Man says he had right to carry gun to rally

[grog18b]

“There was no disturbance until (law enforcement) made one,” Noble said.
EXACTLY. THE GUY WAS THERE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE, AND PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

Instead, Berosh said, it’s a battle between two constitutional rights: The right to bear arms and the right to assemble peaceably and without fear.
DOES THIS GUY REALLY BELIEVE THIS? WHAT A BUNCH OF NON-SENSE. BOTH (ALL) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLY TO BOTH PEOPLE INVOLVED. IF OBAMA WANTED TO ATTEND THE RALLY WITH A HOG LEG STRAPPED ON, SO BE IT. BEROSH IS AN IDIOT.

“No constitutional right pre-empts the other,” Berosh said.
YEAH, AND THEY DON'T CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT EITHER, MORON. IT'S LIKE SAYING YOU CAN BE A CATHOLIC, BUT YOU CAN'T VOTE AT THE SAME TIME... OR YOU CAN GO TO CHURCH, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHUT UP.

Berosh said Noble did not have the right to alarm anyone around him attending the Barack Obama rally in Irvine Park.
THE MAN DID NOTHING TO ALARM ANYONE. WE, AS AN ARMED SOCIETY, CAN'T HELP SOME PEOPLE ARE AFRAID IF THEIR OWN SHADOWS. LET'S SAY A BUNCH OF UN-ARMED CRIPS SHOW UP AT THE RALLY, AND CAUSE NO PROBLEMS, BUT SEVERAL OLD PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE "FRIGHTENED", YOU GONNA ARREST THEM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LOOK, OR ARE DRESSED? SO WHY DO IT TO SOME GUY THAT WEARS HIS FIREARM EVERYWHERE ELSE?

While Noble’s intentions might not have been sinister, Berosh said, “The people who don’t know him don’t know that.”
THEY "MIGHT" NOT HAVE BEEN?? HOW ABOUT, THEY WERE NOT. SO, THE POLICE WERE REQUIRED TO ARREST HIM, AND TAKE HIS GUN, BECAUSE IDIOTS RULE!!!

Noble said he had no ill intent and that Obama’s constitutional rights didn’t take precedence over his.
EXACTLY. NO ONE'S RIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANYONE ELSE'S. HE HAD JUST AS MUCH RIGHT BEING ARMED, AS OBAMA DID SPEAKING THERE.

THE INCIDENT

Noble was standing in McIntosh Park, next to Irvine Park, when people noticed that he was packing a gun in a holster and notified sheriff’s deputies.
YOU MEAN OPENLY CARRYING LEGALLY??? PACKING??? KINDA SOUNDS SINISTER, DON'T IT? TELL ME THE AUTHOR IS NOT BIASED...

After a brief confrontation Noble was taken into custody, and his gun, a Glock 9mm, was confiscated. He was questioned by state police and released.
BOTH VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHTS. HOPE THE DEPARTMENT HAS SOME CASH ON HAND... IF THIS GUY GETS A GOOD LAWYER... LOOK OUT. OF COURSE YOU WON'T SEE THE ACLU REPRESENTING HIM. THEY ARE ANTI-GUN TOO.

Deputies and state police have said Noble did not threaten anyone with the gun, and it remained in his holster until it was confiscated. The gun hasn’t been returned yet.
SO... THE ONLY ISSUE WAS HE WAS EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO BE ARMED... SAD...

THE FALLOUT

On Friday, state police charged Noble with one count each of disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions.
ACCORDING TO WHAT I JUST READ, I REALLY DON'T SEE NOBEL BEING ANY TYPE OF DISORDERLY, AND PROBABLY WASN'T UNTIL HE WAS CONFRONTED FOR NO REASON BUT TO TAKE HIS WEAPON AWAY.

State police wrote in a criminal complaint that they think Noble intended to disrupt the rally, because he posted a message on a Web site just before the rally telling people to “bring their guns and Bibles.”
BOTH OF WHICH ARE STILL LEGAL?? THEY HAVEN'T OUTLAWED BIBLES YET, RIGHT?

State police said Noble put others around him in fear for their safety and that law enforcement agents had to abandon their posts at the Obama rally to deal with Noble.
SORRY, BUT THAT IS JUST GARBAGE, NON-SENSE. DID ANY OF THE ARMED SECURITY DETAIL, OR HUNDREDS OF ARMED COPS PUT ANYONE IN FEAR??? NO. AND, EVERYONE THERE IS SUPPOSED TO PUT THEIR SECURITY FAITH IN OBAMA'S SECURITY DETAIL??? LET ME CLUE YOU IN... IF THE BULLETS START FLYING, THEY WILL BE PROTECTING OBAMA, NOT YOU, OR YOUR KIDS.

State police did say that Noble did not illegally possess his weapon.
WELL, AT LEAST THAT IS THE TRUTH!!!

Federal authorities said they would not file charges against Noble because he did not enter Irvine Park. To do so, he would have had to pass through a metal detector.
THE FEDS DIDN'T ARREST HIM, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. WERE THERE ANY NOTICES POSTED SAYING THAT GUNS WERE NOT ALLOWED WHERE HE WAS?

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Beaver County Sheriff George David said a person who is wearing a gun in a holster, out in the open, doesn’t need a license to carry that weapon.
THIS INCIDENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LICENSING. IT IS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE MAN HAD THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED, IF HE CHOSE TO BE. JUST BECAUSE SOCIETY AT LARGE DOES NOT GO AROUND "PACKING"... DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE GIVEN UP OUR RIGHTS. IF PEOPLE ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDED THAT RELIGION WAS STUPID AND NO LONGER PARTOOK, WOULD WE START ARRESTING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, OR BAPTISTS, ON THE COMPLAINT OF SCARED ATHEISTS? NONSENSE.

However, a person who wants to keep a weapon concealed on his body or carry it in a vehicle must obtain a license. Extra permission is necessary for a concealed weapon, David said, because a concealed weapon poses a greater danger to police.
AANY WEAPON POSES A POTENTIAL DANGER, AND PLENTY OF US LEO'S ARE SHOT WITH OUR OWN WEAPONS. A CONCEALED ONE IS NO MORE OR LESS DANGEROUS THAN AN OPENLY CARRIED ONE. PERSONALLY, I CAN SEE THAT A PERSON IS OPENLY CARRYING AND IT NEVER BOTHERED ME ONE BIT. THIS IS JUST ANTI-GUN DRIVEL WRITTEN BY FEAR MONGERS. DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE PRESS WRITES. IT IS OFTEN SLANTED, AND BLOWN UP TO MAKE NEWS. (IN OTHER WORDS... B.S.)

While David said he’s a gun advocate, he said Noble should not have taken the gun to the rally because of all the security present for Obama’s protection.
HE MIGHT THINK HE IS A GUN "ADVOCATE" BUT TO DENY SOMEONE A RIGHT, JUST BECAUSE OF FEAR OF OTHERS, IS NON-SENSE.

“I don’t think this was the time or the place to show your rights,” David said
SORRY AGAIN, BUT WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS???? B.S. IS HE GONNA TELL US WE CAN'T GO TO CHURCH ANYTIME WE WANT, OR THAT WE CAN ONLY SPEAK WHEN AND IF WE ARE SPOKEN TO? WE CAN ONLY BE CATHOLIC ON SATURDAY, OR SUNDAY, AND NOT DURING THE WEEK, OR WHEN THERE ARE ATHEISTS PRESENT??? SOME FOLKS NEED TO LEARN THAT THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES ALL OF THE TIME, ANYWHERE, ANY PLACE, AND APPLIES TO EVERYBODY. IT AMAZES ME THAT, THEY CAN AND DO GIVE NAZI'S POLICE PROTECTION DURING THEIR RALLIES AND MARCHES, SO THEY CAN SPEW HATE SPEECH, BUT THIS LAW ABIDING CITIZEN GETS HOOKED UP... SAD... JUST SAD... .

Oh, and I did the caps and red so it was easier to read, not for any type of effect... Oh, and nothing against the poster of this, as they were just re-printing the "news" story.

[crazynova]

From what I have read on other forums, the man was not in the secure area as the rally, but in an area that was open to the public to freely access. It was also a couple hours before the rally started.

[velobard]

Oh, and I did the caps and red so it was easier to read, not for any type of effect... Oh, and nothing against the poster of this, as they were just re-printing the "news" story.

I actually agree with what you had to say, but if anyone ever tells you that all caps is easier to read, ignore them.

[Ceridwen]

Looking at this whole "open carry" concept from a different perspective (one not about its legality or illegality but of practicality) -- if criminals are akin to wild animals--

Many other animals carry bright colors as signals to predators advertising their deadly natural defenses against predation (poison generally.) While very effective against most predators certain species of predators have adapted natural immunities and find the brightly colored animals tasty and easy to find too (the criminal mirrror would be a equivilently or more heavily armed criminal with the advantage of surprise and willing to fire first)

Soooo..... a mixed blessing I would say, but I would rather fly with the other drab colored birds and have my actual capabilities surprise the predator rather than have him have the chance to contemplate the best way to defeat it at his convienance.

[grog18b]

Agreed on both counts. I also carry concealed, but it is not my (our) place to tell others how to "wear their colors"... just as I would never tell someone how to vote, or which church, if any, to attend, or which lawyer to hire. The Constitution applies to us all, equally, and if someone decides to carry openly, as a means of exercising their right, I am the last person who would take exception to it.

[Dinosaur32]

Whether you like it or not if your actions could possibly be deemed a threat to a government official, you will be investigated. Is it illegal to send white powder through the mail? No but if you send it to your governor you will find yourself under investigation. If you wear a gun exposed to a political rally, you will be investigated. And that investigation may well include a determination of your mental stability. And if pro open carry posters cannot understand that you only give more ammunition to those who oppose that right.

[DAL]

Whether you like it or not if your actions could possibly be deemed a threat to a government official, you will be investigated. Is it illegal to send white powder through the mail? No but if you send it to your governor you will find yourself under investigation. If you wear a gun exposed to a political rally, you will be investigated. And that investigation may well include a determination of your mental stability. And if pro open carry posters cannot understand that you only give more ammunition to those who oppose that right.

Agreed. Their tactics also are likely to be counterproductive. They encourage legislation to prohibit or limit openly carrying firearms. They also may cause the public to question whether more restrictions are needed on permits for carrying concealed weapons. They make people who carry firearms look loony.

[nonickname69]

Doesn't sound like he was facing any weapon charges though...

[Dinosaur32]

At the time his actions were not illegal....suspicious.....yes. Do that enough times and those citizens that are bothered by open carrying will contact theit legislators...

[DAL]

At the time his actions were not illegal....suspicious.....yes. Do that enough times and those citizens that are bothered by open carrying will contact their legislators...

That point never seems to get through. Members of the Open Carry movement seem to think that doing this type of thing will popularize their cause. I expect just the opposite.

[velobard]

That point never seems to get through. Members of the Open Carry movement seem to think that doing this type of thing will popularize their cause. I expect just the opposite.

It did help them get a ccw passed in Ohio.

[DAL]

Perhaps, but they are doing this now in states that already have shall-issue CCW laws. As far as I can see, they can only make things worse for gun owners in those states. Openly carrying a firearm is not a constitutionally protected right, and neither is carrying a concealed firearm. The Supreme Court decision related to keeping firearms in the home, and it was by a bare majority.

[unsworninpa104]

His trial is next month, and I predict an acquittal on all charges.

yes he will...I hope none of the LE or deputies get into trouble over this though. But as a result of this and a couple other incidents in PA last year this years Act180(police officer legal update class that occurs once a year) now covers open carry and concealed carry very in depth to avoid future mistakes.

[vvincelli]

I am familiar with "Terry Stops".
But maybe you can articulate why you would have reasonable suspision to suspect a crime is about to take place, or has taken place, when the subject of your suspision is merely Open Carrying a handgun in a holster? If you see me legally Open Carrying (regardless of my race, age, religion), and you know that it is legal, would you automatically suspect that I am about to/or already have committed a crime?

Im trying to keep this conversation light. So please dont think Im being an ***.

I understand your argument, but you are missing one point.

Simply put, suspicious activity is determined by what the general public reasonably believes to be abnormal behavior. If OC is considered normal in a specific area (and there are such areas) it is not at all suspicious. However, in this case it is most definitely not considered normal behavior. That will give you enough for Terry:

Point One: High-security, high-profile political rally.
Point Two: Man open-carrying a handgun when the vast majority (in this case all) of the other non-LEO attendees are not.

Consider an alternate scenario:

An Officer sees a man sitting in the driver's seat of an idling car, legally parked in front of a bank, and wearing a ski-mask and gloves - all of which is perfectly legal.

In order to prove your OC argument given the circumstances of this thread's incident, you would have to conclude that a Police Officer has no right to conduct an investigative detention of the above driver.

That dog simply won't hunt.

- V

P.S. I do thank you for keeping it polite. Tired of seeing these threads devolve into Armageddon.

[vvincelli]

His trial is next month, and I predict an acquittal on all charges.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Disorderly Conduct in PA is very similar to NY.

Causing public alarm is the key - and it's gonna be hard for his attorney to argue that his actions did not cause public alarm.

Barring some type of technicality, or a very nice judge, I don't see him winning this one.

- V