Gary Young Crawford County - Another improper LTCF revocation?

[BB62]

Originally Posted by wewo

I like the aggressiveness of challenging constitutionality. This will likely cause one of two things, the Sheriff to cave in and settle; or the AG to staunchly defend constitutionality resulting in a potentially important decision.

I agree wholeheartedly - and this case may be just the vehicle for PAFOA/its members to simultaneously pursue both a legislative and a legal remedy for all LTCF holders.

I finally have a little money and would be happy to contribute to such an effort. I hope Mr. Young will accept help in that regard.

[tryzub]

This is how a good lobbying group is formed, putting area sheriff's on notice and DA's that they will face civil and personal lawsuits that will bankrupt them is critical. It is not necessary to sue jurisdictions when it's the individuals that are misrepresenting a state or counties intents.

[ham385]

Follow my thought here, and scold me if I'm out of line (I still think of myself as a newbie here)

Wouldn't it behoove everyone, PAFOA also, to have someone contact the sheriff and ask for details. This seems to have had a huge impact with DamageControl's recent issues. Not in a threatening way, but more of a 'Hey, this caught our attention, we're not looking to stir up trouble, but at the same time, we're watching and we want to confirm this revocation was done for legitimate reasons' I think this is prudent because we don't have both/all sides of the story and certain pivotal details may have been left out.

I don't know the intent DanP had when he opened the forum, or his 'vision' for the future, but political activism in defense of 2A seems to be a theme of the forum. PAFOA has grown a lot in the year since I've joined here, and I'm noticing a trend with the posts about these revocations and denials. Why not take it to the next level and start helping out non-members? I'm sure Sheriff's talk, and eventually they will get it through their heads that people are watching and due process is in order. Additionally, it helps gain publicity for PAFOA in a good light, which helps get more members and makes us stronger.

I'd volunteer, but I'm no orator. I got a D in 2nd grade English. 2nd graders don't get D's in anything, but I did. In fact, I probably just convinced all of you that I'm a moron

[headcase]

Not at all. Why would anyone think you are a moron for stating a well thought out, nicely articulated thought?

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by headcase

Not at all. Why would anyone think you are a moron for stating a well thought out, nicely articulated thought?

Agreed. Rep incoming for that post ham385.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by ham385

Follow my thought here, and scold me if I'm out of line (I still think of myself as a newbie here)

Wouldn't it behoove everyone, PAFOA also, to have someone contact the sheriff and ask for details. This seems to have had a huge impact with DamageControl's recent issues. Not in a threatening way, but more of a 'Hey, this caught our attention, we're not looking to stir up trouble, but at the same time, we're watching and we want to confirm this revocation was done for legitimate reasons' I think this is prudent because we don't have both/all sides of the story and certain pivotal details may have been left out.

I don't know the intent DanP had when he opened the forum, or his 'vision' for the future, but political activism in defense of 2A seems to be a theme of the forum. PAFOA has grown a lot in the year since I've joined here, and I'm noticing a trend with the posts about these revocations and denials. Why not take it to the next level and start helping out non-members? I'm sure Sheriff's talk, and eventually they will get it through their heads that people are watching and due process is in order. Additionally, it helps gain publicity for PAFOA in a good light, which helps get more members and makes us stronger.

I'd volunteer, but I'm no orator. I got a D in 2nd grade English. 2nd graders don't get D's in anything, but I did. In fact, I probably just convinced all of you that I'm a moron

Whether the person involved is a member here or not, we must be cautious in our efforts, 'investigating' (I use the term loosely) and continually building our support as more facts become clear, and only if they do indeed justify that support. This is especially important since any financial donations are coming right out of the pockets of hard-working citizens, not from a multi-millionaire benefactor. Even if a huge discretionary fund already existed, the same strict standards should apply to the use of those monies. I can not and do not claim to speak for danp, but I do have my own ideas on what it seems his intent is, based on everything I've seen here so far. We are clearly already being seen within the pro-gun community as a force to be reckoned with, and hopefully, this will only increase as time goes by. It is extremely important that we be as sure as we can be that any action we take under the banner of PAFOA does not sully the reputation it has already earned. Any one of us can hurt the organization by doing something stupid and then claiming, "I'm a PAFOA member. They will get me out of this!".

Mr. Young's case clearly has several complex vines, interwoven with each other. Even after speaking directly with him on a couple of occasions, I don't understand the full scope of the situation. After recovering from the surprise of a phone call from someone he didn't know expressing support and asking if he needed anything, he said he did not need money for the fight. He has repeated this statement on other occasions as well. Cross that off of the "help" list.

The most urgent problem he did seem to have was retaining an attorney and getting the appeal filed in time. That task is now complete. I believe the counsel he has retained is far more qualified to address his situation than either of the attorneys in my own or DC's cases, so from an 'outsider's' standpoint, I feel good about that aspect too.

There has already been mention by some here of attending Mr. Young's hearing. No date has been set yet, but when that is determined, it will be posted here so anyone who wishes can plan to attend. I will personally be unable to attend Mr. Young's hearing. I did set aside some of my time off from work for 'pro-gun' activism. I had to use some of that for my own case, and will be using more for the Rally Day at the Capital. I hope any such additional proceedings will be few, but realize we could easily see six to eight more of these before the year is out.

What can you do right now? If you're so inclined, contact Mr. Young and express your support. Keep it simple. "I know you can't discuss your case, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of your situation and I support you in your fight." Mr. Young has been properly instructed by counsel to not discuss the situation further. I'm sure at this point, the Sheriff will not be interested in any type of 'discussion' of the issue either. Even if he is, that discussion is now best handled by Mr. Young's attorney. I believe this case will best be served by going to court.

I have promised Mr. Young that I would not directly post his contact info on the forum. His information is not "unpublished". There is enough information in the original newspaper article to easily determine how to contact him if you truly wish to do so.

[Longshot]

Watching this, I am very interested to see how this plays out. I have really gained a lot of respect for the members of this forum, it is really refreshing to see objective reasoning instead of just jumping on the band wagon.

Personally I am pulling for Mr. Young and hope things work out. Keep us updated!

[ham385]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Whether the person involved is a member here or not, we must be cautious in our efforts, 'investigating' (I use the term loosely) and continually building our support as more facts become clear, and only if they do indeed justify that support.

I agree, I'm not recommending we fly off the handle and defend Mr. Young without all the info. For all we know, the sheriff may be fully justified and we are ignorant of the specific reasons.

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

I'm sure at this point, the Sheriff will not be interested in any type of 'discussion' of the issue either. Even if he is, that discussion is now best handled by Mr. Young's attorney. I believe this case will best be served by going to court.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Now that a court date is pending, he [the Sheriff] will probably say no comment to anyone/everyone.

[Brown-Bear]

Well I'm glad this gotta sticky as my search fu is weak as of late. And thanks to Greg for the update. I hereby retract my previous statements challenging the validity of the OP.

I'm glad to see he got counsel and is moving forward in a positive manner, and will stay tuned for more info.

BB

[gnbrotz]

I agree with a cautious approach (see my post #87).

Not surprisingly, Mr. Young's version (see my post #17) was that he was not armed at all, and no report was filed on the incident. The truth of this statement is obviously very pivotal to the case.

I would think that many members here are interested in the outcome, and in learning as much of the "truth" as is possible. I know if I was closer, I'd want to attend and observe the hearing, whether or not I considered myself a "supporter" of Mr. Young.