Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio

[manwithoutahome]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don't some of you guys have other pressing things to do, like turn in your rifles to the proper authorities?

 

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

One point about the law that needs to be addressed

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]

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]

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]

An idea from one of the quotes

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]

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 California, 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! ), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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...)