Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 5/18/2002 7:22:41 AM EDT
[url]http://www.thedenverchannel.com/den/news/stories/news-146703220020517-150557.html[/url] DENVER -- Rick Stanley, a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate, was convicted Thursday of unlawfully carrying a weapon after he went to a rally carrying a loaded handgun in a holster to make a point about gun laws. The six-person jury deliberated just over an hour. Stanley faces up to a year in jail and a $999 fine at his sentencing on July 25. Stanley said he will appeal and still plans to run for the Senate. A misdemeanor conviction would not bar him from holding office. He argued the city ordinance prohibiting loaded weapons in public is unconstitutional. [b]"I tried to defend myself using the Constitution, and the judge wouldn't allow it," Stanley said.[/b] "This is a serious problem and the American people should know." The Dec. 15 rally marked the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, and Stanley said he brought the Beretta .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun to illustrate his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. During the trial, defense attorney Paul Grant argued that Stanley was carrying the weapon to defend himself because he had received several threats. "You also have constitutional right to carry weapons for defensive purposes," Grant said.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:11:49 AM EDT
I hope this guy didn't really believe he had Constitutionally guaranteed rights BEFORE he atempted this. There is no justice in an outlaw system. When will we learn?
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:13:37 AM EDT
I guess the arresting police officers were "Just Doing their job".......
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:16:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2002 8:17:26 AM EDT by schapman43]
Paid to do what the man tells you to. I know allot of cops on this board are good people and wouldnt do something that violates the constitution, but, these cops dont seem to have a problem with it. Denver = Little California I dont like going there. Funny thing is, just about 60 miles north (Loveland, Ft Collins) the attitude is completely different.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:34:19 AM EDT
Beretta makes a .38 semiautomatic? .380 maybe? Damn median ever gets it right. I bet that beretta shoots 700 rounds a minute and shoots teflon coated bullets that will rip through engine blocks.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:35:13 AM EDT
Beretta makes a .38 semiautomatic? .380 maybe? Damn media ever gets it right. I bet that beretta shoots 900 rounds a minute and shoots teflon coated bullets that will rip through engine blocks and contains cyanide to make sure the shooting victim dies.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:38:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2002 8:38:39 AM EDT by AlClenin]
[img]http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/eclipse99/annular/kangaroo.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.neopagan.net/graphics/Supreme%20Court.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 10:28:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: I guess the arresting police officers were "Just Doing their job".......
View Quote
F**king a man. Everyone always say cops are just doing their job. Someday their job will be to take ALL of you guns.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 10:49:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By liberty86: I guess the arresting police officers were "Just Doing their job".......
View Quote
F**king a man. Everyone always say cops are just doing their job. Someday their job will be to take ALL of you guns.
View Quote
Notice the picture under his name? He was being funny.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 11:00:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AlClenin: Notice the picture under his name? He was being funny.
View Quote
How exactly was he being funny?
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 11:08:29 AM EDT
Do a google search on the history of the "Don't tread on me!" flag.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 11:45:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Muad_Dib: Do a google search on the history of the "Don't tread on me!" flag.
View Quote
I know the history of the "Don't Tread On Me" flag. I still don't see how that comment can be construed as a joke. I thought he was QUITE serious about implying that "cops just doing their job" was bullshit. And Philly Gunman was agreeing with him. Is my english comprehension lacking here? Cause I can't figure out what you and Al are saying :) (BTW, Al, loved the photos. That was priceless.)
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 11:56:18 AM EDT
Here in the Land of Lenin formerly known as the Land of Lincoln (Illinois, Abe was born in Kentucky and raised in Indiana!!!) Chicago Dic-tator Richie Daley, Dick Durbin, Rod Blagoyevic' Jesse Jackson et.al. are steering this state towards the nightmare John Ross described in "Unintended Consequences". 'Course, once the shooting stops and all the politicians are piled high & deep, us patriotic Americans will have to worry about the European Union from the east and the Red Chinese and their North Korean toadies from the west.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 12:09:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak:
Originally Posted By Muad_Dib: Do a google search on the history of the "Don't tread on me!" flag.
View Quote
I know the history of the "Don't Tread On Me" flag. I still don't see how that comment can be construed as a joke. I thought he was QUITE serious about implying that "cops just doing their job" was bullshit. And Philly Gunman was agreeing with him. Is my english comprehension lacking here? Cause I can't figure out what you and Al are saying :) (BTW, Al, loved the photos. That was priceless.)
View Quote
Your understanding is correct zak. I believe we are all accountable for what we do, including what we choose to do for a living. The arresting officers chose to arrest a man excercising his G-d given Constitutionally guaranteed right to carry arms. Personally, I have NEVER heard of a cop refusing an illegal order, and only 1 military guy (Michel New)! Why hasn't half of Denver P.D. resigned. Where are all those cops some of you think are "with us"? Guess what? When it comes time for the cop to decide between his bread & butter, and your freedom and liberty, you are a moron if you think he's gonna take the hard road....... They are already proving us right in many jurisdictions......
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 12:20:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: Paid to do what the man tells you to. I know allot of cops on this board are good people and wouldnt do something that violates the constitution, but, these cops dont seem to have a problem with it. Denver = Little California I dont like going there. Funny thing is, just about 60 miles north (Loveland, Ft Collins) the attitude is completely different.
View Quote
Now you know why I live in Windsor. One time I was out shooting clays w/a friend and a Weld sheriff pulls up. I thought we were gonna get hassled, but he just wanted to shoot a few with us! It is totally different up here than in the Denver metro.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 12:38:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jtw2:
Originally Posted By schapman43: Paid to do what the man tells you to. I know allot of cops on this board are good people and wouldnt do something that violates the constitution, but, these cops dont seem to have a problem with it. Denver = Little California I dont like going there. Funny thing is, just about 60 miles north (Loveland, Ft Collins) the attitude is completely different.
View Quote
Now you know why I live in Windsor. One time I was out shooting clays w/a friend and a Weld sheriff pulls up. I thought we were gonna get hassled, but he just wanted to shoot a few with us! It is totally different up here than in the Denver metro.
View Quote
Yeah, that's just one of the many reasons why I'll be moving my shop to the western slope soon. Fortunately, the towns and cities on the WS don't have the things that seem to attract limousine liberals the most...Tall, shiny buildings, mayors who take trips to Africa on taxpayer dollars to "encourage trade" with third-world nations, taxpayer-sponsored welfare for major sports teams, etc. I'm really NOT gonna miss the metro area.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 1:18:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2002 1:19:21 PM EDT by theRealElmerFudd]
Stanley intended to be arrested to test the 2nd Am defense in Denver, but you have to read what happened in court, if this won't curdle your milk then nothing will.... you should just throw down your guns and go home [url=http://www.stanley2002.org/release5_15_02b.htm]look here[/url] [url=http://www.stanley2002.org/release5_16_02.htm] and here[/url]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 1:38:43 PM EDT
And here is the idiot judge in this case: [url]http://www.cobar.org/static/judges/nov2000/2CNTYrpatterson.htm[/url] [img]http://www.cobar.org/static/judges/nov2000/2CNTYrpatterson.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 2:01:36 PM EDT
I'm glad he did it. Challenging illegal laws in the courts is the only way to get rid of them. Sure as hell more effective then the SHTF scenario some "think" will fix things. I hope he manages to appeal all the way to the SCOTUS. And you sure as hell will never see a Republican put his balls on the chopping block like that.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 2:12:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: ... I hope he manages to appeal all the way to the SCOTUS. ...
View Quote
What do you think the odds of that happening are?
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 4:31:50 PM EDT
BTT for the night shift..... Stanley Guilty City Attorney: Constitution of U.S. and Colorado null and void in Denver since 1906 News Release - May 16, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 16, 2002 NEWS RELEASE Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 Website: http://www.stanley2002.org Contact: Rick Stanley, 303.329.0481 Email: Rick@stanley2002.org =========================================================== Stanley Found Guilty City Attorney states Colorado and U.S. Constitutions null and void in Denver since 1906. [Denver - 3:00 pm] This morning in a Denver Courtroom, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley was found guilty of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The charge was the result of an intentional act of civil disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 2001. The court re-convened this morning, with Judge Robert L. Patterson entering at 8:20am. Discussion of jury instructions was commenced and Patterson proposed two forms of general verdict (guilty, and not guilty -- the standard forms), and 11 separate jury instructions taken from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. Attorney for the defense, Paul Grant, proposed four additional jury instructions. The city attorney objected to all of Grant's proposals. The city attorney stated the standard jury instructions were good enough for him, but Grant proceeded to criticize several aspects of the instructions. He stated that the word "crime" is inaccurate and should be modified to say "offense." In law, a violation of a municipal ordinance is not a crime -- it is an offense. The language used in the jury instructions should be accurate, Grant charged.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 4:33:11 PM EDT
Grant next objected to the instructions which tell members of the jury that they "will" do something, or that they "shall" do something, or that they "must" do something. Grant pointed out that in a trial by jury, the jury has the last word, and that each juror's decision must be given freely, without coercion. For the court to tell someone that they "must" follow the law as the judge explains it is equal to denying the defendant's right to be tried by a jury. Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture Grant on various points of case law. Grant countered the judge's comments citing precedents to support point of views antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting. At this point, according to a courtroom observer, David Bryant, "The judge grew more bombastic...he was clearly asserting his position as the "controlling legal authority" in the courtroom. Grant next presented arguments to support his additional jury instructions. One of these was an alternative to the standard instruction on the elements of an offense, the nature of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of "culpable mental state" (aka "mens rea"). The second argument dealt with the fact that Rick's act of civil disobedience was a form of political speech, and that the jury should not convict him just because they don't agree with his point of view. Grant then presented two affirmative defenses to the court in the form of jury instructions. First, that Rick's actions were an form of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing Rick for speech. Secondly, Grant argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case. In response to Grant's argument about People vs. Ford, Judge Patterson replied that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Grant's motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff went to get the jury. The jury showed up in court at approximately 9:00 AM. Closing arguments were brief. The city attorney recited the facts of the case and called on the jury to convict Rick because Rick had no real need to defend himself that day in the park.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 4:34:25 PM EDT
Grant reminded the jury of their important role in our system of justice. He spoke briefly about the history of trial by jury, calling the jurors "defenders of liberty". Grant laid particular emphasis on the fact that the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue of a culpable mental state, as Stanley was not present that day in the park with criminal intent. Grant stated that Stanley was there to, "assert his rights, and to defend the rights of all citizens of Colorado." The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 AM. At this point, David Bryant, who is the current Public Information Director for the Libertarian Pary of Colorado, approached the city attorney to clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson's remarks when he ignored Grant's argument based on a state Supreme Court ruling. "As I understand it," stated Bryant, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also?" Bryant asked. "Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?" Bryant questioned further. "Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city." Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. "And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged." Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters. The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906. The jury finally came back after deliberating for approximately one hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read to the court. Grant at that point requested that the jury be polled and each one of the 6 declared him guilty. At that point the judge thanked them for their service, read them the final standard instruction stating that they could discuss this case with others, if they want to. The jury was then dismissed. Grant moved for an immediate sentencing. Patterson denied that motion. After some delibertation, the sentencing hearing was set for July 25, 2002. The court was then adjourned. As of the writing of this report, Rick Stanley, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful has been convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, and is free on bail until the court imposes a sentence on July 25th.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 4:42:13 PM EDT
The only way to git rid of shitty laws is to challenge them. I remember when he said in advance he was going to defy this law. It was ballsy then and I respect him for putting his ass and career on the line. Appeal it all the way. Odds are against him, but the fight is a good one. If there is any case the NRA needs to get behind, it's the appeals to this one. Time to write some letters. If I ever get a chance to vote for him for any position, I will.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 5:31:24 PM EDT
He was right to challenge it, but at the municpal level the 2nd Ammendment would not necessarily be the best defense. The judge hearing it is going to rule by the law, he will not have the courage to say it was unconstitutional. He broke the law, he was guilty of it, now he can take the law to trial.....in a federal court.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 7:27:43 PM EDT
At this point, David Bryant, who is the current Public Information Director for the Libertarian Pary of Colorado, approached the city attorney to clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson's remarks when he ignored Grant's argument based on a state Supreme Court ruling. "As I understand it," stated Bryant, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also?" Bryant asked. "Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?" Bryant questioned further. "Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city." Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. "And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged." Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters. The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906.
View Quote
Let me get this straight. The Constitution of the United States is null and void within the city limits of Denver, Colorado?????? Can they declare Federal Laws null and void as well?????? WTF???????? There's got to be a legal person out there that can explain this idiocy for us.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:00:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: Stanley said he brought the Beretta .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun to illustrate his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
View Quote
Did I miss something? Is Beretta now making their version of the S&W 52? I didn't know Beretta made a semi in .38cal? I thought they were all the "usual" semi calibers: .22, .25, .32, 380acp, etc. etc.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:06:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole:
Originally Posted By marvl: Stanley said he brought the Beretta .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun to illustrate his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
View Quote
Did I miss something? Is Beretta now making their version of the S&W 52? I didn't know Beretta made a semi in .38cal? I thought they were all the "usual" semi calibers: .22, .25, .32, 380acp, etc. etc.
View Quote
I suspect this is an error on the part of the reporter who wrote the article. For instance, the Beretta 92FS shoots .92 caliber ammo doesn't it? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:55:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2002 10:26:50 PM EDT by Mordwyn]
As per Section XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado:
Section 6. [b]Home rule for cities and towns[/b].......are hereby vested with, and they shall always have, power to make, amend, add to or replace the charter of said city or town, which shall be its organic law and extend to all its local and municipal matters. Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall [i]supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith. [/i]
View Quote
and now for Section 8....This is a doosy:
Section 8: [b]Conflicting constitutional provisions declared inapplicable.[/b] [i]Anything[/i] in the constitution of this state [i]in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment is hereby declared to be inapplicable[/i] to the matters and things by this amendment covered and provided for.
View Quote
Well I would like to move that the County and City of Denver Colorado should be considered to be in violation of, and in active revolt against the sovereign law of these United States of America, The Constitution. I also move that the executive branch call out all forces necessary and have them enter the City and County of Denver and place these involved government officials under arrest for sedition, treason and the violation of the oath the took when taking the offices of government that they were legally elected to..... But what do I know, I'm just some nut on a web board who thinks that the words written by Thomas Jefferson Et. Al. actualy mean somthing and should have power over these petty despots [:(!]
Top Top