Gun Rights Activist Accused Of Threatening Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an aside: Lawdog has never denied being a rural Texas cop.

By all indications, a damned good one.

See also the green table on my website for some of his writings on the subject of law enforcement - scroll down quite a bit, it's towards the bottom...

http://www.equalccw.com

I don't think his being a cop has a lot to do with his attitudes towards Stanley. I personally *hunt* crooked sheriffs and police chiefs in California (with exposes, lawsuits and the like) so the fact that he and I are on the same side in this matter, and generally agree on most things, oughta tell you something.
 
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.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. :cool:
 
I concur with LawDog's post. Stanley is well known to us and was doing it right, until this. In my eyes, he's gone from being someone to emulate to someone to avoid. This type of lunatic-fringe behavior benefits none of us and paints us all in a VERY bad light. Stanley just armed the enemy.
 
Could someone please post a link for the website that contained the alleged threats against the judges? I just scanned his website, and the most recent postings, presumably by his wife, were promoting a peaceful approach to the situation.

I'd like to read the entire offending transcript, in context, before accepting the 2-line conclusion posted in the news article (related to alleged threats). Is it possible that this Stanley saga is being "spun" by the media/authorities to demonize the suspect? We read so many of these stories of various political dissidents, the most common factor is a concerted effort to portray the actor as a deranged nutjob. Apparently that effort has succeeded wonderfully on this thread.

The charge "attempting to influence a public servant" is one that I've never heard of before; BS meter is going off big time. Much political rhetoric can be misconstrued when taken out of context. Take a few lines from most any radical political website...which ones aren't "attempting to influence a public servant", either elected officials of judges?

"Communicating a threat"; would be clear and understandable; that wasn't charged here.

Stanley spent much more time than most, working the "approved" channels to advance a cause most on this board would agree with. Is anyone on this board going to argue that he was treated fairly in these efforts? (Re: "You are NOT to reference the constitution"). Rather than provide a clear resolution to his grievances, via "approved channels", he's received a constant stream of official doubltalk, avoidance, newspeak, shiester legal maneuvers; not to resolve the situation, but precisely the opposite...to guarantee that his arguments NEVER GET HEARD!

Why does everyone forget the long record of abuses heaped up by officials, adamant to quash citizens who seek freedom; and at the same time, seem so quick to pile on, when one of their own gets arrested? I just don't get it.
 
One of the Libertarian Party up in Denver who knows Mr. Stanley writes this

Although it doesn't get into Mr. Stanley's Colorado legal probelms, other militia members discuss Mr. Stanley in general here.
The fun stuff starts about the end of page two/beginning of page three.

LawDog
 
When things get to the point that a militia is needed, they won't be looked at as loons. They might be looked at as undesireables or dangerous, but not loons. I think those are good criteria for determining when the system is beyond repair. Whether the militia, minus Rick Stanley, is viewed as a bunch of loons is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Don, the guy is on pretty shaky moral high ground, people have a duty to fight unconstitutional laws in the courts to some degree. There is a limit to how much depending on what happened and how bad things get, or if the system is broken to a sufficient degree, but Rick did not get there.

I am glad the guy is standing up for his rights, but he is making all of the wrong moves. None of us are anti RKBA, but we are against making poor moves that hurt all gun owners.
 
dustind

Very well said Sir.
hmm3grin3thumborange.gif
 
Immediately after posting my last comment, I decided it was unwise, and likely to continue a discussion I didn't see much point in continuing, and so I edited it to remove the content. I don't know why, but my change is not reflected.

I don't feel you guys are getting my point at all. I also don't see a way to better get it across.
 
Threatening a judge is DUMB? :scrutiny:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both the courts and congress. Not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow men who pervert the constitution" - Abraham Lincoln
 
nightwatch - yes, it's dumb.

In reference to your quote, before the American revolution, colonials took great pains to use all legal avenues open. That's part of where we get little things like the long train of abuses referenced in the preamble to the constitution, and the right to redress of grievances.

The distinguished nutter in question hadn't exhausted his legal options.

In general, it is better to try to resolve one's disputes within the legal system before one goes out killing people.
 
Benjamin...

"It is better to try to resolve one's disputes within the legal system before one goes out killing people"

Yes, this is true. Now, if only the government would follow this line of logic. :rolleyes:

As far as I am concerned, they need to be reminded that we are the masters, not them.
 
I'm a bit confused.

This gentleman is claiming that a constitutionally protected right has been violated.

Ok, I'm fine up to that point.

He seems to claim, however, that the courts are illigitimate.

That's confusing, as the entire legal system is established in the Constitution.

It's as if he's picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution that he wants to apply...
 
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...

I don't recall the "Militia", historically speaking, having any such authority.

This Stanley feller has gone too far. He could have served gun rights better if he argued his case in court. Our rights must be defended--but only by honorable means.

What if the "mutual defenses Pact Militia" tried to arrest this Judge, and the judge refused? Would they use force? I believe this is implied.

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

This is incorrect! You only have the means to use force to defend your rights when you have been wrongly denied your legal means of redress. He had a chance to go to court and make his case. He is being presumptuous that a jury would not agree with him.
 
Did he have a Running Mate named Sancho?

Does he have a wife named "Dulcinea"?

Is it a wonder there aren't more Libertarians in office?

Sheeeesh.:uhoh:
 
Who thinks he didn't know the government's own tactics of intimidation couldn't be used against them? That's rediculous. I think it is very interesting that he'd toss their crap right back at them. Guess they don't like it any more than we the people do.

What has he to lose? His freedom? He chooses freedom over subjugation, self sacrifice over submission. That's his choice to make. I doubt he is doing it for himself given his previous history and that's too bad because it's too obvious that not many deserve to benefit.
 
Don,

You're missing something important. If you say you support the constitution, and then decide to ignore the constitutionally created process of defending your rights and threaten the judge, then you aren't really supporting the constitution.

His mistake wasn't standing up for his rights, it was his methods of doing so. He should have appealed the verdict, not threatened the judges with arrest by a group that has no legal basis by which to arrest someone.

Openly revolting against the system before exausting the methods of overturning an unjust decision is unwise at best. He doesn't have the ability to change things in a possitive way, and his actions are only going to make responsible gun owners look bad.
 
"When things get to the point that a militia is needed, they won't be looked at as loons."

If it walks like a loon and squawks like a loon...it'll probably continue to act like a loon. Birds of a feather and all that.

If such a day ever comes this guy will probably be sending threatening letters to the real patriots - from jail it appears. I wish him a lot of luck getting his anger under control so he can do some useful work.

John
 
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