this sort of thing will go on? I don't know, but it's high time we found out.

The bull???? ends here, and it ends now.

I'm not a rich man, but I've got some discretionary cash, and I can't think of a better way to spend it.

From this day forward, for as long as I am able to do so, I, the geekWithA.45, will contribute $50 to the legal defense fund of each and every honest American who, absent actual criminality and harm, is arrested and charged with violations of any unconstitutional gun law. (And believe you me, most of them are unconstitutional.)

Busted for CCW without a permit? $50. Busted with gun that's too big/small/scary/holds too many bullets? $50. Paperwork not in order? $50. Didn't pack your range bag in accordance with regulations? $50. Stopped for milk on the way home from the range? $50. Defended your life with an unregistered handgun? $50. Forgot to register? $50. And on, and on, and on.

This isn't gonna work if we all don't get on the bandwagon, and I don't want to be the only ???????/sucker out there pooping out the bucks left and right, so.....pony up, god damnit!

Let's take these bastards on.
Let's just see who has more resolve.
Let's just see who's pile of gold runs out first.
Let's just see who has more gumption, more tenacity, and more guts.

Let's just see who the last man standing really is.

I'm betting my fortune, my honor, and perhaps someday my life that it'll be We The People.

What about you?


To date:
So far, I'm out $200, and there's at least two more I've heard of that I'll contribute to if I can find contact info.

dustind
January 18, 2004, 12:23 AM
GeekWithA.45: That was beutiful. I am with you, but there is no way I can afford 50$ each at this time. :(

I am young and plan to fight these stupid laws until we win, or I die.

Ryder
January 18, 2004, 05:47 AM
Let's just see who the last man standing really is.
I'm betting my fortune, my honor, and perhaps someday my life that it'll be We The People.


It's our money they'd use to fight us. Unlikely they will run out anytime soon.

Sounds like you're dreaming of a fair and honest fight. It isn't. These cases never get to trial due to the outright vicious threats the state intimidates people with. I gave money to Jeff in the hopes he would fight it since this appears to be a fight he has been preparing for but just because he is right does not mean he will win. A jury gets their instruction from the judge. They will be instructed to determine if the law under which he is charged was broken. No more, no less. They will not be allowed to consider the legitimacy of that law.

I'll be saving 50's for his appeal and hope it's not required. I think he has a great case.

geekWithA.45
January 18, 2004, 01:56 PM
I'm not dreaming of a fair an honest fight. I'm simply stating that it is better to oppose the statists in any way possible, rather than simply let them carry on at will, which seems to be what's going on now.

Reality being what it is, I probably won't be able to sustain $50/event much longer, but that's OK. Even if I have to drop all the way back to $5, at least I'm doing something. $10 from a thousand people buys someone a decent lawyer, ya know, and it also opposes a factor that our enemies count on, that people will do a cost/benefit calculation and capitulate.

As for using our own money to fight us, that is a rant of a whole different cloth. If we are ever to truly regain control of our .gov, the IRS will need to be dismembered.

In the meantime, contemplate the fact that even with all the revenues that are raised, WE STILL HAVE MORE, otherwise, they wouldn't keep coming back to us for money, now would they?

kbarrett
February 19, 2004, 06:38 PM
I'll be donating $50 tomorrow after I get paid. I'd rather spend money now to try to win this war the easy way.

Statist folks like mildalaska ( your wife has much more sense than you do, you should listen to her.... ) are making this decision very easy for me.



Those folks who insist he deserved what he got for failing to obey federal tyranny are on the path that will force them to make some very unpleasant decisions years from now:

Between accepting unarmed slavery, fighting to the death, or fleeing this country.

lee n. field
August 21, 2004, 10:04 PM
Latest on the Jeff "Hunter" Jordan CCW case in Ohio:

Hey everybody, I just got off the phone with Hunter after talking with him
at length. The very short version is that he's accepted a very good plea
deal, which in turn was finalized earlier today by the Ohio courts.
Although Hunter remains somewhat disgruntled on a theoretical basis with the
practical necessity of taking a misdemeanor plea, he is very much aware that
the deal is a good one and he's quite pleased (from a practical perspective)
to no longer be facing legal jeopardy in Ohio. He specifically asked me to
pass on his heartfelt thanks to all of the people here who supported him
during his legal ordeal.

Now he just faces getting his life back together after all this.

AR180
August 21, 2004, 10:27 PM
Though currently unemployed here in Phoenix, my check for $20.00 is in a stamped envelope and will be dropped off at the postoffice on Monday along with some resumes.

P95Carry
August 22, 2004, 01:16 AM
Thx lee for an update - there has been many a day I have been wondering.

ctdonath
August 22, 2004, 09:19 AM
taking a misdemeanor pleaSo...he did nothing wrong (basic RKBA), and they've beat him up to the point that he's happy to be convicted of a misdemeanor?

Blackcloud6
August 22, 2004, 09:25 AM
Any details on the plea?

dale
August 22, 2004, 12:27 PM
Jeffrey L "the Hunter" Jordan writes:

"Statement - distribute as widely as possible"

As you may well have heard by now, my lawyers and I concluded a plea
bargain with the Ashland county prosecutor's office Friday 8/21. The
reason that this is the first you have heard of it is complete secrecy
was part of the deal, for reasons which completely escape me. Be that as
it may, everything went off without a hitch. The settlement included no
jail time (well, technically a suspended sentence), a year's
unsupervised probation, a $500 fine, and $300-odd dollars in court
costs. *All* of my seized property is to be returned; specifically
including my pistols, ammo, rifle, swords, and electronics.

So that there is no misunderstanding on this, everyone should be aware
that I consider this settlement at best a damn fine fighting retreat,
not a victory. The vitally important philosophical and legal points
involved in the case are going to go unstated. From a personal and
practical standpoint this is a very good result, but from a long-term
viewpoint of preserving freedom this is a far less than optimal outcome.
But I have a pretty strong aversion to ignoring the advice of people I
am paying large sums of money for their expertise, and the *unanimous*
opinion of the legal team was to accept this deal. This is by no means
the end of the legal struggle, but it *does* mark the end of my own
personal jeopardy.

Let me take this opportunity to as publicly as possible thank my lawyer
Jim Brightbill for all his hard work, and congratulate him on securing
such a favorable deal. It has been a long slog through a lot of twists
and turns, but we made it. Let me also thank the other members of the
legal team; I am only going to mention my sister Brenda by name because
I haven't cleared mentioning the other 5 with them. The thanks are no
less heartfelt for being safely anonymous. And she deserves special
mention as the one who was there for me when I had only 1 phone call to
try to begin fighting back in a very bad situation. She and the rest of
my family and close friends have given me the emotional support that is
so essential in a situation like this, and there is no way I can ever
thank them enough.

Carl Bussjaeger deserves special mention for his tireless work in
speaking out when I was muzzled. It's been frustrating at times, brother
knight, but you hung in there and never gave up, even when the only
answer I could give you was "I can't talk about that". Special thanks to
all my friends both old and new, who went out of their way to offer
every sort of support imaginable - from JR & EC who took me out to
dinner, movies, and banana splits more times than you can believe, to DB
& ES who called periodically to make sure I was holding up and keep me
posted on what the activist community was doing, EL, JL, & SC for all
your behind-the-scenes work, Louis James & Sunni Maravillosa for
dropping everything to kick things off back when this all started,
FreeMatt & Charlie for scaring the hell out of me in my hotel room that
night, "Mama" Sue for both publicity and personal support, all the
members of LRT & TCF who jumped in whenever needed, and Angel Shamaya,
Aaron Zelman, and Claire Wolfe for consistent and principled support and
advice throughout this ordeal.


I am going to attempt to individually mention all the fine organizations
that rallied to my side. FMN, JPFO, ISIL, FIJA, KABA, GO-NH, GOA, AFA,
LRT, RRND, TPoL, TCF, the Mental Militia, FSP, FSW, and likely dozens of
others I am forgetting. One of the great strengths of the freedom
movement is that we all pull together when the chips are down, and my
case certainly exemplifies that spirit.

Last, and most especially, I want to thank all those people who didn't
know me before this all started who understood the important principles
involved, and opened their hearts and helped out in every way
imaginable. The financial support has kept me alive, and I even yet
can't talk about just how effective your letters and commentary has been
- keep it up, gang. You deserve the kudos for getting us to this first
important milestone in this particular skirmish of the war for freedom.
I personally promise you that the team that has been assembled to
spearhead the "Free Hunter" effort is only beginning to produce results.
We're not yet finished talking with Verizon, and there are a lot of
other possibilities for action that we're exploring.

Jeffrey L "the Hunter" Jordan

If you enjoyed reading about "Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!