"Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>
>>
>>
>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>>
>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>
>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>
>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>> summons for violating any law.
>>
>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
>> of law.
>>
>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>
>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>
>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
>> and federal constitutions."
>>
>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
>> that
>>
>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>
>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>
>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>
>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.

So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of 
police intervertion.

Excellent!

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federa
>>> l- judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>> guns 
>>>
>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of
>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open
>>> carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is]
>>> afoot." 
>>>
>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>
>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his
>>> seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>>> summons for violating any law.
>>>
>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>> rule of law.
>>>
>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there
>>> was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's
>>> opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate
>>> courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>
>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>
>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed
>>> by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>
>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
>>> that 
>>>
>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not
>>> seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. .
>>> . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New
>>> Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in
>>> the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is
>>> granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico
>>> constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
>>> denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
>>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>
>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> 
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
> of police intervertion.
> 
> Excellent! 
> 
> 
> 

Were you born stupid, dropped on your head or overdosed on hallucinogens?

Oh sorry, all 3? Then kill yourself.

-- 
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they 
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too, 
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough 
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:24:36 -0600, ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:

> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:



>>>
>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> 
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of 
> police intervertion.
> 
> Excellent!

You just don't get it do you?
1) no charges filed. Ergo, no crime. See Terry Vs Ohio.
2) illegal detention, illegal search and seizure.
3) Nobody noticed the weapon as he entered and nothing was said to him
before the cops showed? Wrong.

Now if only the cops on the tv show could get educated about illegal
searches.

richard  wrote in
news:1ox649vifysnh.ogwijmbbcun5$.dlg@40tude.net: 

> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:24:36 -0600, ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> 
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
> 
> 
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>> 
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
>> of police intervertion.
>> 
>> Excellent!
> 
> You just don't get it do you?
> 1) no charges filed. Ergo, no crime. See Terry Vs Ohio.
> 2) illegal detention, illegal search and seizure.
> 3) Nobody noticed the weapon as he entered and nothing was said to him
> before the cops showed? Wrong.
> 
> Now if only the cops on the tv show could get educated about illegal
> searches.
> 

Yeah. Last night I heard it was illegal to sell a gun to a pawn shop! On a 
show I usually like. Not so much now.

Frank

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed
>>> eral- 
>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>> guns 
>>>
>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of
>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>> [is] afoot." 
>>>
>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>
>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>
>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>> rule of law.
>>>
>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge
>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>
>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages,
>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>
>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>
>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>
>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate
>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>> regard to qualified immunity." 
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>
>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> 
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
> fear of police intervertion.

Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For a 
felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at 
Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.  
 
Excellent! 

Yep.


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>>>
>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
>>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
>>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
>>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
>>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>
>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>
>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
>>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>>> summons for violating any law.
>>>
>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
>>> of law.
>>>
>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
>>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
>>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
>>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>
>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>
>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
>>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
>>> and federal constitutions."
>>>
>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
>>> that
>>>
>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
>>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
>>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
>>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
>>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>
>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> 
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of 
> police intervertion.
> 
> Excellent! 

BEEEP!  Ten point penalty for failure to comprehend what was written!

Any more penalty points and you'll be kicked out of t.p.g.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:24:36 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
 wrote:

>
>"Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
>news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>>>
>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
>>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
>>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
>>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
>>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>
>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>
>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
>>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>>> summons for violating any law.
>>>
>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
>>> of law.
>>>
>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
>>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
>>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
>>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>
>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>
>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
>>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
>>> and federal constitutions."
>>>
>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
>>> that
>>>
>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
>>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
>>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
>>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
>>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>
>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>
>So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of 
>police intervertion.
>
>Excellent! 
>

     No, there would be a "crime [] afoot" since it is a federal
felony for a felon to possess a firearm.  It seems that you haven't
the depth of thought to realize what the facts really are before you
make remarks that are not cogent.

Daniel  wrote in
news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 19, 2:24 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> >news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>> >>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed..
>> >>. 
>> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>
>> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>> >> guns 
>>
>> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of
>> >> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>> >> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>> >> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>> >> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>> >> [is] afoot." 
>>
>> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy
>> >> the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which
>> >> is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>
>> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his
>> >> seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained
>> >> personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed
>> >> him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun
>> >> in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor
>> >> issued a summons for violating any law. 
>>
>> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>> >> rule of law. 
>>
>> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>> >> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>> >> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>> >> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge
>> >> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>> >> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v.
>> >> J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates
>> >> the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v.
>> >> Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying
>> >> rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>
>> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and
>> >> possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>
>> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>> >> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>> >> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>> >> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed
>> >> by our state and federal constitutions." 
>>
>> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government
>> >> officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the
>> >> law where the law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge
>> >> Black concluded that 
>>
>> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not
>> >> seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason.
>> >> . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in
>> >> New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm
>> >> in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary
>> >> judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New
>> >> Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
>> >> is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified
>> >> immunity." 
>>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>> >> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>> >> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>> >> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>> >> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>> >> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>> >> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>> >> Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 
>>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>
>> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>
>> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
>> of police intervertion. 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 

It's the drugs, just ignore him.

-- 
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they 
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too, 
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough 
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.

Daniel  wrote in
news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>> fear of police intervertion. 
> 
> WTF?

Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from the 
law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right Spaniel?

Of course the ones who kill an unarmed man or woman simply because they 
"felt threatened", they're with the NRA.  They have a right to murder you 
if they just "feel threatened".

Does the same rule apply to "socialists", Spaniel?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"¦ Reality Check© ¦" wrote:

> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> > news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
> >
> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
> >>
> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
> >> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
> >> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
> >> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
> >> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
> >>
> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
> >> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
> >> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
> >>
> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
> >> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
> >> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
> >> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
> >> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
> >> summons for violating any law.
> >>
> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
> >> of law.
> >>
> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
> >> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
> >> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
> >> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
> >> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
> >> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
> >> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
> >> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
> >> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
> >> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
> >>
> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
> >>
> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
> >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> >> and federal constitutions."
> >>
> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> >> that
> >>
> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
> >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
> >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
> >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
> >>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> >>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
> >>
> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
> police intervertion.
>
> Excellent!

A man jumped out of a truck with a 12-guage just week
in Phoenix, an act related to road rage. The light turned
(thank God!) and everyone took off leaving the man standing in the intersection
with his 12-guage raised.
The next thing everyone knew he started firing
randomly around and into the air. Someone finally
called police who descended on the maniac with
pistols drawn. The asshole just stood there and laughed,
put his 12-guage down, and we arent sure what the
outcome was ... people got the hell out of there and
didnt stay to see what happened!

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed
>>>> eral-
>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>>> guns
>>>>
>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of
>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>>> [is] afoot."
>>>>
>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>
>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>>
>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>>> rule of law.
>>>>
>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge
>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>
>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages,
>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>
>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>
>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>
>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate
>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>>> regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>
>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>
>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>
>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>> fear of police intervertion.
>
> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For a
> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
> Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.

And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to 
determine
if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.

Excellent!

"Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
news:h9448l$6ka$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying 
>>>> guns
>>>>
>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of 
>>>> the
>>>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
>>>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
>>>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
>>>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>
>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>>>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>>>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>>>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>>>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>
>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>>>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his 
>>>> seat,
>>>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>>>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>>>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>>>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>>>> summons for violating any law.
>>>>
>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any 
>>>> rule
>>>> of law.
>>>>
>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the 
>>>> police
>>>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>>>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was 
>>>> not
>>>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
>>>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>>>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>>>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>>>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>
>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>>>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>>>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>>>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>
>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues 
>>>> presented
>>>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>>>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>>>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
>>>> and federal constitutions."
>>>>
>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>>>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>>>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>>>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>>>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not 
>>>> seize
>>>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . 
>>>> The
>>>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico 
>>>> law
>>>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>>>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>>>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>
>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>>>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
>>>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>>>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>>>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>
>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear 
>> of police intervertion.
>>
>> Excellent!
>
> BEEEP!  Ten point penalty for failure to comprehend what was written!

So the police CAN detain those who openly carry guns, to determine if
they are felons, eh?

jerry warner  wrote in
news:4AB99D8C.BA569F98@mchsi.com: 

> 
> 
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦" wrote:
> 
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> > news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>> >
>> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fede
>> >> ral- judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>> >> guns 
>> >>
>> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of
>> >> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>> >> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>> >> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>> >> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>> >> [is] afoot." 
>> >>
>> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy
>> >> the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which
>> >> is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>> >>
>> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his
>> >> seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained
>> >> personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed
>> >> him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun
>> >> in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor
>> >> issued a summons for violating any law.
>> >>
>> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>> >> rule of law.
>> >>
>> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>> >> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>> >> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>> >> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge
>> >> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>> >> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v.
>> >> J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates
>> >> the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v.
>> >> Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying
>> >> rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>> >>
>> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and
>> >> possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>> >>
>> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>> >> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>> >> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>> >> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed
>> >> by our state and federal constitutions."
>> >>
>> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government
>> >> officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the
>> >> law where the law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge
>> >> Black concluded that 
>> >>
>> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not
>> >> seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason.
>> >> . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in
>> >> New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm
>> >> in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary
>> >> judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New
>> >> Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
>> >> is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified
>> >> immunity." 
>> >>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>> >> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>> >> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>> >> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>> >> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>> >> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>> >> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>> >> Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 
>> >>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>> >>
>> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
>> of police intervertion.
>>
>> Excellent!
> 
> A man jumped out of a truck with a 12-guage just week
> in Phoenix, an act related to road rage. The light turned
> (thank God!) and everyone took off leaving the man standing in the
> intersection with his 12-guage raised.
> The next thing everyone knew he started firing
> randomly around and into the air. Someone finally
> called police who descended on the maniac with
> pistols drawn. The asshole just stood there and laughed,
> put his 12-guage down, and we arent sure what the
> outcome was ... people got the hell out of there and
> didnt stay to see what happened!
> 
> 
> 
> 

I'm sure he eas just an average guy, no drug or alcohol problem, decent job, 
loving family, nice house. And then suddenly a couple of nuerons just 
misfired. Tragic.

-- 
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they 
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too, 
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough 
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.

Daniel  wrote in
news:6e6b828e-1940-4031-ac60-edf481b27fb5@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>> >> fear of police intervertion. 
>>
>> > WTF?
>>
>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from the
>> law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
>> Spaniel? 
> 
> 
> No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
> problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
> right?
> 
>>
>> Of course the ones who kill an unarmed man or woman simply because they
>> "felt threatened", they're with the NRA.  They have a right to murder
>> you if they just "feel threatened". 
> 
> 
> Could you please try to make an argument that makes sense?
> 
> 
> 

Your expectations are far to high.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
Fed
>>>>> eral-
>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>>>> guns
>>>>>
>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black 
of
>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>>>> [is] afoot."
>>>>>
>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to 
leave.
>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>>>> rule of law.
>>>>>
>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  
Judge
>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of 
damages,
>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>
>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>
>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>
>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific, 
legitimate
>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>>>> regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>
>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate 
at
>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>
>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For 
a
>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
>> Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
> 
> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to 
> determine
> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.

What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a known 
felon?  Think "probable cause".......if you can.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

Daniel  wrote in
news:6e6b828e-1940-4031-ac60-edf481b27fb5@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9ef 
> f1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> > WTF?
>>
>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
>> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
>> Spaniel?
> 
> No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
> problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
> right?

Why is it okay with you for rapists to carry guns?

>> Of course the ones who kill an unarmed man or woman simply because
>> they "felt threatened", they're with the NRA.  They have a right to
>> murder you if they just "feel threatened".
> 
> Could you please try to make an argument that makes sense?

You're so ignorant you've never heard of "make my day" laws?

Next please.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...

> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear 
> of police intervertion.
>
> Excellent!

So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals and 
felons as if they were?

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
> Fed
>>>>>> eral-
>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>>>>> guns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black
> of
>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>>>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>>>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>> [is] afoot."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>>>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>>>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>>>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>>>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>>>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>>>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>>>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to
> leave.
>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>>>>> rule of law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>>>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>>>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>>>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."
> Judge
>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>>>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>>>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>>>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>>>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>>>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
> damages,
>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>>>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>>>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>>>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
> legitimate
>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>>>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>>>>> regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>>>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>>>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>>>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate
> at
>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>
>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>
>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For
> a
>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
>>> Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>
>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>> determine
>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>
> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a known
> felon?

How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him first?

Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos of
MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?

God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.

"DockScience"  wrote in message 
news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear 
>> of police intervertion.
>>
>> Excellent!
>
> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals 
> and felons as if they were?

Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of 
felons.

"Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!
>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals 
>>> and felons as if they were?
>>
>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of 
>> felons.
>>
>
> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet society wants 
> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all 
> of his civil rights forever.

Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.

>
> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.

Except President.

> No military career. Just to name a few.
>
> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted with 
> a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should never be 
> let out of jail.

Why not?

Are you vindictive?

>
> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit 
> here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? Should we 
> deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been served?

Why do you hate America?

"jaf"  wrote in message 
news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHXnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands 
>>> of felons.
>>>
>>
>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet society wants 
>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all 
>> of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. 
>> Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit 
>> here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? Should we 
>> deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been 
>> served?
>>
>> -- 
>
> Yes.
> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>

So what was your father's excuse?

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C9067F559175hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i0haqF2vnrqjU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!
>>>
>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>
>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands
>> of felons.
>
> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious about
> it then you trolling twits on the internet.

You're lying again, nutter.

"Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>> Fed
>>>>>>>> eral-
>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>>>>>>> guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black
>>> of
>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>>>>>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>>>>>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>>>> [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>>>>>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>>>>>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>>>>>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>>>>>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>>>>>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>>>>>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>>>>>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to
>>> leave.
>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>>>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>>>>>>> rule of law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>>>>>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>>>>>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>>>>>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."
>>> Judge
>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>>>>>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>>>>>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>>>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>>>>>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>>>>>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>>>>>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>>> damages,
>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>>>>>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>>>>>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>>>>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>>>>>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>>>>>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>>>>>>> regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>>>>>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>>>>>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate
>>> at
>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>>>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For
>>> a
>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
>>>>> Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>>>> determine
>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a known
>>> felon?
>>
>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him first?
>
> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?

Bama meet Terry ...

>
>>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos 
>> of
>> MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
>
> God damn you are one stump-stupid freedom-hater.
>
> The sound of "Your papers, please.  And be quick about it!" will be heard 
> throughout the land.

And here we thought you gun-nutters would save us from tyranny ... or so you 
fantasize.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C9067C0C3C40hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i0h80F2uta1hU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9
>>>>>>>> -
>>> Fed
>>>>>>>> eral-
>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>> Black
>>> of
>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM
>>>>>>>> police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to
>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to
>>>>>>>> believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat
>>>>>>>> down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered
>>>>>>>> handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no
>>>>>>>> license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet,
>>>>>>>> and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John
>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never
>>>>>>>> suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any
>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to
>>> leave.
>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him
>>>>>>>> even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>>>> was afoot."
>>> Judge
>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court
>>>>>>>> in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he
>>>>>>>> has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>>>>>>>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>>>>>>>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates
>>>>>>>> the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>>> damages,
>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching
>>>>>>>> individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a
>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."
>>>>>>>> In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>> specific,
>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants'
>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements
>>>>>>>> in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement
>>>>>>>> here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio,
>>>>>>>> Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>> associate
>>> at
>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can
>>>>>>>> be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.
>>>>> For
>>> a
>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp
>>>>> at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>
>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>>>> determine
>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>
>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>> known felon?
>>
>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>> first?
>
> You don't don't really know the police and how they operate, do you?

Do tell.

>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>
> Nope, but they sure as hell know what the ones in their area look like.

Sure ... just like on da tee vee shows, eh numbnuts?

> I rather doubt that the police in Seattle are inundated with felons from
> Miami.


Damn you are one stump-stupid inbred imbecile.

Bama Brian  wrote in news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
> 

Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be revoked 
at any time.

So says Weasel.

jaf wrote:
> 
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the 
>>> hands of felons.
>>>
>>
>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the 
>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet 
>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon 
>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. 
>> Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence 
>> has been served?
>>
>> -- 
> 
> Yes.
> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.

Good thing you were never 18, John.  You might have made a mistake and 
had to pay for it your entire life.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals 
>>>> and felons as if they were?
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of 
>>> felons.
>>>
>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet society wants 
>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all 
>> of his civil rights forever.
> 
> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
> 
>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
> 
> Except President.
> 
>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted with 
>> a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should never be 
>> let out of jail.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you vindictive?
> 
>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit 
>> here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? Should we 
>> deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been served?
> 
> Why do you hate America?

I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an 
Anarcho-tyranny.


-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

"Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C91616296B11Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> Bama Brian  wrote in 
> news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>>
>
> Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be 
> revoked
> at any time.
>
> So says Weasel.

And the more afraid and cowardly the populace is, the more willing they are
to tolerate ... even offer ... those revocations. Think post 9.11 Amerikkka.

"Scout"  wrote in message 
news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>> Black
>>> of
>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM
>>>>>>>> police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to
>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to
>>>>>>>> believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.
>>>>>>>> Learn more here. In response to a call from theater manager Robert
>>>>>>>> Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet,
>>>>>>>> and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John
>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating
>>>>>>>> any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>> to
>>> leave.
>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him
>>>>>>>> even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>>>> was afoot."
>>> Judge
>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court
>>>>>>>> in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he
>>>>>>>> has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>>>>>>>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>>>>>>>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates
>>>>>>>> the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of
>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>>> damages,
>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching
>>>>>>>> individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a
>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In
>>>>>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>> specific,
>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants'
>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements
>>>>>>>> in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement
>>>>>>>> here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio,
>>>>>>>> Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>> associate
>>> at
>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can
>>>>>>>> be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws. For
>>> a
>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year
>>>>> romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>
>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>>>> determine
>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>
>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>> known felon?
>>
>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>> first?
>
> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.

ROTFLMAO!!

You're lying again, asswipe.

>
>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>
> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I 
> suspect
> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of their
> rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the rights of
> everyone else.

You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms unmolested
from the police.

"Bama Brian"  wrote
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands 
>>>> of felons.
>>>>
>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet society wants 
>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him 
>>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>
>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>
>> Except President.
>>
>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>
>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Are you vindictive?
>>
>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has 
>>> been served?
>>
>> Why do you hate America?
>
> I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an 
> Anarcho-tyranny.

Has become ...

So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?

Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive ?

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>> Fed
>>>>>>>>> eral-
>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
>>>>>>>>> guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>>>>>>>>> officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave
>>>>>>>>> open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>>>>> [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered
>>>>>>>>> an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to
>>>>>>>>> enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun,
>>>>>>>>> conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New
>>>>>>>>> Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and
>>>>>>>>> only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to
>>>>>>>>> secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of
>>>>>>>>> any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>>>>>>>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any
>>>>>>>>> rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the
>>>>>>>>> police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the
>>>>>>>>> Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though
>>>>>>>>> there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."
>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal
>>>>>>>>> appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida
>>>>>>>>> v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun
>>>>>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in
>>>>>>>>> State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the
>>>>>>>>> litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>>>> damages,
>>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals
>>>>>>>>> solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as
>>>>>>>>> guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for
>>>>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In
>>>>>>>>> this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers
>>>>>>>>> may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case.
>>>>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
>>>>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion
>>>>>>>>> for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with
>>>>>>>>> regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police
>>>>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in
>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here),
>>>>>>>>> and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,
>>>>>>>>> Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate
>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>>>>>>>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.  For
>>>> a
>>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
>>>>>> Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>>>>> determine
>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a known
>>>> felon?
>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him first?
>> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
> 
> Bama meet Terry ...

Terry stops are not random.  The cop needs probable cause for such a 
stop and search.

True random stops and searches would have the cops strip-searching young 
good-looking women on the streets.

> 
>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos 
>>> of
>>> MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>
>>> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
>> God damn you are one stump-stupid freedom-hater.
>>
>> The sound of "Your papers, please.  And be quick about it!" will be heard 
>> throughout the land.
> 
> And here we thought you gun-nutters would save us from tyranny ... or so you 
> fantasize.

We may yet have to.  Not that such as you would help.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7i3klgF2v6vfoU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C9067C0C3C40hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7i0h80F2uta1hU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in 
news:7htm1lF2upiprU1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in 
message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%
7Ey2009m9d9
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>> Fed
>>>>>>>>> eral-
>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-
guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>>>>>>>>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM
>>>>>>>>> police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to
>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to
>>>>>>>>> believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and 
sat
>>>>>>>>> down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered
>>>>>>>>> handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no
>>>>>>>>> license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. 
John
>>>>>>>>> from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him,
>>>>>>>>> obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet,
>>>>>>>>> and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John
>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was 
never
>>>>>>>>> suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any
>>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him
>>>>>>>>> even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime
>>>>>>>>> was afoot."
>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>> in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he
>>>>>>>>> has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>>>>>>>>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>>>>>>>>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates
>>>>>>>>> the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>>>> damages,
>>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching
>>>>>>>>> individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a
>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability 
for
>>>>>>>>> violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."
>>>>>>>>> In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this 
case.
>>>>>>>>> Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his 
Fourth
>>>>>>>>> Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants'
>>>>>>>>> motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing
>>>>>>>>> number of open carriers across the United States.  Though 
police
>>>>>>>>> harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it
>>>>>>>>> should be - over the last several years open carriers detained
>>>>>>>>> without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements
>>>>>>>>> in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement
>>>>>>>>> here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio,
>>>>>>>>> Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can
>>>>>>>>> be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.
>>>>>> For
>>>> a
>>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year 
romp
>>>>>> at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
>>>>> determine
>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>
>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>> known felon?
>>>
>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>> first?
>>
>> You don't don't really know the police and how they operate, do you?
> 
> Do tell.
> 
>>
>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> Nope, but they sure as hell know what the ones in their area look 
like.
> 
> Sure ... just like on da tee vee shows, eh numbnuts?
> 
>> I rather doubt that the police in Seattle are inundated with felons 
from
>> Miami.
> 
> 
> Damn you are one stump-stupid inbred imbecile.
> 
> 
> 

Then why continue to respond?  ;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7i3kfcF2upfqaU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C9067F559175hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7i0haqF2vnrqjU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the 
hands
>>> of felons.
>>
>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious 
about
>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
> 
> You're lying again, nutter.
> 
> 
> 

When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of the 
hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i3kdcF2vddh3U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>> hands of felons.
>>>
>>
>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet
>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon
>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
> 
> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.

If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?

>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
> 
> Except President.

Or Mayor of DC.
 
>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should
>> never be let out of jail.
> 
> Why not?

THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.  Should they be kept in 
forever?  No, but should they get their RKBA back?  NO.
 
> Are you vindictive?

Yep....are you an idiot?

>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>> has been served? 
> 
> Why do you hate America?

Don't.  That happens here and some of it shouldn't.  End the War on 
Drugs. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i453iF2viol8U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C91616296B11Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> Bama Brian  wrote in 
>> news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-
>> september.org:
>>
>>> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>>>
>>
>> Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be 
>> revoked
>> at any time.
>>
>> So says Weasel.
> 
> And the more afraid and cowardly the populace is, the more willing
> they are to tolerate ... even offer ... those revocations. Think post
> 9.11 Amerikkka. 
> 
> 
> 

If  you truly think it should be spelled with "Ks", when are  you 
leaving?

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i4568F2v6bd6U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Scout"  wrote in message 
> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>> message 
>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142... 
>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9
>>>>>>>>> d9- Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-gun
>>>>>>>>> s 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin'
>>>>>>>>> message to police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have
>>>>>>>>> "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St.
>>>>>>>>> John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>>> was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed
>>>>>>>>> him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a
>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report
>>>>>>>>> that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining
>>>>>>>>> man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>>>>>>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>>> attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount
>>>>>>>>> of 
>>>> damages,
>>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>> possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>> constitutions." 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>> John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to
>>>>>>>>> his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>>>>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard
>>>>>>>>> to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States. 
>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open
>>>>>>>>> carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>>>>>>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are
>>>>>>>>> still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.
>>>>>> For 
>>>> a
>>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year
>>>>>> romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>> to determine
>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>
>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>> known felon?
>>>
>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>> first?
>>
>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!
> 
> You're lying again, asswipe.

No, he isn't.....it's part of their job.

>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I 
>> suspect
>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>> rights of everyone else.
> 
> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
> unmolested from the police.

You seem to be an idiot.  Do you think that isn't true?


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message news:7i3keeF2vr89oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "jaf"  wrote in message news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHXnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. 
>>> Yet society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>
>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>
>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as 
>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>
>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party 
>>> with? Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been served?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>
>> Yes.
>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>>
>
> So what was your father's excuse?
>

My father was a decorated veteran of WWII.
That never was, nor ever will be felony.

John

"Bama Brian"  wrote in message news:h9imk0$lqh$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> jaf wrote:
>>
>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. 
>>> Yet society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>
>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>
>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as 
>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>
>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party 
>>> with? Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been served?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>
>> Yes.
>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>
> Good thing you were never 18, John.  You might have made a mistake and had to pay for it your entire life.
>

Good thing god gave me the ability to think before making a mistake that would ruin my life.

John

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C91572989282hopewell@216.196.97.130:

> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i453iF2viol8U1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> 
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9C91616296B11Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>> Bama Brian  wrote in 
>>> news:h9g6cq$akk$1@news.eternal-
>>> september.org:
>>>
>>>> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be 
>>> revoked at any time.
>>>
>>> So says Weasel.
>> 
>> And the more afraid and cowardly the populace is, the more willing
>> they are to tolerate ... even offer ... those revocations. Think post
>> 9.11 Amerikkka. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> If  you truly think it should be spelled with "Ks", when are  you 
> leaving?
> 

RD, the piece of shit doesn't live here.

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:6cac1fee-2bf0-4d1e-ba49-fbaab66be11f@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 4:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Daniel  wrote 
> innews:6e6b828e-1940-4031-ac60-edf481b27fb5@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9ef
> > f1323...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>
> >> > WTF?
>
> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
> >> the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder somebody, right
> >> Spaniel?
>
> > No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
> > problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
> > right?
>
> Why is it okay with you for rapists to carry guns?
#
#
# What part of my post did you NOT understand? Rapists ARE fleons, and
# by law are not allowed to own guns. Why do you have a problem with law
# abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right?
#
>
> >> Of course the ones who kill an unarmed man or woman simply because
> >> they "felt threatened", they're with the NRA. They have a right to
> >> murder you if they just "feel threatened".
>
> > Could you please try to make an argument that makes sense?
>
> You're so ignorant you've never heard of "make my day" laws?
>
> Next please.
#
# Like I said, make an argument that makes sense.
#

You're wasting your time
nraclap... aka Lone Weasel, is an idiot that has been trolling these groups 
with his idiocy for a long time
Just go to google groups and sample the multitude of his posts over the 
years
It's always the same idiotic nonsense reposted.

Spare us from having to read your responses..

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Scout"  wrote in message
> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' 
>>>>>>>>> message to
>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to
>>>>>>>>> believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. 
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed
>>>>>>>>> him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a
>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that
>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>>>>>>>>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>>>>>>>>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street
>>>>>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount
>>>>>>>>> of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to 
>>>>>>>>> possess a
>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr.
>>>>>>>>> St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard
>>>>>>>>> to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>>>>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to 
>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though 
>>>>>>>>> police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years
>>>>>>>>> open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia 
>>>>>>>>> (see additional
>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending
>>>>>>>>> in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is
>>>>>> a ten year romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>> to determine
>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>
>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>> known felon?
>>>
>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>> first?
>>
>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!
>
> You're lying again, asswipe.

Actually, they do, it's part of their job.

>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I
>> suspect
>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>> rights of everyone else.
>
> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
> unmolested from the police.

Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it seems that 
you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally correct with my 
assessment.

In article ,
 "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:

> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> > news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
> >
> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
> >>
> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
> >> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
> >> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
> >> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
> >> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
> >>
> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
> >> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
> >> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
> >>
> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
> >> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
> >> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
> >> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
> >> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
> >> summons for violating any law.
> >>
> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
> >> of law.
> >>
> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
> >> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
> >> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
> >> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
> >> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
> >> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
> >> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
> >> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
> >> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
> >> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
> >>
> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
> >>
> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
> >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> >> and federal constitutions."
> >>
> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> >> that
> >>
> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
> >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
> >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
> >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
> >>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> >>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
> >>
> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> 
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their (sic) guns without fear of 
> police intervertion.


GAWD, lefturds are stupid.

Snicker.

In article 
,
 Daniel  wrote:

> On Sep 19, 2:24 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
> > "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
> >
> > news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> > >news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
> >
> > >>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed...
> > >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
> >
> > >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
> >
> > >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
> > >> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
> > >> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
> > >> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
> > >> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
> >
> > >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
> > >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
> > >> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
> > >> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
> > >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
> >
> > >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
> > >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
> > >> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
> > >> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
> > >> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
> > >> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
> > >> summons for violating any law.
> >
> > >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
> > >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
> > >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
> > >> of law.
> >
> > >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
> > >> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
> > >> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
> > >> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
> > >> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
> > >> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
> > >> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
> > >> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
> > >> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
> > >> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
> >
> > >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> > >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> > >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> > >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
> >
> > >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
> > >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> > >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> > >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> > >> and federal constitutions."
> >
> > >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> > >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> > >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> > >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> > >> that
> >
> > >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> > >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
> > >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
> > >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
> > >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> > >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> > >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> > >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> > >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
> >
> > >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> > >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> > >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> > >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> > >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> > >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> > >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> >
> > >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
> >
> > >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> > >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> > >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
> >
> > > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> >
> > So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
> > police intervertion.
> 
> 
> WTF?


Lefturds are stupid, it's a fact we have to deal with.

In article ,
 nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Daniel  wrote in
> news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
> 
> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
> >> fear of police intervertion. 
> > 
> > WTF?
> 
> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from the 
> law-abiding citizens?


Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the ones 
touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back to bite you.


Snicker.

In article 
,
 Daniel  wrote:

> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Daniel  wrote 
> > innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
> > >> fear of police intervertion.
> >
> > > WTF?
> >
> > Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from the
> > law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right Spaniel?
> 
> 
> No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
> problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
> right?
> 
> >
> > Of course the ones who kill an unarmed man or woman simply because they
> > "felt threatened", they're with the NRA.  They have a right to murder you
> > if they just "feel threatened".
> 
> 
> Could you please try to make an argument that makes sense?


Don't ask too much of lefturds.


snicker.

In article ,
 nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> whined:

> Daniel  wrote in
> news:6e6b828e-1940-4031-ac60-edf481b27fb5@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 
> 
> > On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9ef 
> > f1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
> >>
> >> > WTF?
> >>
> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
> >> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
> >> Spaniel?
> > 
> > No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
> > problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
> > right?
> 
> Why is it okay with you for rapists to carry guns?


Who claimed it was.


Snicker.

"Scout"  wrote in message 
news:Gyavm.11$B42.7@newsfe13.iad...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' 
>>>>>>>>>> message to
>>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to
>>>>>>>>>> believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. 
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed
>>>>>>>>>> him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a
>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>>>>>>>>>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>>>>>>>>>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street
>>>>>>>>>> violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount
>>>>>>>>>> of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to 
>>>>>>>>>> possess a
>>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr.
>>>>>>>>>> St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard
>>>>>>>>>> to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>>>>>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to 
>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though 
>>>>>>>>>> police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years
>>>>>>>>>> open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia 
>>>>>>>>>> (see additional
>>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending
>>>>>>>>>> in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is
>>>>>>> a ten year romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>>> known felon?
>>>>
>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>> first?
>>>
>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>
> Actually, they do, it's part of their job.

LOL!

You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in Peoria, do 
you numbnuts?

>
>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>
>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I
>>> suspect
>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>>> rights of everyone else.
>>
>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>> unmolested from the police.
>
> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it seems that 
> you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally correct with my 
> assessment.

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Scout"  wrote in message
> news:Gyavm.11$B42.7@newsfe13.iad...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight
>>>>>>>>>>> shootin' message to
>>>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after
>>>>>>>>>>> St. John
>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not
>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law
>>>>>>>>>>> that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>> rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and
>>>>>>>>>>> disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe 
>>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere
>>>>>>>>>>> report that
>>>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>>>>>>>>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles
>>>>>>>>>>> on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. 
>>>>>>>>>>> John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase
>>>>>>>>>>> of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the
>>>>>>>>>>> amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said 
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the
>>>>>>>>>>> issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>>>> possess a
>>>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions." Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' 
>>>>>>>>>>> requested
>>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the
>>>>>>>>>>> Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held
>>>>>>>>>>> that officers may not seize or search an individual without
>>>>>>>>>>> a specific,
>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr.
>>>>>>>>>>> St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>>>>>>>>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary
>>>>>>>>>>> judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years
>>>>>>>>>>> open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana,
>>>>>>>>>>> Virginia (see additional
>>>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending
>>>>>>>>>>> in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is
>>>>>>>> a ten year romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question
>>>>>> a known felon?
>>>>>
>>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>>> first?
>>>>
>>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>>
>>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>>
>> Actually, they do, it's part of their job.
>
> LOL!
>
> You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in
> Peoria, do you numbnuts?

I don't but then I'm not a cop who works in Peoria, but I bet the ones who 
do know most of the felons who live there.

>>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>>
>>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow
>>>> I suspect
>>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>>>> rights of everyone else.
>>>
>>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>>> unmolested from the police.
>>
>> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it
>> seems that you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally
>> correct with my assessment.

And still we see that you would rather violate the rights of innocent 
people.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C915757AF2Ehopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i4568F2v6bd6U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9
>>>>>>>>>> d9- Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-gun
>>>>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin'
>>>>>>>>>> message to police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have
>>>>>>>>>> "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St.
>>>>>>>>>> John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>>>> was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed
>>>>>>>>>> him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a
>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report
>>>>>>>>>> that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining
>>>>>>>>>> man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>>>>>>>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>>>> attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> damages,
>>>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>>> possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>> constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>> John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to
>>>>>>>>>> his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>>>>>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard
>>>>>>>>>> to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open
>>>>>>>>>> carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>>>>>>>>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are
>>>>>>>>>> still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.
>>>>>>> For
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year
>>>>>>> romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>>> known felon?
>>>>
>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>> first?
>>>
>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>
> No, he isn't.....it's part of their job.

Now you're lying too.

How many convicted felons live in Dallas?

And where do they live?

And how would any given cop in Dallas know which
gun-carrying felon from Houston was sitting in the movie
theater IF HE CAN'T EVEN DETAIN THEM to run their ID ??

You gun-loons really are dumber than a bucket of dirt.

"Scout"  wrote in message 
news:rwevm.201356$cf6.254@newsfe16.iad...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>> news:Gyavm.11$B42.7@newsfe13.iad...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>>>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight
>>>>>>>>>>>> shootin' message to
>>>>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason
>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after
>>>>>>>>>>>> St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>> rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and
>>>>>>>>>>>> disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere
>>>>>>>>>>>> report that
>>>>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles
>>>>>>>>>>>> on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the
>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>>>>> possess a
>>>>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions." Notably, Judge Black denied the police 
>>>>>>>>>>>> officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held
>>>>>>>>>>>> that officers may not seize or search an individual without
>>>>>>>>>>>> a specific,
>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr.
>>>>>>>>>>>> St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>>>>>>>>>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico
>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary
>>>>>>>>>>>> judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years
>>>>>>>>>>>> open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Virginia (see additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending
>>>>>>>>>>>> in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is
>>>>>>>>> a ten year romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question
>>>>>>> a known felon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>>>> first?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>>>
>>> Actually, they do, it's part of their job.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in
>> Peoria, do you numbnuts?
>
> I don't but then I'm not a cop who works in Peoria, but I bet the ones who 
> do know most of the felons who live there.

And how, exactly, would they know who was and who wasn't a felon
if they can't even stop them to run their ID ?



>
>>>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>>>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow
>>>>> I suspect
>>>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>>>>> rights of everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>>>> unmolested from the police.
>>>
>>> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it
>>> seems that you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally
>>> correct with my assessment.
>
> And still we see that you would rather violate the rights of innocent 
> people.
>

"jaf"  wrote in message 
news:nJ-dnapbQN6JiCDXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
> news:7i3keeF2vr89oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "jaf"  wrote in message 
>> news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHXnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
>>> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands 
>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants 
>>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him 
>>>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>
>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. 
>>>> Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has 
>>>> been served?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>>>
>>
>> So what was your father's excuse?
>>
>
> My father was a decorated veteran of WWII.
> That never was, nor ever will be felony.

All veterans of WW2 were decorated, numbnuts.

"jaf"  wrote in message 
news:DLKdndSEH912iCDXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9imk0$lqh$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> jaf wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
>>> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands 
>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants 
>>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him 
>>>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>
>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military career. 
>>>> Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has 
>>>> been served?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>>
>> Good thing you were never 18, John.  You might have made a mistake and 
>> had to pay for it your entire life.
>>
>
> Good thing god gave me the ability to think before making a mistake that 
> would ruin my life.

Your god must really HATE millions of less fortunate souls, eh numbnuts?

"Harold Burton"  wrote in message 
news:hal.i.burton-FC1807.21435725092009@news.newsguy.com...
> In article ,
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>
>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>> > news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>> >
>> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying 
>> >> guns
>> >>
>> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of 
>> >> the
>> >> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment 
>> >> in
>> >> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
>> >> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers 
>> >> alone
>> >> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>> >>
>> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
>> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy 
>> >> the
>> >> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>> >> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>> >>
>> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his 
>> >> seat,
>> >> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>> >> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>> >> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>> >> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>> >> summons for violating any law.
>> >>
>> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any 
>> >> rule
>> >> of law.
>> >>
>> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the 
>> >> police
>> >> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>> >> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was 
>> >> not
>> >> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
>> >> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>> >> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>> >> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>> >> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>> >> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a 
>> >> public
>> >> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>> >>
>> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>> >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>> >>
>> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues 
>> >> presented
>> >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>> >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>> >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our 
>> >> state
>> >> and federal constitutions."
>> >>
>> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>> >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where 
>> >> the
>> >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black 
>> >> concluded
>> >> that
>> >>
>> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not 
>> >> seize
>> >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . 
>> >> The
>> >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico 
>> >> law
>> >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>> >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted 
>> >> with
>> >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>> >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>> >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>> >>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>> >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment 
>> >> of
>> >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>> >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>> >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, 
>> >> Virginia
>> >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
>> >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>> >>
>> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>> >>
>> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>
>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their (sic) guns without 
>> fear of
>> police intervention.
>
>
> GAWD, lefturds are stupid.

Another pig-ignorant gun loon who can't spell better than a 5th grader.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet
>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon
>>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>
> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?

If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA even 
if it was a crime of "violence"?

>
>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>
>> Except President.
>
> Or Mayor of DC.

Those crazy feds ...

>
>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>
>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should
>>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.

So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction" 
toward
the same act(s) in the future?

Do tell.

> Should they be kept in
> forever?  No, but should they get their RKBA back?  NO.
>
>> Are you vindictive?
>
> Yep....are you an idiot?

You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.

ROTFLMAO !!



>
>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>> has been served?
>>
>> Why do you hate America?
>
> Don't.

Do too.

> That happens here and some of it shouldn't.  End the War on
> Drugs.

You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message

>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
> hands
>>>> of felons.
>>>
>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
> about
>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>
>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>
>>
>>
>
> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of the
> hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.

You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms without
fear of police being able to detain and question them.

Brilliant!

Harold Burton  wrote in news:hal.i.burton-
2EF90F.21482925092009@news.newsguy.com:

> In article ,
>  nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> whined:
> 
>> Daniel  wrote in
>> news:6e6b828e-1940-4031-ac60-edf481b27fb5
@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 
>> 
>> > On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> 
wrote:
>> >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> innews:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9ef 
>> > f1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>> >>
>> >> > WTF?
>> >>
>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals 
from
>> >> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, 
right
>> >> Spaniel?
>> > 
>> > No, felons are not allowed by law to own weapons. Why do you have a
>> > problem with a law-abiding citizen exercizing their Second Amendment
>> > right?
>> 
>> Why is it okay with you for rapists to carry guns? 
> 
> Who claimed it was. 
> 
> Snicker.

You snicker about rapists carrying guns?  Maybe you are one.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i5bmaF2vtmfpU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>> hands
>>>>> of felons.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
>> about
>>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>>
>>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of
>> the hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.
> 
> You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms
> without fear of police being able to detain and question them.

Nope......that was your take due to your lack of understanding of police 
work.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i5bj0F305baaU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet
>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>
>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>
>> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
> 
> If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA
> even if it was a crime of "violence"?

Let me give you a word to look up in a dictionary.  Propensity.  P-r-o-p-
e-n-s-i-t-y.  Use your finger to underline the letters and move your lips 
if you need to.

>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>>
>>> Except President.
>>
>> Or Mayor of DC.
> 
> Those crazy feds ...

Mayor of DC is not a fed.

>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as
>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.
> 
> So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction"
> toward
> the same act(s) in the future?

Who said it was a singular incident?  See why you have trouble 
understanding what people post?  You have a tendency to add or subtract 
your own words to what was really said.

> Do tell.
> 
>> Should they be kept in
>> forever?  No, but should they get their RKBA back?  NO.
>>
>>> Are you vindictive?
>>
>> Yep....are you an idiot?
> 
> You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
> the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.

See what I mean?  That is a statement that was never made.  You added 
your own words to it and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
 
> ROTFLMAO !!

Mirror....mirror....

>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>>> has been served?
>>>
>>> Why do you hate America?
>>
>> Don't.
> 
> Do too.
> 
>> That happens here and some of it shouldn't.  End the War on
>> Drugs.
> 
> You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.

Show up at my house and threaten me or my family and we shall see how you 
well you can walk with an AK shoved up your ass.  Put up or shut 
up......wasn't that your words of the day?  ;)


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7i5anfF30ntdaU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C915757AF2Ehopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7i4568F2v6bd6U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%
7Ey2009m9
>>>>>>>>>>> d9- Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-
gun
>>>>>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight 
shootin'
>>>>>>>>>>> message to police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have
>>>>>>>>>>> "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after 
St.
>>>>>>>>>>> John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>>>>> was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to
>>>>>>>>>>> enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that
>>>>>>>>>>> the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>>>> under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed
>>>>>>>>>>> him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a
>>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report
>>>>>>>>>>> that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining
>>>>>>>>>>> man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>>>>>>>>>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. John's
>>>>>>>>>>> attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>>>>>>>>>>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> damages,
>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the 
issues
>>>>>>>>>>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>>>> possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth
>>>>>>>>>>> Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that
>>>>>>>>>>> officers may not seize or search an individual without a
>>>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. 
St.
>>>>>>>>>>> John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to
>>>>>>>>>>> his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>>>>>>>>>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard
>>>>>>>>>>> to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years 
open
>>>>>>>>>>> carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, 
Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases 
are
>>>>>>>>>>> still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun 
laws.
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year
>>>>>>>> romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a
>>>>>> known felon?
>>>>>
>>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>>> first?
>>>>
>>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>>
>>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>>
>> No, he isn't.....it's part of their job.
> 
> Now you're lying too.
> 
> How many convicted felons live in Dallas?
> 
> And where do they live?
> 
> And how would any given cop in Dallas know which
> gun-carrying felon from Houston was sitting in the movie
> theater IF HE CAN'T EVEN DETAIN THEM to run their ID ??
> 
> You gun-loons really are dumber than a bucket of dirt. 

You just keep showing post after post that  you don't think things 
through very far before you send another inane message to a newsgroup.  
It's a shame, really.


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7i5auhF2vanbcU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "jaf"  wrote in message 
> news:nJ-dnapbQN6JiCDXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>> news:7i3keeF2vr89oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "jaf"  wrote in message 
>>> news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHXnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military
>>>>> career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as
>>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>>>
>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your
>>>>> state's limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to
>>>>> party with? Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when
>>>>> his sentence has been served?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what was your father's excuse?
>>>
>>
>> My father was a decorated veteran of WWII.
>> That never was, nor ever will be felony.
> 
> All veterans of WW2 were decorated, numbnuts.

Not in the general term of being a decorated veteran. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Bama Brian"  wrote
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands 
>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the felon 
>>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet society wants 
>>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him 
>>>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>
>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>> Except President.
>>>
>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has 
>>>> been served?
>>> Why do you hate America?
>> I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an 
>> Anarcho-tyranny.
> 
> Has become ...
> 
> So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?
> 
> Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive ?

I thought about moving to Italy; that bastion of freedom and democracy, 
and the economic powerhouse of Europe.  But my poor command of Italian 
leaves me with only a few words of Italian which I can pronounce:  Il 
Duce, Fascisti, Roma Imperale, il Papa, and, lately, Berlusconi.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Scout"  wrote in message 
> news:rwevm.201356$cf6.254@newsfe16.iad...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>>> news:Gyavm.11$B42.7@newsfe13.iad...
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "Scout"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:dqRum.71540$4t6.61692@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC7180hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9BFF51hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carrying guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shootin' message to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states. Learn more here. In response to a call from theater
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched
>>>>>>>>>>>>> him, obtained personally identifiable information from his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> report that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment). Mr. St. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions." Notably, Judge Black denied the police 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that officers may not seize or search an individual without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a specific,
>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virginia (see additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is
>>>>>>>>>> a ten year romp at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
>>>>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut
>>>>>>>>> to determine
>>>>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question
>>>>>>>> a known felon?
>>>>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him
>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>>>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>>>> Actually, they do, it's part of their job.
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in
>>> Peoria, do you numbnuts?
>> I don't but then I'm not a cop who works in Peoria, but I bet the ones who 
>> do know most of the felons who live there.
> 
> And how, exactly, would they know who was and who wasn't a felon
> if they can't even stop them to run their ID ?

Why should the cops stop someone who is behaving legally?

Think the cops should treat everyone as they do those who are "driving 
while black"?

<snip>


-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C926262610DBhopewell@216.196.97.130:

> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i5bmaF2vtmfpU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> 
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>> hands of felons. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
>>>>> about it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of
>>> the hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.
>> 
>> You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms
>> without fear of police being able to detain and question them.
> 
> Nope......that was your take due to your lack of understanding of police 
> work.
> 

He is either tied with Lee for stupid or the least well informed provacatuer 
that I've seen.

It is impossible for me to take this vermin seriously, much less so in that 
he has an Italian email address. He's either an expatriate American who we 
should be glad to be rid of or another fathead Euroturd screeching 
incoherently at his betters.

Your thoughts?

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C926422977D6hopewell@216.196.97.130:

> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i5auhF2vanbcU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> 
>> "jaf"  wrote in message 
>> news:nJ-dnapbQN6JiCDXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7i3keeF2vr89oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "jaf"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHXnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.  No military
>>>>>> career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as
>>>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your
>>>>>> state's limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to
>>>>>> party with? Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when
>>>>>> his sentence has been served?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what was your father's excuse?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My father was a decorated veteran of WWII.
>>> That never was, nor ever will be felony.
>> 
>> All veterans of WW2 were decorated, numbnuts.
> 
> Not in the general term of being a decorated veteran. 
> 
> 
> 

I think he got a ribbon for being the best potatoe peeler in Louisiana.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7i5anfF30ntdaU1
@mid.individual.net:

> And how would any given cop in Dallas know which
> gun-carrying felon from Houston was sitting in the movie
> theater IF HE CAN'T EVEN DETAIN THEM to run their ID ??
> 
> You gun-loons really are dumber than a bucket of dirt. 
> 
> 
> 

If the guy was just sitting there minding his own business and it is legal to 
do so, exactly why would the police need to ask him or ID?

Or maybe you think the police need the same powers as the Gestapo had?

Your father would be so dissapointed that you are a supporter of the same 
type of regime that he fought against.

Well, peeled potatoes in Louisiana against anyway.

Or are you tha bastard child of an American GI left behind in Italy and 
bitter about not getting his PX card?

Harold Burton  wrote in 
news:hal.i.burton-6CA6E6.21470925092009@news.newsguy.com: 

> In article , 
>  nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
> 
>> Daniel  wrote in 
>> news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
>> : 
>> 
>> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns 
>> >> without fear of police intervertion. 
>> > 
>> > WTF? 
>> 
>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from 
>> the law-abiding citizens? 
> 
> Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the ones 
> touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back to bite 
> you. 

You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.

> Snicker. 

Someone obsessed with candy bars the way you are must weigh half a ton, 
eh Geraldo?

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

In news:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131 nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 

> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
> Spaniel? 

That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to wait
until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone up. 

Sorry, but you wannabe authoritarian thugs don't get to lock up folks
simply because you don't like their looks. 

But then, you're an idiot.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

Bert Hyman  wrote in news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@
216.250.184.7:

> In news:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131 nraclaptrap
> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
> 
>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
>> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
>> Spaniel? 
> 
> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to wait
> until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone up. 

Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every gun 
transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the right 
direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background check is 
automatically a criminal.  

Have you had your background check today, Mr. Blurtosky?

> Sorry, but you wannabe authoritarian thugs don't get to lock up folks
> simply because you don't like their looks. 

Spoken like a truly ugly man, Blurto.

Next please.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:32:20 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Bert Hyman  wrote in news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@
>216.250.184.7:
>
>> In news:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131 nraclaptrap
>> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
>>> the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder somebody, right
>>> Spaniel? 
>> 
>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to wait
>> until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone up. 
>
>Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every gun 
>transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the right 
>direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background check is 
>automatically a criminal.  
>

Guilty until proven innocent, is that it?  How about we do that with
persons that have previously had a DUI?  Have to prove every day that
they haven't had a drink before they can operate a vehicle.  That
includes a bicycle.

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in
news:6e62c5dhdaskst0l232hlf67t9d0vtmous@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:32:20 -0500, nraclaptrap
> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>>> In news:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131
>>> nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>> somebody, right Spaniel? 
>>> 
>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>> up. 
>>
>>Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background
>>check is automatically a criminal.  
>>
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent, is that it?  How about we do that with
> persons that have previously had a DUI?  Have to prove every day that
> they haven't had a drink before they can operate a vehicle.  That
> includes a bicycle.

Actually, I wouldn't have a hissy fit over that requirement.  It would 
have to be done at the state level, however, since the feds don't have 
aegis for monitoring sales of private individuals within a state.  16 
states have, basically, done this already with an FFL, Sheriff, other 
local law enforcement, licenses, permits and ID cards. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

jfmafuckoff@ix.netcom.com wrote in
news:6e62c5dhdaskst0l232hlf67t9d0vtmous@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:32:20 -0500, nraclaptrap
> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>>> In news:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131
>>> nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>> somebody, right Spaniel? 
>>> 
>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>> up. 
>>
>>Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background
>>check is automatically a criminal.  
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent, is that it?  

No, if you didn't have a background check for your gun purchase, gift, 
trade, etc, then you'd be a criminal.  

> How about we do that with persons that have previously had a DUI?  

I did have a background check.  When they found I had thousands of unpaid 
citations for chewing gum in the library, they gave me a pack of 
Doublemint.  

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/
_nw8fcHV1bdE/SI8j1VxaJAI/AAAAAAAADMA/E0MjpFj3xnQ/s1600/Doublemint.jpg

Which is not made the way it used to be.

Next please.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

In news:Xns9C9494409E902hopewell@216.196.97.130 "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: 

> Actually, I wouldn't have a hissy fit over that requirement.  It would
> have to be done at the state level, however, since the feds don't have
> aegis for monitoring sales of private individuals within a state.

You're thinking about some constitutional issue? When has that stopped
them? 

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

In article , 
bert@iphouse.com says...
> But then, you're an idiot.

Now you've done it, not only have you figured him out, you have let the 
rest of the world in on it!

"Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
news:h9ljag$jfk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "Bama Brian"  wrote
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the 
>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the 
>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet 
>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon 
>>>>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>>
>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>>> Except President.
>>>>
>>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>>
>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence 
>>>>> has been served?
>>>> Why do you hate America?
>>> I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an 
>>> Anarcho-tyranny.
>>
>> Has become ...
>>
>> So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?
>>
>> Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive 
>> ?
>
> I thought about moving to Italy; that bastion of freedom and democracy, 
> and the economic powerhouse of Europe.  But my poor command of Italian 
> leaves me with only a few words of Italian which I can pronounce:  Il 
> Duce, Fascisti, Roma Imperale, il Papa, and, lately, Berlusconi.

Non la mancheranno a tutto il, l'idiota.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C926366426B5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i5bj0F305baaU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet
>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>
>>> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
>>
>> If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA
>> even if it was a crime of "violence"?
>
> Let me give you a word to look up in a dictionary.  Propensity.  P-r-o-p-
> e-n-s-i-t-y.  Use your finger to underline the letters and move your lips
> if you need to.
>
>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>>>
>>>> Except President.
>>>
>>> Or Mayor of DC.
>>
>> Those crazy feds ...
>
> Mayor of DC is not a fed.
>
>>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as
>>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.
>>
>> So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction"
>> toward
>> the same act(s) in the future?
>
> Who said it was a singular incident?  See why you have trouble
> understanding what people post?  You have a tendency to add or subtract
> your own words to what was really said.
>
>> Do tell.
>>
>>> Should they be kept in
>>> forever?  No, but should they get their RKBA back?  NO.
>>>
>>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>
>>> Yep....are you an idiot?
>>
>> You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
>> the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.
>
> See what I mean?  That is a statement that was never made.  You added
> your own words to it and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
>
>> ROTFLMAO !!
>
> Mirror....mirror....
>
>>>
>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>>>> has been served?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you hate America?
>>>
>>> Don't.
>>
>> Do too.
>>
>>> That happens here and some of it shouldn't.  End the War on
>>> Drugs.
>>
>> You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.
>
> Show up at my house and threaten me or my family and we shall see how you
> well you can walk with an AK shoved up your ass.  Put up or shut
> up......wasn't that your words of the day?  ;)

Post your address you gutless cunt.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C926262610DBhopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7i5bmaF2vtmfpU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>> hands
>>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
>>> about
>>>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of
>>> the hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.
>>
>> You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms
>> without fear of police being able to detain and question them.
>
> Nope......

Now you're lying again.

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9ljag$jfk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without 
>>>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT 
>>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the 
>>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the 
>>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet 
>>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon 
>>>>>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>>>> Except President.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted 
>>>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as these should 
>>>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>>>
>>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's 
>>>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? 
>>>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence 
>>>>>> has been served?
>>>>> Why do you hate America?
>>>> I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an 
>>>> Anarcho-tyranny.
>>> Has become ...
>>>
>>> So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?
>>>
>>> Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive 
>>> ?
>> I thought about moving to Italy; that bastion of freedom and democracy, 
>> and the economic powerhouse of Europe.  But my poor command of Italian 
>> leaves me with only a few words of Italian which I can pronounce:  Il 
>> Duce, Fascisti, Roma Imperale, il Papa, and, lately, Berlusconi.
> 
> Non la mancheranno a tutto il, l'idiota. 

Soltanto gli idioti vivono in Italia.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Bert Hyman  wrote in news:Xns9C94B74D04ECDVeebleFetzer@
216.250.184.7:

> In news:Xns9C9494409E902hopewell@216.196.97.130 "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
>> Actually, I wouldn't have a hissy fit over that requirement.  It would
>> have to be done at the state level, however, since the feds don't have
>> aegis for monitoring sales of private individuals within a state.
> 
> You're thinking about some constitutional issue? When has that stopped
> them? 
> 

Yeah, you're right......dammit......

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7ie3vfF30fvkrU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C926366426B5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7i5bj0F305baaU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message
>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Felon:  One who was convicted of a felony.  This implies that the
>>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society.  Yet
>>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>>
>>>> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
>>>
>>> If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their
>>> RTKBA even if it was a crime of "violence"?
>>
>> Let me give you a word to look up in a dictionary.  Propensity. 
>> P-r-o-p- e-n-s-i-t-y.  Use your finger to underline the letters and
>> move your lips if you need to.
>>
>>>>>> No guns.  No votes.  No jobs.  No public office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except President.
>>>>
>>>> Or Mayor of DC.
>>>
>>> Those crazy feds ...
>>
>> Mayor of DC is not a fed.
>>
>>>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm.  Such people as
>>>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.
>>>
>>> So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a
>>> prediliction" toward
>>> the same act(s) in the future?
>>
>> Who said it was a singular incident?  See why you have trouble
>> understanding what people post?  You have a tendency to add or
>> subtract your own words to what was really said.
>>
>>> Do tell.
>>>
>>>> Should they be kept in
>>>> forever?  No, but should they get their RKBA back?  NO.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>>
>>>> Yep....are you an idiot?
>>>
>>> You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON
>>> in the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the
>>> street. 
>>
>> See what I mean?  That is a statement that was never made.  You added
>> your own words to it and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
>>
>>> ROTFLMAO !!
>>
>> Mirror....mirror....
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your
>>>>>> state's limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to
>>>>>> party with? Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen,
>>>>>> when his sentence has been served?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you hate America?
>>>>
>>>> Don't.
>>>
>>> Do too.
>>>
>>>> That happens here and some of it shouldn't.  End the War on
>>>> Drugs.
>>>
>>> You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.
>>
>> Show up at my house and threaten me or my family and we shall see how
>> you well you can walk with an AK shoved up your ass.  Put up or shut
>> up......wasn't that your words of the day?  ;)
> 
> Post your address you gutless cunt.

Why?  You won't show up.


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7ie442F317tplU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C926262610DBhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7i5bmaF2vtmfpU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>> "DockScience"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>> hands
>>>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
>>>> about
>>>>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of
>>>> the hands of the criminals.  Let me know how its working out.
>>>
>>> You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms
>>> without fear of police being able to detain and question them.
>>
>> Nope......
> 
> Now you're lying again. 
 

Nope, you are the one with the reading comprehension problems.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9573D614151hopewell@216.196.97.130:


>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background
>>>> check is automatically a criminal. 

...

>>> Actually, I wouldn't have a hissy fit over that requirement.  It
>>> would have to be done at the state level, however, since the feds
>>> don't have aegis for monitoring sales of private individuals within
>>> a state. 

You forget Heller, eh Sandshitter?

The feds have databases and the internet, and all they need is 20 or 30 
thousand new ATF agents strategically placed to run the background checks.

Aegis smaegis.

>> You're thinking about some constitutional issue? When has that
>> stopped them? 
> 
> Yeah, you're right......dammit......

You boys asked for it and Scalia delivered the goods.  Now you reap what 
you sowed.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:33:56 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
>news:Xns9C9573D614151hopewell@216.196.97.130:
>
>
>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a background
>>>>> check is automatically a criminal. 
>
>...
>
>>>> Actually, I wouldn't have a hissy fit over that requirement.  It
>>>> would have to be done at the state level, however, since the feds
>>>> don't have aegis for monitoring sales of private individuals within
>>>> a state. 
>
>You forget Heller, eh Sandshitter?
>
>The feds have databases and the internet, and all they need is 20 or 30 
>thousand new ATF agents strategically placed to run the background checks.
>
>Aegis smaegis.
>
>>> You're thinking about some constitutional issue? When has that
>>> stopped them? 
>> 
>> Yeah, you're right......dammit......
>
>You boys asked for it and Scalia delivered the goods.  Now you reap what 
>you sowed.
>
Ok, then let's go all the way back to the 1939 Supreme Court that FDR
stacked and/or jury-rigged to pass all of his Social programs.  

How do you explain that Courts decision that -- The significance of
the militia, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily,
soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could
rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common
use at the time.''

Explain it away, I'm waiting.
--

Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be aisles in a
convenience store; not a Government agency!

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C93120937F6piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...


> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.

the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And yes, you will claim this is only for those who join the US Army or its 
reserve.
But then, you are a bear of little brain, and even less honesty.

"DockScience"  wrote in
news:RI2dnX4YH4HU91jXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com: 

 
>> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
> 
> the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So obviously your gun rights are granted by the states, not by the Second 
Amendment, because Scalia says DC can regulated the manner and places 
you're allowed to carry guns.  Just a few days ago the DC appeals court 
said DC had a perfect right to make you register your guns if you want to 
carry them outside your house.

Which the NRA seemingly could not bribe away.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

In article , reality@check.it 
says...
> 
> "Bama Brian"  wrote in message 
> news:h9448l$6ka$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >? Reality Check© ? wrote:
> >> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message 
> >> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> >>> "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> >>> news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
> >>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying 
> >>>> guns
> >>>>
> >>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of 
> >>>> the
> >>>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
> >>>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
> >>>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
> >>>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
> >>>>
> >>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
> >>>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
> >>>> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
> >>>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
> >>>> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
> >>>>
> >>>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
> >>>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his 
> >>>> seat,
> >>>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
> >>>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
> >>>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
> >>>> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
> >>>> summons for violating any law.
> >>>>
> >>>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
> >>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
> >>>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any 
> >>>> rule
> >>>> of law.
> >>>>
> >>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the 
> >>>> police
> >>>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
> >>>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was 
> >>>> not
> >>>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
> >>>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
> >>>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
> >>>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
> >>>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
> >>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
> >>>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> >>>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> >>>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> >>>> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
> >>>>
> >>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues 
> >>>> presented
> >>>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> >>>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> >>>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> >>>> and federal constitutions."
> >>>>
> >>>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> >>>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> >>>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> >>>> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> >>>> that
> >>>>
> >>>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> >>>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not 
> >>>> seize
> >>>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . 
> >>>> The
> >>>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico 
> >>>> law
> >>>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> >>>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> >>>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> >>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> >>>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
> >>>>
> >>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> >>>> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> >>>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> >>>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> >>>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> >>>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> >>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> >>>>
> >>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> >>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> >>>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
> >>
> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear 
> >> of police intervertion.
> >>
> >> Excellent!
> >
> > BEEEP!  Ten point penalty for failure to comprehend what was written!
> 
> So the police CAN detain those who openly carry guns, to determine if
> they are felons, eh?

Or jsut pull you over when you are driving..
Just because they wish to determin if you are a felon..

In article , reality@check.it 
says...
> 
> "DockScience"  wrote in message 
> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > "? Reality Check© ?"  wrote in message 
> > news:7hkm3rF2u55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear 
> >> of police intervertion.
> >>
> >> Excellent!
> >
> > So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals 
> > and felons as if they were?
> 
> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of 
> felons.

That you willing would give up your rights is sad.

Daniel  wrote in
news:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com: 


>> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> >> > WTF?
>>
>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> > Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the ones
>> > touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back to bite
>> > you.
>>
>> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
> 
> Wrong. You have a RIGHT.

That's not what Scalia wrote.  Better read DC v. Heller, eh Spaniel?

BTW, do you believe you have an individual right to keep and bear arms in 
the Army, assuming you're really in the Army?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 27, 1:06 am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Harold Burton  wrote 
> innews:hal.i.burton-6CA6E6.21470925092009@news.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article ,
> > nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Daniel  wrote in
> >>news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
> >> :
>
> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>
> >> > WTF?
>
> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals from
> >> the law-abiding citizens?
>
> > Same way you deal with miranda rights. You lefturds were the ones
> > touting "rights" all these years. Tough when it comes back to bite
> > you.
>
> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
#
# Wrong. You have a RIGHT.
#

Agreed
Sadly some jurisdictions would like to turn that RIGHT into a (very 
restricted) "priviledge"

Daniel  wrote in
news:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 27, 1:06 am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Harold Burton  wrote
>> innews:hal.i.burton-6CA6E6 
> .21470925092009@news.newsguy.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article ,
>> >  nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Daniel  wrote in
>> >>news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.c
>> >>om 
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> >> > WTF?
>>
>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> > Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the ones
>> > touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back to bite
>> > you.
>>
>> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
> 
> Wrong. You have a RIGHT.

Bingo!! And it is an enumerated one.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

Daniel  wrote in
news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>> >> somebody, righ 
> t
>> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>> > up. 
>>
>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>> background check 
> is
>> automatically a criminal.  
> 
> 
> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
> 

If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:19:19 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

>Daniel  wrote in
>news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
>
>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>
>>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>> >> somebody, righ 
>> t
>>> >> Spaniel?
>>>
>>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>> > up. 
>>>
>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>> background check 
>> is
>>> automatically a criminal.  


You want to get them all registered so that the confiscation can
begin:


 "I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on.
Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States --
 is going to take time.  My estimate is from seven to ten years.  The
 problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in
this
 country.  The second problem is to get them all registered.  And the
 final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all*
 handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed
 security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors
 -- totally illegal."
 -- Nelson T. "Pete" Shields; Chairman, HCI
    "A Reporter At Large: Handguns",
    _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what
the NRA is
most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step 
at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to
what's happened, it's gone 
farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would
be. But it 
does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault
military 
weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first
step." -- 
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton CA. 
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
--U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93
 
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel 
safe." --U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93 Member
HCI 
National Committee
 
"Until we can ban all of them we might as well ban none." --U.S. Sen. 
Howard Metzenbaum Senate Hearings 1993
 
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!." "We're going to
hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy!  We're 
going to beat guns into submission!"
--U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93
 
"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." --U.S. Sen. 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93
 
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States
for 
an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs.
America,
turn 'em all in," I would have done it.  I_could_not do that.  The
votes
weren't here."
  --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes,"
2/5/95 
Member HCI National Committee
 
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime,
we 
think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.
Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a 
handgun."
-- Michael K. Beard, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
[Washington Times, 12/6/93, page A1]
 
"Mr. Speaker, I still believe that the best way to control handguns is
to ban them outright."  -- Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-IL)
 
"Ban the damn things (guns).  Ban them all. You want protection? Get a
dog."
  -- Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94
 
"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking 
about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
  -- Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH), during the Constitution Subcommittee
of 
2/10/89
 
" But one thing would be clear: unless you obtain a license, pass a
background check, and pass a gun safety test, you could not buy a
handgun
....ANYWHERE in America"
    - Al Gore, July 13, 1999

" I think we should ban so-called junk guns...These automatic,
semiautomatic
handguns and assault weapons have NO place in OUR(?) society?
    - Al Gore, July 16, 1999

" I believe all gun manufacturers and federally licensed dealers
should
have to report handgun sales to a state authority"
    - Al Gore, July 13, 1999

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit
those
guarantees."
William Jefferson Clinton, August 12, 1993
http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~mac/home.html


We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
ordinary Americans . . . . "
- William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets
a
chance to have their fair say."
-William Jefferson Clinton 5/29/93
 
"I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments
 - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed
 to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt,
I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is
1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a
gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison." 
 
Rosie O'Donnell
4/21/99

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely 
symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not
to 
reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of
weapons 
in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
  -- Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

Daniel  wrote in
news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>> >> somebody, righ 
> t
>> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>> > up. 
>>
>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every 
>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the 
>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a 
>> background check is automatically a criminal.   
> 
> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?

None.  So when a background check is required for all gun transactions, 
private or licensed, and every legal gun owner voluntarily gets a 
background check, and all legal gun owners register their guns, then only 
criminals will have unregistered guns, and only criminals won't have a 
background check for every gun they've bought, traded for or recieved as 
a gift.

Then it'll be easy to catch the criminals.  That's what you want isn't 
it, Spaniel?  Otherwise with all the hundreds of millions of guns there's 
no way to know who's law-abiding and who's a criminal.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9A9BDB5DEFEhopewell@216.196.97.130:

> Daniel  wrote in
> news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>
>>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>> >> somebody, righ 
>> t
>>> >> Spaniel?
>>>
>>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>> > up. 
>>>
>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>> background check 
>> is
>>> automatically a criminal.  
>> 
>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
> 
> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...

But you'd protect criminals from illegally possessing and using firearms, 
if it meant we all had to register our guns to protect innocent people?

How do you rationalize that kind of insanity?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:52:02 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>> 
>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>
>But you'd protect criminals from illegally possessing and using firearms, 
>if it meant we all had to register our guns to protect innocent people?
>
>How do you rationalize that kind of insanity?

C'mon now little loonie.  You know that felons can't be compelled to
incriminate themselves, Havnes V US.  Has the shutdown of the brady
bunch meant you lost your "resources" and have to rely on your
drug/alcohol addled memory?

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9A9BBAA597Fhopewell@216.196.97.130:

> Daniel  wrote in
> news:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com: 
> 
>> On Sep 27, 1:06 am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Harold Burton  wrote
>>> innews:hal.i.burton-6CA6E6 
>> .21470925092009@news.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > In article ,
>>> >  nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Daniel  wrote in
>>> >>news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902
@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.c
>>> >>om 
>>> >> :
>>>
>>> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>
>>> >> > WTF?
>>>
>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>>
>>> > Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the ones
>>> > touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back to bite
>>> > you.
>>>
>>> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
>> 
>> Wrong. You have a RIGHT.
> 
> Bingo!! And it is an enumerated one.

Really.  Where does it say in the Constitution that you have an 
individual right to have guns unconnected to militia service, 
Sandshitter?  Show me the plain text, the word "individual" or even 
"person", and the disconnect of the right from preserving an effective 
militia.

Scalia & Cheney probably believed the country would be in chaos by 2008 
and the rightwing could just take over, privatize the militia so as to 
make the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cl 15-16:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a 
society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-
trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence 
is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable 
is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second 
Amendment extinct."

Does Justice Scalia give voice to feelings you've had, but were unable to 
find the words for, Sandshitter?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9ACE4DD4B89piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131:

> Really.  Where does it say in the Constitution that you have an 
> individual right to have guns unconnected to militia service, 
> Sandshitter?  Show me the plain text, the word "individual" or even 
> "person", and the disconnect of the right from preserving an effective 
> militia.

Right after you show us where the word "abortion" is, numbnuts.

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9C9ACE4DD4B89piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:Xns9C9A9BBAA597Fhopewell@216.196.97.130:
>
>> Daniel  wrote in
>> news:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 1:06 am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Harold Burton  wrote
>>>> innews:hal.i.burton-6CA6E6
>>> .21470925092009@news.newsguy.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > In article ,
>>>> > nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Daniel  wrote in
>>>> >>news:bf4aad64-3272-4762-94a9-a9eff1323902
> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.c
>>>> >>om
>>>> >> :
>>>>
>>>> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>
>>>> >> > WTF?
>>>>
>>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>>>
>>>> > Same way you deal with miranda rights. You lefturds were the ones
>>>> > touting "rights" all these years. Tough when it comes back to bite
>>>> > you.
>>>>
>>>> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
>>>
>>> Wrong. You have a RIGHT.
>>
>> Bingo!! And it is an enumerated one.
>
> Really.  Where does it say in the Constitution that you have an
> individual right to have guns unconnected to militia service,
> Sandshitter?  Show me the plain text, the word "individual" or even
> "person", and the disconnect of the right from preserving an effective
> militia.
>
> Scalia & Cheney probably believed the country would be in chaos by 2008
> and the rightwing could just take over, privatize the militia so as to
> make the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cl 15-16:
>
> "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a
> society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-
> trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence
> is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable
> is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second
> Amendment extinct."
>
> Does Justice Scalia give voice to feelings you've had, but were unable to
> find the words for, Sandshitter?
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> NRACLAPTRAP

You obviously refuse to comprehend the word "Right(s)"
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Amendment 14.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United 
States and of the State wherein they reside. 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....

Privileges or immunities is and old legal term for Rights.

And of course... (note the deliberate pun)

Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them 
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of 
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them 
to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are 
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its 
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and 
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; 
and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right 
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing 
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw 
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the US, the Supreme Court uses Olde English law (common law) as well as the US Constitution.

The term "Right" is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

It's usage in the Constitution is understood.

You refuse to comprehend.
Your statements are therefore stupid.
As usual.

Just because you are bent on perpetrating a lie don't expect everyone else to believe your commie socialist liberal conveniently 
selective memory loss loser propaganda.


John

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:16:57 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Really.  Where does it say in the Constitution that you have an 
>individual right to have guns unconnected to militia service, 
>Sandshitter?  Show me the plain text, the word "individual" or even 
>"person", and the disconnect of the right from preserving an effective 
>militia.

Here go little looni.  Guess we havn't teached you enough.  Read this
and maybe your sad panda face will go away.  Or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and
requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent
Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he
wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit
seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjointhe city from enforcing
the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as
it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm inthe home, and the
trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits theuse of functional
firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the
D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an
individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban
on handguns, as well as its requirement thatfirearms in the home be
kept nonfunctional even when necessary forself-defense, violated that
right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not
limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes
an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:ieeic55j7h14b6g504rfq3gu4f379do7s9@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:19:19 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel  wrote in
>>news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>
>>>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@
216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>> >> somebody, righ 
>>> t
>>>> >> Spaniel?
>>>>
>>>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking 
someone
>>>> > up. 
>>>>
>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>> background check 
>>> is
>>>> automatically a criminal.  
> 
> 
> You want to get them all registered so that the confiscation can
> begin:

Can't do that either.  Go read Haynes v US, 390 US 85 - 1968.  Need a 
link?

>  "I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on.
> Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States --
>  is going to take time.  My estimate is from seven to ten years.  The
>  problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in
> this
>  country.  The second problem is to get them all registered.  And the
>  final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all*
>  handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed
>  security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors
>  -- totally illegal."
>  -- Nelson T. "Pete" Shields; Chairman, HCI
>     "A Reporter At Large: Handguns",
>     _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58
> 
> "I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what
> the NRA is
> most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step 
> at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to
> what's happened, it's gone 
> farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would
> be. But it 
> does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault
> military 
> weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first
> step." -- 
> Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton CA. 
> "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
> --U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93
>  
> "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel 
> safe." --U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93 Member
> HCI 
> National Committee
>  
> "Until we can ban all of them we might as well ban none." --U.S. Sen. 
> Howard Metzenbaum Senate Hearings 1993
>  
> "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!." "We're going to
> hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy!  We're 
> going to beat guns into submission!"
> --U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93
>  
> "With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." --U.S. Sen. 
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93
>  
> "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States
> for 
> an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs.
> America,
> turn 'em all in," I would have done it.  I_could_not do that.  The
> votes
> weren't here."
>   --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes,"
> 2/5/95 
> Member HCI National Committee
>  
> "Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime,
> we 
> think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.
> Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a 
> handgun."
> -- Michael K. Beard, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
> [Washington Times, 12/6/93, page A1]
>  
> "Mr. Speaker, I still believe that the best way to control handguns is
> to ban them outright."  -- Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-IL)
>  
> "Ban the damn things (guns).  Ban them all. You want protection? Get a
> dog."
>   -- Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94
>  
> "No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking 
> about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
>   -- Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH), during the Constitution Subcommittee
> of 
> 2/10/89
>  
> " But one thing would be clear: unless you obtain a license, pass a
> background check, and pass a gun safety test, you could not buy a
> handgun
> ....ANYWHERE in America"
>     - Al Gore, July 13, 1999
> 
> " I think we should ban so-called junk guns...These automatic,
> semiautomatic
> handguns and assault weapons have NO place in OUR(?) society?
>     - Al Gore, July 16, 1999
> 
> " I believe all gun manufacturers and federally licensed dealers
> should
> have to report handgun sales to a state authority"
>     - Al Gore, July 13, 1999
> 
> If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
> government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit
> those
> guarantees."
> William Jefferson Clinton, August 12, 1993
> http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~mac/home.html
> 
> 
> We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
> ordinary Americans . . . . "
> - William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993
> 
> "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets
> a
> chance to have their fair say."
> -William Jefferson Clinton 5/29/93
>  
> "I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments
>  - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed
>  to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt,
> I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is
> 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a
> gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison." 
>  
> Rosie O'Donnell
> 4/21/99
> 
> "Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely 
> symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not
> to 
> reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of
> weapons 
> in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
>   -- Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:29:43 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

>jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:ieeic55j7h14b6g504rfq3gu4f379do7s9@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:19:19 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Daniel  wrote in
>>>news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@
>216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>>> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>>> >> somebody, righ 
>>>> t
>>>>> >> Spaniel?
>>>>>
>>>>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>>> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking 
>someone
>>>>> > up. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>>> background check 
>>>> is
>>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>> 
>> 
>> You want to get them all registered so that the confiscation can
>> begin:
>
>Can't do that either.  Go read Haynes v US, 390 US 85 - 1968.  Need a 
>link?
>

Nah, I know about Haynes v US, 390 US 85 - 1968.  Self incrimination
and all that.

When has a court decision or the Constitution gotten in the way of gun
grabbers?

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in
news:kohkc5d1u00hj2d6qmhicm5m4g0fafd4mm@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:29:43 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:ieeic55j7h14b6g504rfq3gu4f379do7s9@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:19:19 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Daniel  wrote in
>>>>news:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.co
>>>>m: 
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@
>>216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>>>> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>>>> >> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they
>>>>>> >> murder somebody, righ 
>>>>> t
>>>>>> >> Spaniel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have
>>>>>> > to wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking 
>>someone
>>>>>> > up. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>>>>>> step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
>>>>>> had a background check 
>>>>> is
>>>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You want to get them all registered so that the confiscation can
>>> begin:
>>
>>Can't do that either.  Go read Haynes v US, 390 US 85 - 1968.  Need a 
>>link?
>>
> 
> Nah, I know about Haynes v US, 390 US 85 - 1968.  Self incrimination
> and all that.
> 
> When has a court decision or the Constitution gotten in the way of gun
> grabbers?
> 
> 

Hang in there.....let's see if we get a good decision out of MacDonald.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

Daniel  wrote in
news:a54463de-3fcd-4695-b0d0-f31fa4f2ce68@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 4, 4:48 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db 
> 6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> >> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> >> >> > WTF?
>>
>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> >> > Same way you deal with miranda rights.  You lefturds were the
>> >> > ones touting "rights" all these years.  Tough when it comes back
>> >> > to bit 
> e
>> >> > you.
>>
>> >> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
>>
>> > Wrong. You have a RIGHT.
>>
>> That's not what Scalia wrote.  Better read DC v. Heller, eh Spaniel?
>>
>> BTW, do you believe you have an individual right to keep and bear
>> arms in the Army, assuming you're really in the Army?
> 
> My right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with my military
> service. 

That's what I said.

> The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarrantees my right
> to keep and bear arms since I am a US citizen.

Yes, but it doesn't grant you an individual right to have guns.  It's a 
right of the whole people, and the right is to keep a well-regulated 
militia which is necessary to the security of our respective states.

Says so in that Second Amendment you haven't read all the way through, eh 
Spaniel?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

Daniel  wrote in
news:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe 
> fd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>> > wrote: 
>> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptr
>> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>> >> >> somebody, righ
>> > t
>> >> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>> >> > someone up.
>>
>> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step
>> >> in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>> >> background check
>> > is
>> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>
>> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>
>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
> 
> Exactly.

If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't catch 
any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh 
Spaniel?

That's why we'll have to register firearms, so we can catch dishonest gun 
sellers and buyers.  And you'll do everything you can to help criminals 
get guns.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9C9BC8EF3DA56piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...
> Daniel  wrote in
> news:a54463de-3fcd-4695-b0d0-f31fa4f2ce68@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 4:48 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Daniel  wrote
>>> innews:30b7be10-7bdd-4242-9330-14db 
>> 6f500d05@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>> >> >> >> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>
>>> >> >> > WTF?
>>>
>>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens?
>>>
>>> >> > Same way you deal with miranda rights. You lefturds were the
>>> >> > ones touting "rights" all these years. Tough when it comes back
>>> >> > to bit 
>> e
>>> >> > you.
>>>
>>> >> You have a privilege to carry guns and it can be easily retracted.
>>>
>>> > Wrong. You have a RIGHT.
>>>
>>> That's not what Scalia wrote. Better read DC v. Heller, eh Spaniel?
>>>
>>> BTW, do you believe you have an individual right to keep and bear
>>> arms in the Army, assuming you're really in the Army?
>> 
>> My right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with my military
>> service. 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
>> The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarrantees my right
>> to keep and bear arms since I am a US citizen.
> 
> Yes, but it doesn't grant you an individual right to have guns.  It's a 
> right of the whole people, and the right is to keep a well-regulated 
> militia which is necessary to the security of our respective states.
> 

Liar.


John

nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9BC8EF3DA56piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131:

>> The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarrantees my right
>> to keep and bear arms since I am a US citizen.

> Yes, but it doesn't grant you an individual right to have guns. 

Wow! Did you suddenly grow a brain?

Daniel wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>>> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>> t
>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>>>> up.
>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>> background check
>>> is
>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
> 
> 
> Exactly.

Which brings us back to my original point.  Why should those who have 
served their time and so paid their debt to society, continue to be 
punished by the removal of their civil rights?

If your dog does something wrong, do you beat him over and over?

If your child fails to obey you once, will you lock him in the closet 
for the rest of his life?

Why do you believe in perpetual punishment?  Why not just execute the 
poor fellow?  It would be kinder than putting an American citizen into a 
sub-citizen, slave-like class.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Daniel wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>>> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>> t
>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>>>> up.
>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>> background check
>>> is
>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
> 
> 
> Exactly.

Which brings us back to my original point.  Why should those who have 
served their time and so paid their debt to society, continue to be 
punished by the removal of their civil rights?

If your dog does something wrong, do you beat him over and over?

If your child fails to obey you once, will you lock him in the closet 
for the rest of his life?

Why do you believe in perpetual punishment?  Why not just execute the 
poor fellow?  It would be kinder than putting an American citizen into a 
sub-citizen, slave-like class.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Daniel  wrote in
news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896 
> 473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>> > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nracla
>> >> >> > ptr ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>> >> >> >> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until
>> >> >> >> they murder somebody, righ
>> >> > t
>> >> >> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have
>> >> >> > to wait until a crime's actually been committed before
>> >> >> > locking someone up.
>>
>> >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>> >> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>> >> >> step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who
>> >> >> hasn't had 
> a
>> >> >> background check
>> >> > is
>> >> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>
>> >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>
>> >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>
>> > Exactly.
>>
>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>> catch any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
>> eh Spaniel? 
> 
> How many felons buy their guns legally?

They all do until they're caught.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.

There's no way to catch the criminal if you don't know his name, address, 
and crime, eh Spaniel?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

Daniel wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:59 pm, Bama Brian  wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Daniel  wrote innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfefd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptrap
>>>>>>> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>>>> t
>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking someone
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on every
>>>>>> gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step in the
>>>>>> right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>>>> background check
>>>>> is
>>>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>> Exactly.
>> Which brings us back to my original point.  Why should those who have
>> served their time and so paid their debt to society, continue to be
>> punished by the removal of their civil rights?
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a felon should be allowed to buy a gun once they have
> served their sentence?

Served their sentence and their parole, then absodamnlutely.  Certainly 
for the non-violent offenders.  The true filberts should be kept locked 
away and never let out.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Daniel  wrote 
> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>
> >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptr
> >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
> >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
> >> >> >> somebody, righ
> >> > t
> >> >> >> Spaniel?
>
> >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
> >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
> >> >> > someone up.
>
> >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
> >> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step
> >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
> >> >> background check
> >> > is
> >> >> automatically a criminal.
>
> >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>
> >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
>
> > Exactly.
>
> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't catch
> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
> Spaniel?
#
# How many felons buy their guns legally?
#

<whisper on>
Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally posess 
firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
<whisper off>

Daniel wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptr
>>>>>>> ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>>>> t
>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>>>>>> someone up.
>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step
>>>>>> in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>>>>> background check
>>>>> is
>>>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>> Exactly.
>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't catch
>> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
>> Spaniel?
> 
> 
> How many felons buy their guns legally?

Quite a few actually.  Especially those pre-felons who buy guns just so 
they can go shoot that cheating husband, or the lawyer who skinned them 
out of their life's savings.  But most previously convicted felons get 
them from family members, and secondarily from street sellers.

BTW, California is among the few states that require that ALL gun sales, 
whether retail or private, go through a background check with an FFL 
handling the transaction.  AFAIK, there has been ZERO effect on violent 
crime.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Daniel  wrote in
news:784b57c8-851a-496c-8d3d-0aaec5eaffda@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 6, 11:14 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5 
> ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896
>> > 473d1...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>> >> > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> >> >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nra
>> >> >> >> > cla ptr ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>> >> >> >> >> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until
>> >> >> >> >> they murder somebody, righ
>> >> >> > t
>> >> >> >> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> >> >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
>> >> >> >> > have to wait until a crime's actually been committed
>> >> >> >> > before locking someone up.
>>
>> >> >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks
>> >> >> >> on every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a
>> >> >> >> big step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun
>> >> >> >> who hasn't had
>> > a
>> >> >> >> background check
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>
>> >> >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>
>> >> >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
>> >> >>  Period... 
>>
>> >> > Exactly.
>>
>> >> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>> >> catch any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you
>> >> want eh Spaniel?
>>
>> > How many felons buy their guns legally?
>>
>> They all do until they're caught.  That's what I'm trying to tell
>> you. 
> 
> And of course you have a cite, yes?

I'll have a cite for you after 1pm, Spaniel.


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

Daniel  wrote in
news:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
>> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
>> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> > Daniel  wrote
>> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups
>> > .co 
> m:
>>
>> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >> Daniel  wrote
>> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nrac
>> > >> >> > lap 
> tr
>> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>> > >> >> >> criminal 
> s
>> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
>> > >> >> >> somebody, righ
>> > >> > t
>> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
>> > >> >> > have t 
> o
>> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>> > >> >> > someone up.
>>
>> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>> > >> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>> > >> >> ste 
> p
>> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
>> > >> >> had a background check
>> > >> > is
>> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>>
>> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>
>> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
>>
>> > > Exactly.
>>
>> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>> > catc 
> h
>> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
>> > Spaniel?
>>
>> #
>> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
>> #
>>
>> <whisper on>
>> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
>> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
>> <whisper off> 
> 
> He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.

When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell if 
the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.  So the 
default assumption is that the sale is legal.

You boys aren't the brightest bores in the rack, eh Spaniel?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>
> news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Daniel  wrote
> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> Daniel  wrote
> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>
> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptr
> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
> > >> >> >> somebody, righ
> > >> > t
> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>
> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
> > >> >> > someone up.
>
> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
> > >> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step
> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
> > >> >> background check
> > >> > is
> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>
> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>
> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
>
> > > Exactly.
>
> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't catch
> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
> > Spaniel?
>
> #
> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> #
>
> <whisper on>
> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally posess
> firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
> <whisper off>
#
# He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.

True !
But that's just one among his many failings

Bama Brian  wrote in
news:hah1t1$26t$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> Daniel wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Daniel  wrote
>>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.
>>> com: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclapt
>>>>>>>> r ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>>>>>>> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they
>>>>>>>>> murder somebody, righ
>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have
>>>>>>>> to wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>>>>>>> someone up.
>>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>>>>>>> step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who
>>>>>>> hasn't had a background check
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> automatically a criminal.  
>>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>>> Exactly.
>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>>> catch any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you
>>> want eh Spaniel?
>> 
>> 
>> How many felons buy their guns legally?
> 
> Quite a few actually.  Especially those pre-felons who buy guns just
> so they can go shoot that cheating husband, or the lawyer who skinned
> them out of their life's savings.  But most previously convicted
> felons get them from family members, and secondarily from street
> sellers. 
> 
> BTW, California is among the few states that require that ALL gun
> sales, whether retail or private, go through a background check with
> an FFL handling the transaction.  AFAIK, there has been ZERO effect on
> violent crime.
> 

There are 16 states that do some sort of that.


California - All transfers for firearms must be through a licensed dealer 
who must conduct a background check.

Connecticut - Non licensees wishing to transfer a firearm must receive 
from the prospective purchaser an application which is then submitted to 
local and state authorities.  Exceptions are hunters purchasing long guns 
and members of the military.

District of Columbia - It is unlawful to possess any firearm that is not 
registered.

Florida - May vary county by county.

Hawaii - No person may acquire ownership of a firearm until the person 
first obtains a permit from the local police chief.  A separate permit is 
required for each handgun or pistol.

Illinois - No one may lawfully possess any firearm without possessing a 
Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOIC) issued by the State police.  
Each transferee of any firearm must possess a valid FOIC.

Iowa - It is unlawful to transfer a pistol or revolver without an annual 
permit to acquire pistols and revolvers.
 
Massachusetts - Over 4 firearms transferred to any non licensed person 
requires a state license.

Michigan - No transfer of a pistol is lawful without the transferee first 
obtaining a handgun purchase permit from the local Chief Law Enforcement 
Officer.

Missouri - It is unlawful to buy, sell, exchange, loan or borrow a 
firearm without first receiving a val