Gay gun enthusiast ejected from Pride event

[gunsmith]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4623.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved.

[30 cal slob]

that just sux.

[kludge]

Quick, call the ACLU! er... uhhh...

[ScottsGT]

This guy is just grandstanding for attention, kind of like that young lady did in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1955.

[TonyB]

Grand standing or not it will be interesting how the ACLU comes out on this(no pun intended).

[Leatherneck]

Clear choice here: either pursue charges and make examples of all who trampled his rights and deter future actions like this; or do nothing and encourage these fascists.

TC

[axeman_g]

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

Did Tiamanen Square equate to my last traffic ticket?

[Henry Bowman]

How in the blazes can you make that comment? There is no and I repeat no correlation at all between a Human Rights stand and simple encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official.

Are you saying that Rosa Parks had a simple "encounter with a ignorant and misinformed public official"? Because I'm sure you're not suggesting that RKBA is something less than a human rights issue.

[axeman_g]

Henry,
I am not saying that Rosa Parks had an encounter with a ignorant public official, just the opposite, that the gentleman in Utah did.

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

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

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

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

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

[Drysdale]

WRONG!

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

Without RKBA, we'd all be slaves.

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

Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what face it wears.

[gego]

Isn't it interesting how selective people can be about Human Rights! That is probably one of the big reasons they are going down the tube.

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

[FieroCDSP]

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

[Fletchette]

If it went down like the article says, I think this guy has a very good lawsuit against the police department.

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

[Prince Yamato]

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

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

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

[Henry Bowman]

Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what face it wears.

That was my point. In the instant case, he was trying to impose his bigotry using an incorrect understanding of the law as an excuse.

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

[Fletchette]

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

kinda?!?

[Grant48]

This official was ignorant of a law... He was not trying to disarm Mr Nelson forever

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

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

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

[glummer]

Miss Park's act was seen as an insignificant event at the time. It is only hindsight that allows us to seen what a significant event it turned out to be.

As I remember, it WAS considered to be quite significant at the time; it was a well-planned challenge to the prevailing law (which is what makes it somewhat different from the case under dicussion here - this IS a single individual act of bigotry, not a law imposed on everyone. Still bigotry, though, and maybe giving better grounds for a civil rights lawsuit BECAUSE there is no law to hide behind.)

[Grant48]

this IS a single individual act of bigotry, not a law imposed on everyone.

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

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

[Phetro]

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

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

[Deanimator]

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

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

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

[axeman_g]

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

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

[axeman_g]

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

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

[willbrink]

FYI, there is a pro gun gay group called the Pink Pistols. Their motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed" which I think is a great motto!

http://www.pinkpistols.com/

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

[kbheiner7]

If Nelson does indeed hold a valid Utah CCW, he didn't even need to have an empty chamber while carrying.

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