[GunLawyer001]

In my experience, whenever one side of the argument has to lie about the facts, or be evasive, it's sure sign of awareness that the facts are not favorable to them.

Like when you ask your teenager where he was last night, and the answer is "Out doing stuff."

Or when the Brady Campaign people have to inflate the number of "children" shot by including 23-year old gang members.

Or when either of the Clintons says that they "don't recall" whether they banged an intern or accepted money or had a witness killed.


So, what was the charge that Rich was arrested for? Here's the story from the cops, as reported in one of the news accounts:

"At least one of those customers, Rich Banks, of Luzerne County, was detained for refusing to cooperate with police in regard to his concealed .38-caliber handgun, Police Chief William Stadnitski said. Mr. Banks’ weapon remains confiscated, but the chief said he can pick it up at any time."

Notice the passive-voiced "weapon remains confiscated", instead of "police seized it but now that there's trouble they are willing to give it back". Notice "detained" instead of "arrested and cuffed and shoved in a police vehicle". Notice the words "refusing to cooperate with police" instead of "failing to give up his legal rights upon demand".

The side that has to lie is the side with the losing argument.