Pink Pistols Threatened by Club-Wielding "Official"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the NRA should become an ardently pro-GLBT organization, so that the left cant vilify them anymore.

One thing I like about the NRA is how they stay out of other issues except for guns. Rather than get bogged down on other hot-button social stuff like abortion, gay marriage, etc., the NRA doesn't take any position on any of that stuff that I know of.
 
It is illegal to threaten someone with a club! why didn't the cops arrest her?
In order to arrest one must have probable cause. Did the cops witness the alleged threat? I dunno. Absent one of them witnessing it, its pretty much a large case of one side's word versus the other. Was it an actual threat? Was the threat credible? And, even if it was, if you have 10 people saying it happened and 50 people saying it didn't, do you have PC? I dunno. Kindasortamaybesometimesitdepends.

Also, as the director of Stonewall Columbus could be accurately termed a 'known suspect', so long as there was not an ongoing threat of violence, the alleged victim would likely be referred to the City Prosecutor's Office for filing of criminal charges.

Mike
 
I'm wondering why the club-wielding woman wasn't arrested by the police. Given Ohio's gun laws, I cannot imagine carrying a nightstick is legal there. The woman is guilty of assault at the very least, and I don't know why the members of the Pink Pistols didn't press charges against her.
 
heeheehee...

A Dominatrix with a stick and her minions in t-shirts were gonna intimidate people into giving up their guns.

it sounds like ...'if you don't give me your (legally carried by State Constitutional law) weapons I'll threaten you with my club and threat of strongarm force while the police back me up".


Yeah, riiiiight....

Good on them for not bowing to this idiocy.

I've met a couple of folks around here who are with Pink Pistols, and they're good people.

Regards,
Rabbit.
 
Methinks that the club wielding thug broke the first rule of a gunfight..:D


The PP's were incredibly astute in this situation- I think its a lesson that can be learned by alot of other organizations.
 
Carpetbagger-

Reread my post (which went up a few moments before yours, so it was probably a simulpost), it should answer many of your questions.

A few other things to consider: as astute as the PPs are in this instance (and, yeah, go team!), it may be that their description of the alleged menacing and the alleged 'truncheon' may be a bit biased and/or hyped. Also...if requested to leave by the rally organizer, the PPs may have actually been guilty of trespass...or may not have been. It was a public park...but as this was obviously an organized rally, complete with city permits etc...does the rally organizer have the right to exclude people from the space the rally occupies? To tell you the truth, I dunno...no doubt that was one of the many questions posed to the city's legal eagles. This may also be the reason tht the PPs chose to demur and be escorted away by the police.

Once again, go PP!

Mike
 
Interesting. The open carry was of UNLOADED firearms. Ohio law says that is legal. The PP rep was carrying an airsoft. Legal. The only BAD thing is, the PP were essentially UNARMED, facing armed attackers and force disparity in a hostile environment. Darwin?
 
I met a PP member at a training class I took a few years back. He mentioned that gun owners were much more tolerant and accepting of him being gay, than the GLBT crowd was of him being a member of the gun culture.

Go figure... :rolleyes:
 
I think NRA andthe rest of the gun lobby can embrace these type of groups, while staying neutral about the "gay" issues so as not to alienate the more conservative members. Self defense is for everyone, we can all agree on that. Plus it embarasses the anti gunners to no end.
 
Pink Pistols

I'm about as hetero as you get, and I'm a member of the PP. Too, it's a misconception that all GLBT vote Democrat; I have a number of gay friends who only go conservative - they're sensible everyday people.
 
How? Can you imagine the left's tiny brains shorting out when they try to villify gays (whom they ardently support) who carry guns (which are evil) for protection (that the cops are supposed to provide, but the left knows better)? I think they would have a logic error (think 2+2 suddenly equaling "elephant" or something) when they try to put the two together.

Oh, I love organizations like the PP which cause leftists' heads to explode.

I assume "Stonewall Columbus" is some sort of anti organization. By "playing into the hands of the antis", I mean, that if the goons had assaulted the PPs, and they subsequently opened fire to defend themselves, the headlines wouldn't be pretty. It wouldn't read "Gays at parade are assaulted and successfully defend themselves", it would read "Gun group opens fire at parade to stop gun violence, killing 3 and injuring 4 more..." ... exactly the headlines the antis hope for with the AWB about to expire.
 
Can anyone post the text or a link to a mirror? The content filter at work blocks pinkpistols.org for "Lifestyle, Mature, Obscene/Extreme"

OMG: I am so pissed right now!! I also am blocked from viewing the website due to filters, the reason I am pissed thought is our filters are run by the Florida Department of Education, and the reason for blocking it is:

The site http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html has been categorized as Criminal Skills by the current DOE/FIRN Site Access Policy.

Think it is time the FL-DOE got a piece of my mind, if you want to let them know too here is the contact site: http://network.firn.edu/filter/filter-policy.php
 
the PPs may have actually been guilty of trespass...or may not have been. It was a public park...but as this was obviously an organized rally, complete with city permits etc...does the rally organizer have the right to exclude people from the space the rally occupies? To tell you the truth, I dunno...no doubt that was one of the many questions posed to the city's legal eagles. This may also be the reason tht the PPs chose to demur and be escorted away by the police.

Coronach, it seems the city prosecutor didn't know either. The police do keep people of opposing viewpoints separated during rallies and marches, so there mey be some precedence in having the PP group leave. However, I think the threats of violence and confiscation from the Stonewall group were reprehensible, as they had no such authority. A parade permit does not give you police powers nor does it let you "own" the street.

All in all, a hearty "booyah!" to the Pink Pistols for keeping their heads and upholding the highest standards that make all of us gun owners look good.
 
Y'all don't know what "Stonewall" was in reference to?

Short form: it was a series of riots in New York by gays against police brutality against gays. In 1969. It's often (perhaps erroneously) called the origins of the gay-rights movement in America!

Which makes this latest travesty in Ohio a really bitter irony indeed.

Some googling produced:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/NY-DN_Stonewall.txt - 1969-vintage New York Daily News article...

http://www.gay-astrology.com/stonwall.shtml - more of an "insider's tale", gives interesting background on some of the movement politics involved and is surprisingly open about problems on the gay side too (as in the Stonewall Inn probably WAS in serious violation of building codes, in addition to being owned by the Mafia...)
 
The PP press release:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

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

Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened by Club-Wielding "Official" and Horde of Stormtroopers at Pride Festival, Ordered to Surrender Firearms

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. The Pink Pistols were repeatedly ordered to surrender their legally-owned and carried firearms by a steadily-growing army of guards. Knowing the law was on their side, the Pink Pistols refused to surrender their property or knuckle under to illegal threats of violence, search, and seizure by Stonewall Columbus personnel. Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken.

June 28, 2004 (PP NATIONAL) Columbus, OH: On Saturday, June 26, about five members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols (COPP) attended the Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade and Festival at Bicentennial Park in downtown Columbus. The Pink Pistols had planned upon marching behind the BRAVER contingent, but were invited to march with BRAVER, the Buckeye Region American Veterans for Equal Rights. They assisted in the carrying of the huge 20' x 30' American flag at the front of the group as part of the flag?s honor guard. Several of the Pink Pistols members carried unloaded firearms openly, which is legal according to the Ohio Constitution.

Exactly two days prior to the event, Kim Rife of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols had received this email from Kate Anderson of Stonewall Columbus, prompted by leaked internal communications sent to her by unknown persons. (Spelling & syntax errors have been included.)

---
Dear members of the Pink Pistols,

This is official notice and response to the email below that I received today.

NO FIREARMS, LOADED OR UNLOADED, CONCEALED OR EXPOSED WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE PARADE LINE-UP, THE PRIDE PARADE, NOR THE PRIDE FESTIVAL.

Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event. I have notified all Pride Committee members and co-chairs and I will also alert all security personnel and the police.

I appreciate your group but we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional. There will also be no solicited like you did last year, if so, you will be aske to leave. It is past the deadline for a booth but we will be happy to sell you a booth space. If you want a space to distribute your literature and to sign up members, email Michael XXXXXX at XXXXXX@XXXXXXX (Email address omitted, as he had nothing to do with the letter.)

This may seem severe to you but it is nothing more than an attempt to keep all people safe and afford them the opportunity to have the most fun they can have on Saturday. I would greatly appreciate all of your members being notified immediately, so that you can make alternative plans.

Sincerely,
Kate Anderson, Executive Director, Stonewall Columbus
[email protected]
---

Ms. Rife seriously doubts the veracity of the statement that says: "I appreciate your group but..." and will be drafting a letter later in the week asking Anderson expand upon this statement. "I think this was simply an attempt to placate us; I think she appreciates our group about as much as she appreciates her belly button lint."

Ms. Rife forwarded this email to Pink Pistols National Media Spokesperson Gwen Patton, who sent it to Daniel McCaughan, Pink Pistols House Counsel. She also discussed the email with another firearm law attorney friendly with the organization. Both attorneys assured the Pink Pistols that the threats described in the email were spurious, and could not be acted upon, legally. A private citizen cannot legally confiscate the property of another, and certainly cannot refuse to return it. Such an act constitutes theft. To steal a firearm is a particularly serious offense, one with Federal consequences. The event staff could also not search persons not openly displaying firearms without their permission. To do so would constitute assault.

The parade itself was without incident. But trouble occurred while three of the Pink Pistols were having lunch at the festival site afterwards. According to sources, about halfway through lunch, the first two staff persons, one bearing a 2-foot long, inch-thick truncheon (which she referred to dubiously as a "keychain", by virtue of the split keyring and key at one end), accosted the group with the statement: "I thought I told YOU PEOPLE not to bring firearms in here?" The person in question was assumed from context to be Kate Anderson herself, since she did not identify herself, but seemed to be referring to the email.

The Pink Pistols did not respond. Then she said, "I'm going to confiscate those firearms, turn them over to me right now!"

The Pink Pistols responded that they would do no such thing. Ms. Anderson repeated that they must turn over their weapons, and they would get them back after the event.

The responses she received were variations on "no, we do NOT have to surrender the firearms to you, and no, we're not going to leave either, because we are part of the gay and lesbian community, AND it's legal to open carry in the state of Ohio and we have the law on our side, and you don't. We'll just continue sitting here, enjoying the day."

Ms. Anderson retreated briefly and returned with 10 security guards. She again insisted they surrender their firearms. Still, the Pink Pistols refused. More guards were called, until approximately 30 security guards surrounded the three Pink Pistols. Ms. Anderson at this time brandished her truncheon and demanded once again that the Pink Pistols either turn over their firearms or she would take them, but the Pink Pistols once again refused.

Kim Rife recalls: "I have a sense about these things, and I think her 'plan' was to 'subdue' us. So I started informing her that if they so much as TOUCHED us, and confiscated our firearms they'd be guilty of a third degree felony, robbery, assault and anything else our lawyer could come up with." Ms. Anderson said she should call the police, and Ms. Rife and Ms. Lee said that would be a good idea, and suggested she do so.

Mr. Jones, another marcher and member of COPP, recalls the reaction of Ms. Anderson. "At this point she is obviously taken aback, as it was apparent that she had planed to use force."

One of their members called the attorney for Ohioans For Concealed Carry, who was on call for their support, to double-check their legal position. This additional attorney corroborated the legality of the Pink Pistols' actions, and was informed the police were on their way. During this entire exchange, the Pink Pistols remained calm, ate their lunches, and chatted amongst themselves.

According to Sergeant Mull of the Columbus Police Department's Public Information Unit, police were dispatched at 2:56 pm on a possible charge of trespassing. Firearms were mentioned, but also that the weapons were holstered and legally carried.

When the police arrived, they were polite and professional, for which the Pink Pistols applaud them. The Columbus Police Department entered the situation with a spirit of negotiation and respect for the law and the rights of everyone, for which they should be commended. The intricate nature of the new concealed-carry law was discussed at length, including where the law permitted a firearm owner to carry a weapon, whether a licensee could carry on government property, and whether a parade permit afforded "private property" control to the permit holder. Eventually, after running the chain of police command, a call to the City Prosecutor was made, and the point was still ambiguous. But the Prosecutor felt strongly enough that the police could at least make arrests to clear the scene if necessary, so the Pink Pistols were asked to compromise and depart at that time.

The Pink Pistols respected the treatment from the Columbus Police Department, and the attention paid to their civil rights, and felt that due process had been adequately served, so they were accompanied to the edge of the event site by two CPD officers, with whom they amiably chatted as they walked. "The police were probably the coolest part...well, and carrying the flag and our firearms," said Ms. Rife. The police cleared the incident "code 4", without filing statements, at 4:04 pm. Since no arrests were made, there was no further report necessary.

"Pink Pistols National is appalled and disgusted at the actions of Stonewall Columbus, first for making such clearly illegal and downright totalitarian threats, and then for engaging in acts of bullying, intimidation, and flagrantly terroristic bashing to forward their political ideas and goals. The law in Ohio now permits the carrying of firearms for self-defense, and some of the persons who carry them will be GLBT. Stonewall needs to get used to this idea," says Patton. Ohio has been the fastest-growing state in Pink Pistols membership, boasting a full five chapters, more than any other state in the nation. Patton continues, "Stonewall Columbus has no evidence to assume that lawful firearm owners in general, or Pink Pistols in particular, will contribute in any way to disorder or violence of any sort. It is an insult to all lawful firearm owners, and Ms. Anderson's actions are a clear statement of what kind of tactics take over when law abiding citizens hand over their defense to others. Her plan was simple and disgusting: Keep adding guards until our people surrendered from fear and intimidation. Well, it didn't work. We weren't afraid."

Kim Rife adds, "I find it amazing that I and my members are the ones perceived as violent, given that I was sent an e-mail by Ms. Kate Anderson from Stonewall Union, that threatened US. Grand theft, a third degree felony, assault and possibly aggravated assault as she had a 2' staff that she was wielding. But we had 'evil' guns that never left their holsters. Only two of us at that time were openly carrying -- I was one -- but mine was a soft air gun and the other had NO ammunition and no magazine! We thought this a reasonable compromise to Ms. Anderson's demands of NOT exercising our constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and the right to carry. I mean, if flag burning is political speech, and I believe it is, then so is carrying a firearm, doubly so if you are an out lesbian."

Does a woman holding a two-foot truncheon, surrounded by thirty bullies in Security t-shirts, have the right to intimidate a handful of peaceful event attendees, regardless of how you feel about their politics? "Ms. Anderson clearly felt that she had the same mandate as a first-grade teacher confiscating squirt-guns from unruly kids," said Patton. "She felt utterly justified in robbing fellow queers of their legal and civil rights, even by force, simply because she does not agree with the form that right takes. There is a word for that. It is called tyranny."

Kim Rife interjects, "I've always been under the impression that Stonewall Union is there to protect the rights of GLBT people, but Kate Anderson trampled on them. I think the folks at Stonewall should seriously consider that she has violated several portions of their 'stated purpose' and suggest that she find alternative outlets for her desire for activism, preferably one that involves as little interaction with people and the law as is possible."

The Pink Pistols is the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community.

CONTACT INFORMATION
National Media Spokesperson
Gwendolyn S. Patton
Pink Pistols
POB 60342
King of Prussia, PA 19406
267-386-8907
www.pinkpistols.org
[email protected]

Ohio Pink Pistols
P.O.B. 412
Milford Center, Ohio 43045
[email protected]

Columbus Police Department
Public Information Unit
Sergeant Mull
614-645-4593
 
Coronach, it seems the city prosecutor didn't know either. The police do keep people of opposing viewpoints separated during rallies and marches, so there mey be some precedence in having the PP group leave. However, I think the threats of violence and confiscation from the Stonewall group were reprehensible, as they had no such authority. A parade permit does not give you police powers nor does it let you "own" the street.
Agreed, assuming that it happened the way it was alleged. From here, it looks like the PPs were at worst guilty of criminal trespass, and quite possibly not even that. The Stonewall contingent would seem to be flirting with something much more serious in nature. Lets see what happens when the PPs go to the City Prosecutor's Office, as well they should.

Again, I'm betting that the cops took no formal action becuase, from what they observed, there was no PC for the assault charge (which does not mean it didn't happen), and a big legal quagmire forming around the trespass charge. They negotiate, seperate the parties, and go get coffee. if there is a crime, they'll let the Prosecutor's Office sort it out.

Mike
 
Obviously this Kate Anderson person is well aware of the value of carrying a weapon (having a club and all that). I think her problem is when her underlings are carrying weapons (and better ones at that). How much do you want to bet that she wouldnt even let her "volunteer security" people carry clubs. She is one of those people that has to weild the most authority
 
This is why the PP's are so radical. They threaten not just traditional notions of what homosexuals are supposed to act like, but also the notions built up within "The Community" itself. Left wing activists in towns across the nation have pretty much declared themselves the leaders of local gay and lesbians. And part of their politics rejects the RKBA. So those within the ranks who dare to support the RKBA are guilty of "wrongthinking" and must be punished.

It's a fascinating example of group psychology. You can find the same sort of attitude in other minority groups, such as the self-appointed "mainstream Jewish groups," who reserve their greatest anger for those Jews (mostly the Orthodox in my experience) who insist on packing heat and bucking the current PC dogma in favor of Torah's teachings on self-defense.
 
"We're here! We're queer! We're armed!" LOL

Good for the pink pistols members for staying cool. We should all encourage such groups,if only for the apoplexy it will cause in the hearts of the anti gun types.
 
Wow! One of my members just passed this link on to me - I'm one of the co-founders of the Sacramento chapter of PP. Amazing!!

We just recently had our first experience as a group in a gay event (the local Freedom Fair pride event here), and I had a TON of people come up to our booth (where we were collecting names for our mailing list), and indicate that they already own firearms, and are interested in shooting with us. I was pleased, and a little surprised, at the positive reaction from our local gay community.

I have been focussing primarily on building bridges between our group and the SHOOTING community, but it seems that perhaps we should make some extra effort to build bridges within the gay community, to head off this sort of action in our locality.

Sad, huh?
 
I got some input from this subject from a woman in Ohion who responded when I posted this story on a gay oriented discussion board. She was at this particular event and is familar with Kate Anderson and as you will see, has some strong opinions about her.
=================================================


Although I was at the event, we camped out closer to the end of the parade. From the article, I'm guessing that all of the commotion occurred at the front end of the event.

My input?

1. Let me get my personal bias off my chest here. I don't like Stonewall
Columbus. I don't like Kate Anderson. I don't contribute money or volunteer time to the organization because they tend to cater primarily to gay male events...particularly those centered around either affluent members of the community or hot young guys. I have watched vastly over-qualified women dedicate years in medium to menial positions in the organizations get passed over for promotions that go to Joe Bob, the Hot Guy (tm) Who Makes Coffee. A separate Columbus organization, Buckeye Regional Anti-Violence Organization (BRAVO) is much more community centered and USED to provide the security for the event. When Kate Anderson changed a years long policy to not serve alcohol at Pride events, BRAVO ended their affiliation with security duties as not serving alcohol was a requirement of their agreement with the Pride Committee.

2. I actually was LOOKING for the Pink Pistols because a co-worker wanted one of their flyers. I didn't see them and was surprised because they were there last year. While I was not supportive of the concealed carry bill in Ohio, I don't think that Kate Anderson or anyone else has the authority to prevent an organization from passing out flyers on the street -- particularly when OTHER groups marching (several of the politicians and several of the churches) passed out literature.

3. Any expectation for all the gay groups marching to have the same agenda and politics is stupid.

4. Requesting that others not bring weapons to an event and then showing up with one of your own is also stupid.

5. Threatening to confiscate weapons when:
a. they are legal
and
b. if they weren't you still wouldn't have the legal authority to confiscate weapon is stupid yet again.

I'm pleased to see that the Pink Pistols encouraged organizers to summon the police - it probably headed off a larger confrontation (it sounds large already, I know...but when someone threatens to call the police and you do it for them it kinda steals the thunder).

On a more perception-based note, the primary concern I have with marching while armed would be that this would become the next focus of the protesters - "Gays with guns! Ohmigod!". Not to say that they don't have the RIGHT to carry them. They do. It just isn't necessarily the impression I would choose to purposefully present.

On a legal-based note, the Pink Pistols are likely within their legal right to carry weapons openly. If they are permit holders, they are within their legal right to carry weapons concealed. In Columbus currently, however, public parks are considered to be public areas equivalent to government buildings and concealed weapons are not permitted in the parks. At some point, this will likely go to court to determine the amount of control cities and counties have over their parks and parking lots. The Pride Parade steps off in one public park (Goodale) and ends in another (Bicentenniel). So technically, the Pink Pistols could join the march while armed outside of the first park, but would have to step out of line before entering the second.

On a final note, have I mentioned that Stonewall Columbus is stupid?

I am sympathetic to the concerns of not wanting openly armed people in the parade.

I am not sympathetic to the decision to try to act with authority that you don't have and threaten to confiscate someone's legally held firearm.

I might not like concealed carry. I might not like folks walking around openly armed. But for me to tell them that they cannot exercise their right to do so would be akin to a clerk of courts in Massachusetts saying "I know it's LEGAL for you two ladies to get married, but I just don't like it so I'm not gonna issue you a marriage license."

Aside from that, Kate Anderson is a poor excuse for a representative of anything but her own twisted assimilationist political agenda.
 
Legal Strategy

The Weather Channel just reported that the skies over Columbus, Ohio are about to turn legal-pad yellow.
Don't know what color the sky will be, but the lawyers should definatly be rolled out. This one is a slam dunk.

I wonder if they had been assaulted by these "security guards" (who are not police), if they would have been justified in doing whatever was neccessary to protect themselves...

They would be playing right into the anti's hands though.

They WERE assaulted and should file a lawsuit alleging such. Lets turn the tides on these goons. As I explain in more detail at the countertop-chronicles:
So much for peace, love and happiness.

Executive Director Kate Anderson's actions CLEARLY amount to an intentional tort - Assault. The tort of assault (as opposed to criminal assault) requires only the following -

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;

She offered to remove their weapons by force.

2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;

She approached and surrounded them with her goons and made her intention to remove their weapons (and touch their bodies) clear.

3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Not only did she approach them with 20 goons (each of whom is also liable for damages under a tort suit) but she was carrying (and clearly displaying) what sounds like a brutal weapon while acting in a manner indicating her intent to use it against them.
 
AFAIK, this is not correct:
In Columbus currently, however, public parks are considered to be public areas equivalent to government buildings and concealed weapons are not permitted in the parks. At some point, this will likely go to court to determine the amount of control cities and counties have over their parks and parking lots.
While there has been zero case law about this yet (of which I have been informed), either the columbus city attorney or the state AG (cannot recall which) dropped the bomb a while back and informed the Mayor that, yes, the term "buildings" used in the law actually means buildings, and not, in fact, large expanses of open land with grass, trees and a few benches. This so bothered some ninnies that they are already mounting a campaign to change the law so that CCW can be banned in Metroparks.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top