Gun Rights Activist Accused Of Threatening Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheeBadOne

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,217
Location
Nemo sine vitio est
Rick Stanley Fails To Appear In Court On Gun Charges

BRIGHTON, Colo. -- The 2002 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Colorado has been arrested on charges he failed to appear in court and he threatened two judges in Adams County.

Rick Stanley, 49, ran unsuccessfully against Republican Sen. Wayne Allard last year, then later left the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

He had been arrested in September 2002 for attending the Thornton Harvest Fest with a loaded revolver on his hip, which he has said he believes is his constitutional right, and was convicted on a misdemeanor gun charge.

But instead of appearing to be sentenced at a hearing scheduled last Wednesday, he had a document titled "Notice and Order' delivered to the municipal and state district judges handling his case, according to court records.

The document, posted on Stanley's Web site, "ordered" the judges to dismiss the charge and return to him $1,500 in bond money, his "Smith and Wesson 6 shot .357 pistol and 6 each .357 bullets."

The document also accused the judges of treason and included a statement he would have his "mutual defenses Pact Militia" order a warrant for their arrest.

Bob Grant, district attorney for Adams and Broomfield counties, viewed the notice as a threat against the judges.

"Law enforcement takes these folks extremely seriously, takes their threats extremely seriously, and that's why this case was investigated and filed," he said.

Stanley was arrested over the weekend.

Stanley, facing two felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant, was being held under $50,000 bail. However he was not eligible for release until he completes the 90-day sentence handed down in his absence last week, Grant said.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2569083/detail.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Just what we need, another black eye :mad:
 
Wasn't Rick Stanley the honyock who was doing his best to cause that whole Lyle Barclay thing to go violent?

LawDog
 
The document also accused the judges of treason and included a statement he would have his "mutual defenses Pact Militia" order a warrant for their arrest.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Friends like these we need like the flu.
 
All I can say about Rick Stanley is that in some respects he's got the seed of the right idea, but then he goes off like a hothead and screws up the implementation of it.

He might have gone somewhere with his original open carry protest, but instead of making smart plays in the courtroom, building his case a block at a time using lawyerly technique, he went off on a rant, the judge banged the gavel, and that was the end of that.

The problem is that by going over the top like that, he throws out the baby with the bathwater, and the mud splashes on all of us.
 
Amazing that everyone who posted to this thread is unanimous in their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Oy vey.

SIGH.

Look, the real core issue here is that Stanley WAS falsely convicted of the original open-carry charge. It's complicated, but basically Denver's "Home Rule" status doesn't protect them from having to honor basic civil rights that existed before the "home rule" process was added to the state constitution. And the dead-clear Colorado right to open carry dates to 1876, long before "home rule" was a concept.

So he was right all along. No question.

But how he handled the situation AFTER that is a textbook lesson in what NOT to do :scrutiny:.
 
Amazing that everyone who posted to this thread is unanimous in their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

I support the RKBA.

However, threatening a judge is DUMB!

Here's the distinction: filing to get his revolver back - fine
'gimme my gun back or my armed buddies will come to your house' - monumentally stupid



At times this may appear to be splitting hairs, I know.
:banghead:
 
Don, not at all.

Granted I don't know much about Red law, but I would suppose they have something like a "Petition for Replevin" or "Motion for Return of Property." How about a motion to the court in lieu of an alleged threat? IMHO.

Running your mouth, usually never helps your case. Of course, hard to tell militia boys anything.
 
Amazing that everyone who posted to this thread is unanimous in their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Pointing out that certain actions fall on the 'Biblically stupid' end of the scale hardly qualifies as opposing the right to keep and bear arms.

By your logic posted above, if somebody is muzzle-sweeping the entire firing line at the local range with a loaded pistol tomorrow, and I tell him that his actions are reckless, stupid and not to point a loaded pistol at me or my family, then I am opposing the right to keep and bear arms. :scrutiny:

LawDog
 
Mr. Stanley just about makes my kook detector melt.

I never said he was wrong, I just think hes a total nutburger. You can be right about things and still be loony.

He has no concept of strategy or process.

The constitution is not a magical invocation. Just because you claim its protections does not mean that people will listen and not lock you up.
 
The constitution is not a magical invocation. Just because you claim its protections does not mean that people will listen and not lock you up.
Click to expand...

And that about sums it up nicely, don't you think?
 
Well, the charge sounds kind of loony, too;

"...felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant." Must be a serious matter to try to explain to the trooper why you were driving a little fast in that state.:eek:
 
Look, its either a right, or it isn't. When someone is persecuted for something that is within their rights, the *persecution* is criminal.

Thus, the judge in this case appears to be a criminal.

No, the constitution is not magic-- people are able, and readily do, ignore it.

However, without the constitution, what do we have? OR more specifically, without the rights the constitution recognizes-- but, and this is important, does not grant-- what do we have?

This guy may be a kook, and he may have been unwise, but once his rights are violated, he is placed in the position of the person who has just had force initiated against him.

IF some thug shows up and threatens to incarcerate you because you have a gun, while demanding the money in your wallet, are you justified in using force to defend yourself?

Morally, Stanley is in the right to use force to defend himself when his rights are violated. Legally, of course, he isn't.

It is this disconnect between what is moral and what is legal that is the source of the (ongoing and rather slow) destruction of this country.

So, the reason I made my claim about people not supporting the RKBA, is that in the gun culture, people seem to say you have the right to keep and bear arms, but whenever its treated like a priviledge, or someone is unjustly prosecuted under a law that violates that right, so many of you immediately take the government's side.

Say we were talking about some idiot who was manufacturing machine guns. How many of you would be angry that he was put in jail? The 2A is clear on this issue-- he has the right to make them (ignoring the tax issue, as I understand it, no new ones can be manufactured since the 80s, but if I have the specifics wrong, just go with me here...) but would you guys be saying "What a fool!" or would you be saying "Yet another immoral prosecution"?

All too often people who profess support for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, also endorse the violation of that right when someone is caught doing something within his rights, yet also illegal.

When you take the side of the law agains the right, you move yourself from a supporter of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, over into being a supporter of the PRIVILEDGE.
 
And could you have missed the point any further?

Not a soul on this thread, other than yourself, is arguing that the laddie doesn't have the right to fight a good legal battle to protect his Second Amendment rights.

Had the laddie gone about his task in the proper fashion, there'd not be word out of us besides congratulations.

If he wanted to truly fight a legal battle for his Second Amendment rights, he'd have shown up in court, as he promised. Not showing up for his trial was bloody stupid.

Telling a municipal judge that he was going to get some civil court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the municipal judge on grounds of treason was past bloody stupid and heading into the brain-damaged category.

Going further and telling a district court judge that he would have him arrested for treason makes me tend to wonder if his synapses are still firing.

Telling the municipal judge that you are going to have a jackleg court try, convict and carry out sentence on the municipal judge is stupid beyond belief.

Going further and telling the district court judge that you will have the smae jackleg court try, convict and carry out a treason sentence on the judge of the district court is so bloody stupid that it is just about beyond my ability to comprehend.

He wants to fight for his Second Amendment rights, he has my blessing and support.

He wants to haul off and shoot himself in the arse, make a total, complete and utter fool of himself and my rights just so he can get his 15 seconds of fame ("Hello, Jackass TV? You're not going to believe this idiot..."), then I reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

And I further reserve the right to call a grandstanding microcephalic moron with delusions of adequacy and an advanced case of the stupids exactly what he is.

And, despite your opinion to the contrary, I can do that without impunging on the Second Amendment. Or any other right, for that matter.

LawDog
 
Well, law is in your name, after all. Of course it matters more than rights to you.

Oh, let me guess, you're involved in the "justice" system, aren't you?

Can you honestly say you don't violate the constitution as part of your job?
 
Ah. If you can't win the debate, attack the debater, is that the way of it?

*sigh*

The points of the debate are these:

1)Rick Stanley wanted a legal fight for his Second Amendment rights.

This is all well and good.

2)Rick Stanley chose to fight his legal battle by publically threatening not one, but multiple judges.

This is stupid.

3)You have decided, for reasons known only to yourself, that since several posters on this board have decided to opine that the way Rick Stanley has chosen to wage his legal fight is bloody stupid, that those posters do not support the right to keep and bear arms.

Our opinions involve Mr. Stanley's conduct in court. Our opinions involve the bloody stupid things Mr. Stanley has apparently chosen as a legal defense.

We have not mentioned, nor do I particularly care, what firearm he carries, where he carries it, how he carries it, when he carries it, or to whom he entrusts it.

Then only thing we seem to have a problem with, is that Mr. Stanley has apparently decided that naked, brute coercion is a viable court-toom tactic.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, a viable courtroom tactic, and it's stupid.

Now, if you want to debate, put the ad hominem arguments aside and argue the facts and points.

LawDog
 
He's an idiot. What's the point of standing up against the corrupt justice system if you aren't prepared to deal with the law? This guy wants to avoid a 90 day sentence, so he aggravates the judge and gets a few charges that will probably net more than 90 days given his courtroom presentation skills. But if the point was to stay out of jail, why'd he let police take him to jail for the two felony charges? At that point - you have a choice. Fight or kill yourself. If you don't like those options - and there's good reason not to - a) don't get caught or b) don't aggravate people at all so you minimize the discomfort you suffer at the behest of the legal system. He failed to obey both a) and b) when he did his public carry thing and when he refused to show up for court. That indicates he wanted to go the fight-or-suicide (fight in court or fight literally) route. Except he didn't. So I don't get it.

There's the other option - that he was prepared to accept jail but wanted to fight as best he could in court. And maybe he just realized a bit late that court wasn't going to be a sympathetic forum for his reasoning. In that case he should have bitten the bullet (tee hee) gone to trial, and accepted his sentence since at that point there's nothing he could do anyway.

And as silly as it is, there's always some advice to be found in this, so...

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
The Empty Holster Gathering, Brighton, Colorado
Replies
1
Views
369
Moparmike
M
D
  • Locked
'You are not to reference the Constitution ... '
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
LawDog
L
A
  • Locked
think about the following, or ignore it at your own risk.
Replies
1
Views
457
auschip
A
T
  • Locked
The Judge was packin'
Replies
10
Views
985
Blackcloud6
Blackcloud6
Ivy Mike
  • Locked
Some judges are still doing things the right way.
Replies
21
Views
838
RealGun
RealGun
Back
Top