Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man says he had right to carry gun to rally

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by velobard View Post
    If this is all true, then what in the world happened with the incident at the Denver hotel where Pelosi was staying when the guy with two rifles in a locked case walked into the lobby? They evacuated the hotel over that one.
    That was Denver PD which pooped a brick and hit the panic button, not the USSS.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
      That was Denver PD which pooped a brick and hit the panic button, not the USSS.
      Secret Service would have had control over something like evacuating Pelosi. Were they just following DPD's lead?

      Comment


      • #33
        USSS provides protection to the speaker of the house? I thought congress had its own body for that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by velobard View Post
          Secret Service would have had control over something like evacuating Pelosi. Were they just following DPD's lead?
          I have a feeling that it went something like this...

          A Denver PD officer sees a rifle case.

          The DPD guy/gal knows VIP's are on site and because Denver is well...Denver...this officer doesn't really want to know if it's the new SIG 556 or a Remington 700.

          This officer does some fast mental math and comes up with the equation of:

          Rifle x Proximity to VIP ^ Number of VIP's / (Potential Damage to my career if a VIP gets injured) = "I better push the panic button and worry about it later rather than risk my job by ignoring...whatever is going on."

          Panic button pushed.

          Hotel evacuated.

          VIP evacuated.

          Man with rifle detained/arrested.

          Immediate problem solved.

          Job Secure.

          Lawyers & the Judge can figure out the rest.



          But that is just my theory.

          Comment


          • #35
            Mitchell....Good theory...can be applied in a number of circumstances!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ceridwen View Post
              USSS provides protection to the speaker of the house? I thought congress had its own body for that.
              I believe the U.S. Capitol Police provide security for Congress, not the U.S.S.S. Also, it may have been a violation of the hotel's policy and they (the hotel) may have hired off-duty police for extra security during the convention, who where enforcing hotel policy. Having worked in hotel security, I know a lot of them frown on people openly walking around with guns on their property, especially during high profile events such as a political convention.

              Comment


              • #37
                If this rally involved an announced candidate for President, protected by the Secret Service......They provide the rules......in 2002 my boss was on the styage with the President at the Police Memorial.....Secret Service told all those LEOs.....No guns, and if anything happens hit the deck or you might get shot....and these were sworn LEOs who had responded to 9/11......what do you expect them to do with some mope flexing his "my rights" muscles in the presence of possibly next the President of the United States.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                  If this rally involved an announced candidate for President, protected by the Secret Service......They provide the rules......
                  You are partially correct in your statement. If the event is held on private property, the owner, or an agent of the owner, makes the rules. If the event was held in a public place, neither the USSS nor the presense of Senator Obama trump our right to bear arms.

                  That said, this man was in a park accross from the "private event" and in news articles, the secret service claimed that "Mr. Noble never entered the secure event area." (read below article)
                  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08244/908415-57.stm
                  Therefore, he was committing NO crime.

                  Originally posted by Mrs. Hoppes View Post
                  The permit is to carry. A permit is not needed to own a handgun or to carry on your property or have one in your home. The permit is to be able to have it off property. There is no law regarding open or concealed.
                  In PA, a permit is only required to carry a pistol concealed. No permit or ID is required to Open Carry in the state of PA.
                  Last edited by Tucker6900; 09-10-2008, 11:42 AM.
                  The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                  "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                  George Carlin

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    One thing that you have to remember is that the standard for stopping, interrogating and investigating someone is not whether there is probable cause to commit a crime. It is whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed or is about commit a crime. Consequently, being "jacked up" for openly carrying a handgun to a political rally is a virtual certainty.

                    Whether the arrest is proper depends on whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DAL View Post
                      Consequently, being "jacked up" for openly carrying a handgun to a political rally is a virtual certainty.
                      Ill give you that. It may have not been the smartest thing, but when did stupidity become a crime?
                      Virtual Certainty? Yes. Unlawful? Absolutely.
                      I believe the arresting officers (or whoever made the decision to arrest) would have fared better if they had done their homework before making the arrest.

                      Whether the arrest is proper depends on whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
                      The PA State police that arrested and questioned this man should have known by now that Open Carry in PA is legal in public regardless of location. After what happened with the "Dickenson Dozen" (http://pahomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=25398), you would think that it would be widely known in PA, especially after that state had already lost its a ss in civil suits.
                      Last edited by Tucker6900; 09-10-2008, 12:51 PM.
                      The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                      "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                      George Carlin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DAL View Post
                        One thing that you have to remember is that the standard for stopping, interrogating and investigating someone is not whether there is probable cause to commit a crime. It is whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed or is about commit a crime. Consequently, being "jacked up" for openly carrying a handgun to a political rally is a virtual certainty.

                        Whether the arrest is proper depends on whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
                        So open carry is, in your opinion, gives you reasonable suspicion to believe a person may have committed or is about commit a crime, even if open carry is legal in your jurisdiction?

                        So, say someone who open carries (for whatever reason) walks out of his office, down the block and stops at a hot dog vendor, orders an everything but the "oink" dog loaded with enough toppings to clot your heart & mine, then sits on a public bench and begins to consume his fast food heart attack.

                        You walk by, see the man eating and because you are on observant fellow, you notice the gun on his waistband as he is busy consuming his own death on a toasted bun & a bottle of organic orange juice.

                        Just the sight of the gun gives you reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed or may be committed, thus allowing you to detain someone to investigate further?

                        I think you would have a problem with that on a motion to dismiss.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
                          Just the sight of the gun gives you reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed or may be committed, thus allowing you to detain someone to investigate further?
                          It does not. In most states where Open Carry is legal,
                          You cant be charged with brandishing for carrying your gun in your holster. You cant be charged with distubing the piece for carrying your gun in your holster.
                          You cant be charged with flourishing for carrying your gun in your holster.

                          In Michigan, You are not even required by law to show any officer ID if they are stopping you for Open Carry of a firearm.
                          The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                          "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                          George Carlin

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
                            So open carry is, in your opinion, gives you reasonable suspicion to believe a person may have committed or is about commit a crime, even if open carry is legal in your jurisdiction?

                            So, say someone who open carries (for whatever reason) walks out of his office, down the block and stops at a hot dog vendor, orders an everything but the "oink" dog loaded with enough toppings to clot your heart & mine, then sits on a public bench and begins to consume his fast food heart attack.

                            You walk by, see the man eating and because you are on observant fellow, you notice the gun on his waistband as he is busy consuming his own death on a toasted bun & a bottle of organic orange juice.

                            Just the sight of the gun gives you reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed or may be committed, thus allowing you to detain someone to investigate further?

                            I think you would have a problem with that on a motion to dismiss.
                            It depends on the entire circumstances. Attending a political rally while armed is an unusual circumstance.

                            As to a motion to dismiss, dismiss what?
                            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DAL View Post
                              As to a motion to dismiss, dismiss what?
                              The charges...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
                                The charges...
                                What charges? I was talking about detention for investigation, not arrest. I think my post made that quite clear.

                                There are many things that are perfectly legal but give the police a basis to stop and investigate. For example, I have stopped people for weaving repeatedly within a traffic lane at night, suspecting that they might be under the influence of alcohol. Some of them were. I arrested those, and they were prosecuted successfully. However, weaving within a traffic lane is not a crime, and I let the ones who were not under the influence drive away.
                                Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                                Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4550 users online. 268 members and 4282 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X