Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio

Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all I disagree with the man's decision to carry an FAL in his trunk. It should've been a Garand. ;)

When I go out of state - or even out of town - I always have at least 1 long arm with me in addition to any handguns I carry, & enough ammo to last a while in each.

So other than not having a Garand I see nothing wrong with what the man did.

Carried illegally? I'll concede that after y'all concede that the law that made carry illegal is an infringement of a constitutionally acknowledged & protected Right.

Cops just doing their job? Lemme put it this way;

"If the cops insist on playing their role of being an occupying force then the people should play their roles as well - Vive Le Resistance!"

(I forget the source of that quote so if anyone can name the author lemme know)

Cops have a choice as do every one of us; we can either examine the law & support it or hinder it based on our understanding of its legitimacy, or we can blindly follow the law as we march slowly towards Hell.

So if the guy was speeding - which is not concluded unless you value the word of a cop over the word of a citizen - then he should have been ticketed. No problem with that.

But arrested for exercising a Right???

& WildAlaska - mind pointing out to me the exception to "keep & bear" in the 2nd amendment to allow concealed carry laws? I'm aware of the courts logic about this - that regulating the manner in which they are carried does not conflict. I'm also aware that the courts are fallible, & in their logic over this flawed.

But to condemn someone because he violated a prior restraint based prohibition that IS conflicting with at least the federal constitution if not the state???

Disgusting is too mild a word for the attitudes of some here.

What would it take for y'all to back someone facing an immoral law? If the guy was duck hunting with a muzzle loading single barrel shotgun using steel shot & had all the required permits, etc... & charged with some prior restraint based offense (such as not having a pink & yellow ribbon tied around the muzzle as required by law) would you stand up for him or would you dismiss him by saying he should have damn well tied the pink & yellow ribbon on before he went hunting? Course if said fellow was a cop I'm sure personal bias would change your minds. After all, citizens must obey the law - cops must enforce it & never the twain shall meet, right?

Want to know how this should have played out? The gentleman in question should have informed the cop that he'd gladly take the speeding ticket & deal with the matter in court if he chose to contest it, but any attempt at searching him for weapons without probable cause for a violent offense would not be permitted. Then if the cops persisted said cop should have had to contend with immediate & disproportionate force.

To put it simply, the cop attempting to disarm him should have been shot as he attempted to do so.

In this matter the cop in question acted no better than a thief or thug y'all might joke about if he were taken out by a cop.

& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this. A court stating that we do not have the Right to Arms (of which concealed carry is a part) holds no more weight than a court telling me what color my hair should be or what religion I should practice. Yes, they're will always be simple fools who blindly follow any dictates by a court or legislator or president or king or dictator, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them.

& further, it does not matter if the gentleman in question carried purposefully as a protest or simply carried discreetly. He wasn't robbing anyone, threatening anyone or even taking any action at all. He was merely possessing. His motives are & should be his alone & not for us to question.

He should have followed the legal process to get concealed carry legalized before he carried? Aside from the fact that he was not a citizen or resident of the state he was kidnapped in (to call it an arrest is to give it much more legitimacy than it deserves) we are not subject to the legislative process when it comes to Rights, especially those acknowledged by the Constitution. He broke no legitimate law, therefore no process was needed.

But you refer to the idea of a permit system to justify the exercise of a Right? This is as conflicting with the constitution as would be an outright ban on all firearms. It is not "legal" to require a person to pay a fee in order to beg for permission to exercise a basic, fundamental Right. All CCW laws that require such are no damned better than laws that prohibit carry of any kind. But the allure of being one of the chosen few blinds many people to this fact.

& WildAlaska again, I would terrify you. You contend that this is not civil disobedience & that anarchy is a bad thing? First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family, just like I have little sympathy for un-uniformed criminals who get killed in the course of committing violent crimes against citizens.

Second, it's attitudes such as yours which make anarchy a desirable situation. You seem to revel in the authority of the state over others - even going so far as to say that not only who may carry should be restricted, but who may own a firearm should be restricted.

How dare you even mention the word hypocrisy! You own firearms yet you would deny them to others because of superficial criteria. Again disgust is too mild a word. Out of curiosity if I were ever deemed unfit to possess arms (as I'm sure I would be under your criteria) would you attempt to disarm me yourself, or send someone else to carry out your dirty work?

& I say your dirty work because you & people such as yourself are every bit as complicit in disarming people as the cops y'all send to do it. The only thing materially different is the fortitude to be the first one in the door yourself. In principle you & those who would support your erasure of our Rights are possibly worse - since a cop can attempt to plead that he was just following orders. (I say attempt; you do recall the Nuremburg Trials don't you?)

(& WildAlaska - don't feel I'm picking on you. TheeBadOne & others have parroted your lack of respect for the citizen many times here. Yours was just the most convenient to refer to.)

& will somebody please teach logical discourse if not reading comprehension around here? The Rule of Law is not the concept that every citizen should blindly obey any & every law - it's the idea that the government is not above the law. So if a government passes a law that conflicts with its constitution, that law is not to be obeyed. That is the essence of the rule of law.
It would seem that some think the Rule of Law means that every person must subject himself to the whims of the government until he can beg or bribe said government into retracting the law. Tell me, since when did governments need a concept such as this to encourage obedience? Hasn't the government almost always had a monopoly on force?
The Rule of Law was an idea to prevent a government from disobeying its own rules. Thus a King could not order a man's wife to sleep with him so long as the law prevented such. A democracy could not vote 20% of its population into slavery so long as a rule prevented such.
But it has nothing to do with a citizen obeying a just law, let alone an unjust one. Rule of Law is a concept to protect us from government, not to protect government from us or even each other from each other.

So please refrain from using the Rule of Law as justification for the adolescent condemnation of a man exercising his Rights.

& someone opined that the pro-gun extremists will ultimately hurt the "cause". I couldn't agree more. Ya see, us pro-gun extremist will do our damndest to hurt the cause that some of you support - which is gun control for everyone but yourselves & gun prohibitions on every type of gun that you dislike.

In fact pro-gun is not an accurate term for y'all. You cannot be pro-gun & still support prior restraint based gun control. You can't be pro-Life & support first trimester abortions. You can't be pro-religion if you think all but officially recognized ones should be outlawed, you cannot be pro-literacy if you forbid some people to read. & y'all definitely aren't pro-gun when you condone & support laws that are anti-gun, now can ya?

So the cause y'all want to support & see through, I'm opposed to because I am pro-gun. What y'all should realize is that I'm not a pro-gun extremist, or a gun owning radical; I'm simply pro-gun (I prefer pro-Right to Arms but that's beside the point). Another thing that y'all should realize is that if I'm pro-gun & y'all aren't hip to it (or at least support some prior restraint based gun control), then that makes y'all anti gun now doesn't it? What you should do is stop lying by claiming that y'all are pro-gun & decide how far anti you are & describe yourself accordingly.

More info on that can be found here:

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_publicola_archive.html#107267077693252002

& TheeBadOne,
What happened with the BAC limit is that Congress told the states that unless they lowered there's to .10 then they'd have a portion of the money promised to them with held. It's not an accurate example in the context you meant - unless you reject the principles of federalism & view extortion as a legitimate means to achieve your ends. In fact it's even worse than that because the feds have taken money from the people of a state & then used that money they stole to extort them with. It's kind of like a contractor you work for breaking into your house & robbing you then threatening to with hold your paycheck unless you do as he says. Just thought I'd point that out.

To the rest of you - here's a question that I've been trying to find an answer for. If this man can be kidnapped, have his property stolen & face further detainment for exercising a Right, then what about the rest of us? Couldn't we be in this man's shoes? & if we were, what would you want done? Would a legal defense fund be enough, or would you prefer a couple hundred of your friends assemble outside the jail & demand your release Right Now?

If you have the cash I'd recommend contributing to a legal defense fund. But (& admittedly I'm not an optimist about this sort of thing anymore) I doubt the courts will provide relief no matter how expertly the defense is handled. They simply have too much invested in the governments’ power to risk losing a portion of it to the people. So do y'all think this is enough for purposeful civil disobedience, or would you require years more of being persecuted for exercising your Rights & perhaps a more clean cut example in order to justify taking any kind of action?

In short, if this country's war for independence was started because government troops came to disarm the people, then why have we stood idly by for so long as we're being disarmed one by one? Is one person being disarmed not enough justification? Would ten be enough? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?
 
If the cops insist on playing their role of being an occupying force then the people should play their roles as well - Vive Le Resistance!"

Want to know how this should have played out? The gentleman in question should have informed the cop that he'd gladly take the speeding ticket & deal with the matter in court if he chose to contest it, but any attempt at searching him for weapons without probable cause for a violent offense would not be permitted. Then if the cops persisted said cop should have had to contend with immediate & disproportionate force.

To put it simply, the cop attempting to disarm him should have been shot as he attempted to do so.

& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this.

Aside from the fact that he was not a citizen or resident of the state he was kidnapped in (to call it an arrest is to give it much more legitimacy than it deserves) we are not subject to the legislative process when it comes to Rights, especially those acknowledged by the Constitution. He broke no legitimate law, therefore no process was needed.


First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family,

And there you have it...todays rational and reasonable gun owner...just what we need..an advocate for shooting down cops...

& WildAlaska again, I would terrify you

O trust me you do. Its people like you who I fear the most..its people like you who ensure that I keep a gun...people, criminals, who think that violence is the answer.....dont like abortion?...hell shoot a doctor...dont like a law prohibting concealed carry?...hell shoot a cop...

Make up your own law as you go eh?...just like the Cossacks made up their own law on the spot, just like the Nazis perverted the idea of law, or the Red Guards, or the White Guards...to people like you...order, justice, the mechanics of a civilized society mean nothing UNLESS each and everything in your life is EXACTLY to your liking....its "Rights" remember...and you are the one that defines it for us all right...?

No Mr Publicola, and others of your ilk, I dont fear the US government at all. I work, I come home, I pay my taxes, I fill out all the silly paperwork I have to fill out and I try everyday to obey the laws no matter how silly they are. If I dont like them, I dont sit here and whine about my rights being violated, I work to change them or just shut up about it. But I donrt advocate killing cops. Or indeed killing anybody willy nilly.

How dare you even mention the word hypocrisy! You own firearms yet you would deny them to others because of superficial criteria.

O really...superficial criteria? Like convicted felons, murderers, people whose criminal histories have demonstrated total DISRESPECT for everything good decent Americans work hard for? Besides killing cops, your advocating for them too...???

People like you dont deserve to own firearms in a civilized society. Luckily for you, warped thinking is not a disqualifying criteria on a 4473.

Sometimes I wish it was.

Reading crap like this makes me want to work to tighten gun control laws. The thought of you with an AR15 and a grudge against anyone who doesnt think like yopu scaresx me.

WildrantmodeoffAlaska
 
WildAlaska,
let's get one thing straight right now - I wouldn't have an Ar-15 or any other version of the M-16. So try to use a real rifle (preferably the Garand) when you indulge in an attempted justification of your anti-gun philosophy.

& among those convicted felons you dare not defend, you have people accussed of non violent crimes. Does it make you feel all warm & fuzzy that because of a bar room fight 35 years ago which he didn't even start that a 68 year old man is denied a firearm in his home for defense? Does it turn you on somehow to sit back & think about a woman being defenseless because she gave a ride to someone with 2 pounds of hash in his bag & got busted for it, even though she was unaware of the contraband? Or is it just the thought that people who do not enforce the law & people who do not mindlessly submit to those that do should be denied their basic Rights in order to generate compliance?


"& the courts? I really care less what the courts say about this. A court stating that we do not have the Right to Arms (of which concealed carry is a part) holds no more weight than a court telling me what color my hair should be or what religion I should practice. Yes, they're will always be simple fools who blindly follow any dictates by a court or legislator or president or king or dictator, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them."

That was my statement in full. You quoted only part, which could be easily misconstrued. If you're going to quote me please keep it in context.

& you condensed yout interpretation into something inaccurate concerning my views. I did not advocate "...shooting down cops." as you miscorrectly stated. I advocate using any degree of force necessary to prevent your Rights from being violated. That would not exclude cops from receiving said force if they attempt to deprive you of your Rights. That's a bit different than advocating the random shooting of a person because of his job.

& to tell you the truth I'm not a big fan of violence. But I do realize that sometimes violence is the only answer. Wars have proven this, as well as citizens defending themselves from criminals.

But seeing as how I'm a guy always open to options, then care to explain how a non-violent solution could result in securing our Rights & our property?

It seems to me that Mr. Jordan chose the non-violent route. He was then held against his will & his property confiscated. He will face charges in a court & likely he will be convicted. He will either spend more time being held against his will or he will at minimum receive permanent second (or possibly third) class citizen status.

That is unaceptable. The goal is much like the goal when a woman is confronted by a rapist; not to be raped. Proving that the aggressor's actions were wrong after the fact does nothing for the victim. It helps future victims but for the one in question it cannot take away the pain & sufferring caused.
Similarly tell me how we can non-violently prevent a cop from enforcing a law that violates our most basic human Rights. Tell me how we should respond to the threat or use of force to deprive us of our freedom, dignity, property & Rights?

Until you come up with a non-violent method to accomplish those goals then I'll have to assert that violence in some cases is in fact a correct answer.

& contrary to your misconceptions, no one is talking about making up their own law. What all seem to be saying is that the law is being violated by the kind of persecution that Mr. Jordan is going through.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That ring a bell? I see no exception that allows for prior restraint based gun control laws.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Considering that the search was instigated by the observance of objects relating to the exercise of a Right that the Constitution forbids interfering with, I'd have to say the search & arrest qualify as unreasonable.

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Last time I looked, due process was not the word of a cop. & considering the 2nd & 4th amendment objections, I'd say that he was deprived of liberty & property w/o due process. Further since the law prohibiting concealed carry is unconstitutional, I can think of no legitmate reason for the state to deprive Mr. Jordan of his property, thus the state's actions also run afoul of the last part. Clearly Mr. Jordan's property was taken for public use w/o just compensation. I say public use because the state cannot claim it is evidence of a crime, since the crime they accuse Mr. Jordan of is merely the exercise of his Rights.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It's worth mentioning again that requiring someone to pay for their freedom because they were caught exercising a Right is not only excessive, but cruel.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, just because the constituion names certain Rights, that does not mean those are the only ones there are. The Right to Defense comes to mind as something being denied Mr. Jordan whil they unlawfully detain his property. There are others such as the Right of Liberty - which is being able to travel freely That has been denied Mr. Jordan because of the state's theft of his property - namely his car.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means a state law which interferes with the Right to Arms as guaranteed in the 2nd & 9th amendments to the U.S. Constitution is null & void on the spot. Clearly the state of Ohio has made & is enforcing a law contrary to the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly Mr. Jordan was denied due process as his property was taken from him & his liberty denied him based on the enforcement of an unconstitutional law & before a trial or hearing of any sort could be conducted.

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

That seems to be the Ohio constitution's provision concerning arms. So the law Mr. Jordan was charged with violating seems to have run afoul of two constitutions.

This link is to JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) It's a case where a conviction of a man killing a policeman was reversed & remanded by SCOTUS because the trial judge erred in denying that the defendant could have used force to resist arrest against the policemen if they were acting beyond their scope of authority. In essence SCOTUS held that if a policeman acts beyond or outside his capacity, that the use of the minimum amount of force, including deadly force, to resist the arrest is justifiable.

This is an excerpt from TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I Sec. 1985 of the U.S. Code.

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;
...in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."


This is TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 242 of the U.S. Code

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Both should clearly demonstrate that according to the law any person, badged or unbadged who denies or attempts to deny someone of their Rights is in fact breaking the law. Being criminals of an active & violent nature, it is therefore not inappropriate to recommend the use of force, including deadly force, in order to prevent them from causing the harm they intend. Or do you not support the idea of using deadly force to defend yourself against a violent forcible felony?

So again, please attempt to fact check yourself before making wild accusations. It's not that we are making laws up as we go, we're simply demanding that our Right be respected as the supreme law of the land requires the governments to do.

oh, & it seems to me because of my opinions, not any actions of mine, you have deemed me inappropriate to own firearms. Need I elaborate any more on the dangers of the suspect criteria you'd view as reasonable? Felons are people who could receive more than 1 year in jail for a crime. They are not necessarily untrustworthy with firearms. But even if they were, do you think a law prohibiting them would stop them should they choose to do harm? If that were the case, Chicago & DC & NYC would have the lowest crime rates in the nation, since their laws prevent the law abiding as well as the violent criminals from legal possession of a firearm.
No, what you want would disarm the innocent while not being a major hinderence to those with harmful intent. Because of a court case or an opinion you disagree with we'd all be beasts, on all fours hoping a good steward will protect us from the wolves. No thanks. I'll take my chances with others such as myself that you would deem untrustworthy.

& ya see, you're the one who seeks action against those who do not think like you do:

"Reading crap like this makes me want to work to tighten gun control laws."

All i have done is advocate taking action against those who directly & immedietely deprive someone of their Rights or attempt to do so by force. You would deny me the Right to Arms based upon your dislike of my opinions & you contemplate working for yet more gun control because my words intimidate you.

But I never said anything about taking out anyone for their ideas. I did say that using force against someone who uses force against you is justifiable, even if that person is a cop. There's a distinction in there if you care to actually look.

But my question still stands: how could Mr. Jordan have prevnted the officers from violating his Rights w/o resorting to violence?
 
Well said Publicola. One of the big problems we have in this country is blind obedience of authority. Someone puts on a black uniform, a badge, and a funny hat, and many believe that they're somehow special. Anyone who attempts to steal your stuff or kidnap you is a criminal, and you have the absolute right to defend yourself and your stuff, with deadly force if necessary. That is as basic as your right to life, and no legislation can make it otherwise, no matter how many people vote for it. Calling it "confiscation" or "asset forfeiture" or "tax" does not make it other than theft. Calling it "arrest" does not make it other than kidnapping.

No prior restraint law is valid. If there is no victim and no criminal intent, there is no crime. The law has been perverted. No legislature has the authority to invent a new crime out of whole cloth. All crimes that are or ever will be have been part of the common law for centuries. There are particulars to scope out because of new situations, but there are no new crimes. The prior-restraint paper "crimes" that have been created by legislation are tyranny incarnate. We must fight them and those who make and enforce them tooth and nail.

I'm talking here about every gun law, every drug law, every tax law, every licensing and registration law. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Publicola, Mr. St. Clair, and the others comparing Hunter to Rosa Parks and the Founding Fathers...

If (God forbid) Hunter is convicted and sent to jail, what rifle will you use to alleviate him from this injustice and break him out?
 
The charges carry a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It's a 4th degree felony there. All it would take to get that penalty is a rights-ignorant jury and an anti-gun judge (both of which seem to be a great supply today).

Then why did he take this risk?
 
"First of all in my view justified civil disobedience of this would have encompassed the use of any means necessary to prevent a deprivation of freedom - even briefly - by the gentleman in question. If the state trooper died as a result I would have little sympathy for him or his family, just like I have little sympathy for un-uniformed criminals who get killed in the course of committing violent crimes against citizens."

Little sympathy for him or his family either, huh?

I've heard enough out of you to know I don't want to hear anything else.

John
 
repsychler - That's really not a wise topic to discuss on a public board, IMO.

Blackcloud6 - He took the risk because the law is immoral and unconstitutional. Or perhaps he forgot about OH law and didn't intend to take the risk at all.
 
repsychler - That's really not a wise topic to discuss on a public board, IMO.

That's OK. I'm not really expecting anyone to back up their blustering about unconstitutional/immoral laws and what the Founding Fathers did about them.

He took the risk because the law is immoral and unconstitutional.

That's exactly right. HE took the risk. HE danced, HE can pay the fiddler.

Or perhaps he forgot about OH law and didn't intend to take the risk at all.

A staunch RKBA activist suddenly forgetting Ohio carry law? I don't even know him and I'll give him more credit than that.
 
WildAlaska,
Least I dont make up my own intepretation and pick and choose which ones I will obey
Sure you do. Or at least I sincerely hope you do. You just happen to feel that all laws currently on the books are appropriate. As soon as one struck you as so morally vile and reprehensible as to be an offense against your values to comply with, I hope you'd have the depth of faith to violate the law and fight against it.
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.
Way to sidestep the issue.
How can you claim that all laws must be followed (you don't get to pick and choose) and then whine when someone brings up a law they think should not be followed?
Or do you get to pick and choose?
Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...
Is he harming someone? Assuming the allegations are true, yes. Is he responsible for that harm? Again, if the allegations are true, yes. Should he be punished for harming people? Same answer. That you would compare the act of raping children to the harmless carrying of a firearm shows "how out of touch with political, social, and legal reality your position is. "
It aint the Brady Bunch that will end gun ownership in the US...its the radical gun owners that will
Nah. It's the elitest gun owners that are working the hardest at bringing us into line with the Brady Bunch. Don't worry, Wild. They'll probably
still let you play with your toys because you'll make the neat things that LEO/military folks get to play with.
Becasue I dont view all law enforcement officers or the ATF as jackbooted thugs?
Implying that I do? That's the second time someone has implied that I hate all LEOs or view them as thugs. THIS IS NOT TRUE. If you'd bother to
go back and read some of my posts on the subject, you'd realize that. But it's just so much easier to stop thinking and say "Typical gun-nut.
Must hate all cops."
Heck, I don't even view the ATF (to a man) as jackbooted thugs. From what I gather, they're mostly just bored clerks.
Publicola, Mr. St. Clair, and the others comparing Hunter to Rosa Parks and the Founding Fathers...

If (God forbid) Hunter is convicted and sent to jail, what rifle will you use to alleviate him from this injustice and break him out?
Huh? What armed group stormed the jail that Rosa Parks was in?
 
Once again I will ask, where does the Ohio Legislature presume to have acquired the lawfull authority to regulate the bearing of arms?

The Constitution of the State of Ohio, Article I, Section1: "All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possess, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety."

Section 4: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

The right of self-defense is a natural right of a free Human Being, not a civil right granted because you are a member of a civil society.

Section 5: "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, except that, in civil cases, laws may be passed t authorize the rendering of a verdict by the concurrence of not less than three-fourths of the jury."

The right of a trial by jury is not a natural right, jury trials are not found in nature, it's a civil right granted because you are a member of a civil society. But notice that there has been included in Section 5 of Ohio's Bill of Rights an exception. Where is the exception in Section 4 (the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves)? Obviously, it's not included in the wording! Therefore the Ohio Legislature does not have the lawful authority to regulate the people's right to bear arms -period!

The bedrock that the concept of "the rule of law" rests on is that, "All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, these rights cannot lawfully be regulated by the people's agent (government). The Bill of Rights is the people's NO TRESPASSING SIGN, don't treat here warning to their servants (government).

So again I will ask, where does the Ohio Legislature presume to get the lawful authority to regulate the people's right to bear arms?
 
Last edited:
The NRA learned this lesson in the 90's - rabid, "let's overthrow the government" "gun nuts" are what lost us our rights. And man, a lot of you guys are making me rethink my participation in this board because you are foaming at the mouth.

Calm, measured, thoughtful working of the system is what got our rights back.

This gentleman, and I wish him no harm because it could be any one of us, was NOT engaged in civil disobedience, he was engaged in ARROGANT flaunting of the LAW.

And as we all know, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Had he driven across the state line in an act of civil disobedience with Press cameras flashing then that would be something different.

That was not the case; this man doesn't bother with the law, thinking it doesn't apply to him. And as such he dismisses our (or at least my) society as a whole.

Comparing this man to anything having to do with slavery or civil rights is disgusting. Comapring law abiding citizens to Nazi's is ignorant. Both of these comparisons are WAY out of scale with what we are talking about here.

He obviously has good friends and I wish him luck - but this action does not make him a hero by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as legal defense funds, has the NRA or any of the other pro 2a groups been contacted? I wonder if they will render assistance?

My guess is they will not . . . .
 
The Bottom Line For Me:

A fundamental premise of America is that the Power of the State and its agents are limited and constrained, in the favor of the individual.

The State, (comprised of and reflecting the Majority of the People ) MAY NOT LEGITIMATELY DO CERTAIN THINGS.

The power of the Many is indeed checked, stopped dead in its tracks and confounded by the Rights of the One who dares stand his ground and claim
them.

Acts of Congress and States that are not pursuant to (made in accordance with) the Constitution are immediately repugnant, null, and void:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
--16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177; late 2d, Sec 256


Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187

There is absolutely NOTHING more dangerous to Liberty than simply yielding it, and living as if you don't have any.

Argue For Your Limitations, And You Get To Keep Them.
--Richard Bach

The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

{emphasis mine}


Now, if this community, arguably one of the most sane and rational can't agree in principle that a person, any person, has the rightful prerogative to belligerently claim their Rights, then we really don't have any, and there isn't a whole lot more to discuss.

{Hat Tip to Mark ODell for the link to many of those quotes}


Relevent section from
AGS Memo Revisited, a blogpost from last week that touches on this subject:

I have to convey an additional warning to the RKBA community at large.

The RKBA community understands that in order to retain respect, it needs to be comprised of upstanding, law abiding citizens. To that end, a certain self corrective defensive dynamic has taken shape, where in members who don't obey the law to a T are essentially expelled, and the citizens in good standing are pretty quick to close ranks and carry on.

I understand, and generally support this important principle, because we genuinely don't want to associate with, or be associated with the Tim McVeighs, Lee Malvos, skinheads, neo-nazis, and haters of the world.

That being said, take heed: The outrages that we will suffer as gun owners won't begin with the upstanding pillars of the community. ... The waters will be tested first on those for whom little public sympathy is likely to materialize, and the meters and guages of public opinion and outrage will be watched closely.

The danger is that if we scrutinize each individual event of outrage so closely to see if the victim of oppression was pure of heart and possessed of golden virtue, we can loose sight of the overall picture and the emergent pattern.

I am NOT saying that we shouldn't continue to police ourselves, what I am saying is that we need to remember that the greatest of us is only as free as the least of us, and that I will rain down moral opprobrium and disgust upon the next person who says the equivalent of "Well, he should have paid more attention to filling out his paperwork, or packing his range bag carefully in full accordance with the laws and regulations, and therefore he therefore deserves what he got."

That is called "blaming the victim", and it's no joke. In NJ, CA, MA, MD, and IL any of us can get caught in the web of legal landmines all too easily, and damn near every violation is a FELONY. In NJ, for example, stopping for milk on the way home from the range with your guns unloaded, in locked cases in your trunk is enough to qualify.

I ???? you not.

Is THAT the future you want?

If it was someone you know, would you really tell them to their face they should have gone home, humped their gunboxes out of their car, locked them in the safe, and then gone back out for milk? Well obviously, they should have, because now they have to spend their time and money in a desparate defense, but that makes it pragmatic. It doesn't make it right. Yes, keeping arms comes with some serious responsibilities, but those natural and valid responsibilities are small compared to the unnatural burdens that can be created by law and regulation.

I do not object to maximum enforcement against genuine violent criminals and terrorists. As far as the predators of the world go, GOOD RIDDANCE TO THEM, THROW AWAY THE DAMNED KEY.

The problem is that "gun crime" is on the verge of undergoing a sea change from predators using guns to take what they want, be it life, limb or property, to "gun crime" being defined as any of a myriad of minor violations of rules that have no real bearing on anything beyond themselves. In some corners of the USA, the level of discipline and awareness required to lawfully retain your arms and stay out of jail far, far exceeds what is natural and just.

And if that sea change should ever become complete, it won't be the marginal folks they'll be going after, it'll be guys like you and me, who are bold enough to stand up in public and claim and publicly act upon our right to own a battle rifle.

While I don't agree with Hunter's decision to proceed in the way he did for pragmatic reasons, It is not my place to tell him he had no prerogative to "belligerently claim his rights."
 
a different angle

instead of attacking the man with the guns or the trooper that stopped him..why not take a look at how it became that hes in the doo doo that he is in.ohio has draconian gun laws,we all know this yet many people would rather shrug at it from out of state because thats ohio and not the state theyre in.it doesnt affect them as a whole.Well..now it does.its all about control and thats not just here in ohio.the situation in ohio is this-there is a shooter driving up and down the freeway taking pot shots at cars and houses.Govt agencies involved yet no one can catch the shooter.rewards offered locally(something like $40k now?) resulting in profiling.people will do anythintg for that much money.it could be someone saw his sidearm-being from out of town..maybe he was profiled.i dunno.that whole area is being monitored now because of the 270 shootings along with connecting roads and interstates.the arrest drew alot of attention and the media played it like an ace.the sheeple think he's a terrorist or even the 270 shooter.the rest of us know whats going on,we just cant decide who to blame.ohio is just 1 piece of a gun control puzzle..it affects all of us.
 
I've got a very few simple questions that no one seems to want to answer:

If the govt passed a law requiring everybody to apply for a religion permit, would you go and do it?

Would you do so because the law required it, even though you didnt agree with the law but work to change the law?

What about a speech permit?
 
Update: KABA.com will be taking credit card donations - hopefully their page for that will be up and running by Monday.

Also, anyone interested in making a non-credit-card donation is requested to contact Sunni Maravillosa (sunni at free-market.net) about logistics. If you have PGP, her public key is:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>
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=Tug0
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
 
I've got a very few simple questions that no one seems to want to answer:
If the govt passed a law requiring everybody to apply for a religion permit, would you go and do it?
Would you do so because the law required it, even though you didnt agree with the law but work to change the law?
What about a speech permit?


Strawman argument, as well as not applicable. This case involves the second amendment, not the first.

Up until this spring, I couldn't get a carry permit. I didn't ignore the law and carry anyway, I, along with many others, worked to change it. Now I have a carry permit. Yup, I have to have a permit to exercise my natural right to self defense. But once again, I do not choose to ignore the law. I get my permit, and I carry in accordance with that law, and will continue to do what I can to change the law to the way it should be. (Vermont/Alaska)

So here we come to Mr Jordan, while traveling though a state known to be extrememly hostile for those that wish to carry, chooses to ignore local law and carry anyway. That's fine, I don't blame him. I don't think he did anything truly wrong. But he did knowingly break the law, and there will be consequences for it. He didn't do this for us, the RKBA community. He did it because he wanted to carry, local law and local RKBA'ers be damned.

So I'll say it once again, Hunter did nothing morally wrong. He should not go to jail. The state of Ohio is wrong. But I will not rally behind him like this is some great crusade for RKBA.

One day, heaven forbid, it may no longer be possible to work for change within the confines of the law. On that day, we may need to invoke the true meaning and the full force of the second amendment. But for now, I will work within the laws as they are set, to change them for the better. Its working. I believe it will continue to work. So unless you are ready to follow in the Founding Fathers footsteps today, I grow tired of listening to hot air about how I'm pissing on George Washington's grave.
 
Pardon me, but there's a slight misconception here I must briefly address;

The NRA didn't learn that a hard line no compromise approach didn't work in the 90's. In fact they have NEVER taken anything close to a hard line approach.

Ya see, there were 4 yeard where the 2nd amendment took real big hits; 1934, 1968, 1986 & 1994.

Now would someone tell me where were the hard line gun nuts in 1934? They were out shooting their damn Thompsons, that's where. They weren't in DC fighting the passage of the NFA. Know why? Cause before '34 there was no federal gun control law. It simply wasn't an issue. There wasn't an outcrying of a sizable minority to pass gu control laws; it was simply an attempt by congress to A; push its authority & B; keep all the damn revenuers employed (prohibition had just ended).
In 1968 it was almost the same thing. Gun owners were perhaps a bit more aware but they didn't really think it'd happen, at least those not on the inside of the bigger clubs & orgs. & ya know what? It simply didn't generate that much debate. Certainly not to the point where millions of gun owners were engaged in a heated battle with the anti's.

1986 - ah, almost a good year. the FOPA passed, but at the last minute the Hughes amendment was slipped in. That effectively froze the supply of machine guns available to civilians. But again, gun owners weren't really aware that it was gonna happen as it did, so there was no mass protest. However it was closer to the level of outrage that you'd expect over any similar gun law today.

1994. There were a lot of gun owners watching closely & visibly upset by the Brady Bill & the AWB ban. It passed anyway. A lot of politicans lost their seats because they voted for it, but that was more revenge than prevention.

So in all those years their is one consistent thing; The NRA. They worked out a compromise to every gun law that was proposed, save the NFA which they were on board with as soon as the language relating to pistols was dropped. The NRA has supported every gun control law that came down the pike. Not explicitly, & in a few cases their support of said law was limited to claiming it was useless to fight. But right now they support the strict enforcement of evey law on the books. they have since I remember.

In the 90's one thing happened that made me think there was some hope for the NRA: LaPierre made his famous "jack booted thugs" statement about the BATF. He later retracted. I coudl be mistaken but I seem to recall that the NRA gained a lot of members after LaPierre's statement.

But the anti's played it as the radical view was not approved of by the majority of NRA members. Bush Sr. dropped his membership b/c of the "jackbooted thugs" comment but I'd wager he was in a very small minority.

So it is not true that the NRA backed off a hard line approach because it didn't work. They backed off from one comment uttered by a VP. why they did it? probably cause it pissed off the jack booted thugs & they complained to their favorite congress critter.

& as to calm & measured approaches getting us our Rights back? When the hell did that happen? The only difference that could be possibly misconstrued as being an improvement between 75 years ago & now is that some states let ou beg & pay for approval to carry. Everything else is worse. There are more gun control laws on the federal level now than ever & I can only think of two that have been amended favorably.

As to the comments about no one being above the law, please re-read my post concerning the Rule of Law & its proper application. To sum up the "no one is above the law" quote was used in the context that a king or other ruler is accountable to the law just as we are. But re-directing it towards the citizen or subject you're turing its original meaning on its head.

But look at it this way - Mr. Jordan broke a law. But that law conflicts with 2 constitutions. So it is not a case of breaking a valid law, but rather one which is void on its face because the law itself violates the law.

If there was a constitutional amendment saying you did not have to jump when an officer of the law directed you to & they passed a law later one whcih said that when an officer tells you to, you must jump - would you look on any non-jumpers as criminals deserving of the penalty they recieve? Or would you say that the law conflicts with the Constitution & therefore its out of governments power to enact or enforce said law?

& I do not recall comparing Mr. Jordan to either Mrs. Parks or the founding fathers.

But I will offer you this:

in 1775 the rightful government of Massachussetts ordered the army into Concord for the purpose of confiscating arms. Certain citizens organized into paramilitary units met this army & fired upon them. Those citizens commited treason against their country & fired on government troops.

Now Mr. Jordan vilated an Ohio law that conflicts with the constitutoons applicable there. Mr. Jordan peacefully complied with the officers orders & depsite being armed he allowed himself to be arrested & held.

Y'all would condemn Mr. Jordan for acting peaceably when he wa wrongfully arrested, berate anyone who says that armed resistance to such intrusion upon our Rights would be justified, but still hold the citizens at Concord in high esteem? Doesn't anyone else see a disconnect in logic there?

Finally as to the question concerning whcih rifle I would use to break someone out of jail after ebing convicted of violating an unconstitutional law - well my first choice would be a Garand. :cool:

But you seem to misunderstand; breaking one person out of jail, even if successful won't do much good (except to that person who'd be damn thankful). It'd take a whole community to march on the jail & demand the fellow be released. Of course the state & or the feds would get involved & it'd get messy, which is why you'd need numbers on your side, as well as a good strategy.

But the goal is not to bust someone out: the goal is to keep someone from going in. Just like rape: it's preferable to stop the aggressor BEFORE the rape occurs. Doing it after is of no immediete benefit to the victim. Doing it during is better than nothing, but still not comparable to stopping the rape before it happens.

That being said, if the people of Ohio got together & marched on the jail after Mr. Jordan was convicted & demanded his release, I would regret not being there with them.

But don't worry. That won't happen. Not for him, not for me, not for you. We cannot seem to get enough of us gun nuts extremist types together in one place to accomplish anything like that. & the rest of the people are torn between condemning people like Mr. Jordan for committing a "felony" & watching prime time t.v.
 
Since everyone else is staking out their opinion on this, I think I shoudl elaborate mine.
In my opinion the law is an unjust one due to prior restraint, and I think it should be overturned. I do not live in Ohio, and therefore the Ohio legislature is out of my reach. When someone is charged with a beaking this law, and requests help in funding a legal defense that may end up overturning the law, I now have an opportunity to help change the law in Ohio.
If this man goes to court, puts up a defense that calls the law unconstitutional and wins, then I think it goes a long way for gun rights in Ohio, and potentially across the nation. If he goes to court and loses his case, he goes to jail. He chose to break a law, and he knows the consequences of his actions. Using the judicial system to effect change is one of the ways to overturn unjust legislation, and also the riskiest.
If you disagree with the law in Ohio and want it taken off the books, helping out "Hunter" is one way you can do that.
If you think the law is a good one, you can call him a criminal, but in my experience not all criminals are bad people.
 
So, repsychler, Hunter's right, Ohio's wrong, and you aren't even willing to give him any verbal support. Hell, you aren't willing to say nothing rather than help Ohio try to condemn him. That is disgusting.

Don't you understand that fighting this in court rather than plea bargaining - at great risk to one's own freedom - IS working within the law? And that working within the law requires a vast amount of publicity and financial support?
 
The NRA didn't learn that a hard line no compromise approach didn't work in the 90's. In fact they have NEVER taken anything close to a hard line approach.

I'm paraphrasing here but my recollection of the NRA approach in the early 90's was, "we need these guns to overthrow the government if they get out of line" to "we need these guns for self defense"

Which is why I let my membership lapse in the 90's and also why I am now a member again. And why I will not become a life member.

Label those however you like (hard line, soft whatever), but the fact is that most people's perception of the NRA is the former and they need to do something about it. That early 90's hard line approach is basically scary as hell to most people, even most gun owners.

Maybe some of this is just window dressing - "defense" implies defense against any threat no? So what's the difference? None. Just being smart in the world of TODAY.

Re your argument about better and worse: my understanding is that more states have right to carry laws than ten years ago, correct? Like a lot more.

So references to how many flintlocks Thomas Jefferson owned not withstanding, this is the RIGHT direction. That would be things getting BETTER. Now if you compare today with another historical time frame perhaps not . . . . but that's irrelevant no?

Re: No one is above the law - has no head; it means just that. NO ONE. King or peasant. You play, you pay. And remember, the guy wasn't just carrying a single gun and stopped for a papers check at a roadblock. Multiple weapons and caught speeding. Come on now - not horrible, but really, is this completely unreasonable? I mean you're asking for trouble no?

Re Ohioians marching to jail: For what? A "Gun Nut" who may be shooting at their babies on the highway? Fat chance.

Use the bear hunt in NJ as an example: we had our first hunt in something like 30 years this year. Why? Because regular people, not "gun nuts" or "redneck hunters" realized that it was the right thing to do for public safety. I hope that someday we'll be able to say the same about a right to carry law in NJ.

But the way to this is not by speeding down the NJ turnpike with a car full of guns . . . . its in educating the masses . . . .

This guy is no hero and did no one any favors in Ohio least of all people trying to advance the RKBA cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top