Carrying in PA casino - got response from the board

[Elmar]

It seems to me that that definition of civilized is more akin to "suffers arbitrary authority" than to anything pertaining to the notion of justice.

[lourendo]

Also, I'm not sure what do they mean in orange, since I don't have license to "possess". Do they mean carry or they really think some sort of license is required here to own a gun? Should I ask for clarification, or will it be wiser not to irritate them.

Its simple, You must be able to produce that which does not exist. therefore, you will never be able to carry in a casino.

[GunLawyer001]

Its simple, You must be able to produce that which does not exist. therefore, you will never be able to carry in a casino.

I think those are issued by the same Mystical Agency that issues these:

(13) Any person who is otherwise eligible to possess a firearm under this chapter and who is operating a motor vehicle which is registered in the person's name or the name of a spouse or parent and which contains a firearm for which a valid license has been issued pursuant to section 6109 to the spouse or parent owning the firearm.

Make sure that each and every one of your firearms has a license in its name.....

[Daycrawler]

I went to the sands the other night so no need to start another thread. Anyhow I read the Sign at the Casino floor entrance.

It stated no Deadly weapons or Tasers. There were no Gun signs with a slash through it. Then I felt like I needed to remove my hands and feet, because so many people have been beaten and stompped to death, and there was my pesky little Belt I was wearing. I could have strangled someone with that. Later I went to the Bar and they armed me with a bottle.

This wonderful sign, by the way was posted off to the side so far, that you had to walk out of your way to read it!

[PeteG]

i guess my app for my ffl will now be denied!

Only if some official wants to deny it. First they will convict you, and then your applicaion will be dened.

I am not one of these "chicken little" types who runs around in little circles, waiving his hands above his head and declaring anyone who does anything out of the ordinary will be arrested and sent to a secret detention center for torture, before he is shot and then put in prison to rot. But here's the deal ...

One of the tools of actual (as opposed to imaginary) tyranny is to make so many laws that everyone violates at least some of them. This is how members of the "security apparatus" in many countries get rich: they charge to look the other way. Otherwise, if you appear to be a threat to them, or a potential threat, or a possible future potential threat, or if they want to show someone else who is a potential threat what could happen to them, it is a small matter to squash you.

I have no doubt one can today walk into a post office armed and get away with it - unless something goes wrong. Then, that individual is screwed.

The rule of law is a very, very good thing. It is also highly abstract and conceptual; it is very dependent upon what people believe and perceive. It is therefore fragile.

The rule of law is undermined both by governments which make so many things criminal without "specific intent" or based upon "status" that nobody knows what the law is, and everybody violates it (whether they know it or not), and by people who decide to ignore bad laws, rather than insist they be changed.

To be clear, "insist they be changed" can be petitioning legislators to amend the laws, or it can be civil disobedience, or even, in theory, revolution. But going along to get along is complicity, and ignoring the laws makes you more vulnerable and therefore less potent.

If it gets bad enough, of course, everyone is vulnerable. It can, and often does, get to the point where legal agents of the lawful government will nail you whenever they find it convenient, and then, if they are even questioned, make up something after the fact. (E.g., Sheriff Joe Apria in Maricopa County Arizona has his “political corruption squad” search the homes of city councilmen who oppose his policies, looking for “evidence” of imaginary immigration crimes, and thus far he’s gotten away with it.)

Which brings me to my original point: the rule of law is a very, very good thing.

[GunLawyer001]

Only if some official wants to deny it. First they will convict you, and then your applicaion will be dened.

I am not one of these "chicken little" types who runs around in little circles, waiving his hands above his head and declaring anyone who does anything out of the ordinary will be arrested and sent to a secret detention center for torture, before he is shot and then put in prison to rot. But here's the deal ...

One of the tools of actual (as opposed to imaginary) tyranny is to make so many laws that everyone violates at least some of them. This is how members of the "security apparatus" in many countries get rich: they charge to look the other way. Otherwise, if you appear to be a threat to them, or a potential threat, or a possible future potential threat, or if they want to show someone else who is a potential threat what could happen to them, it is a small matter to squash you.

I have no doubt one can today walk into a post office armed and get away with it - unless something goes wrong. Then, that individual is screwed.

The rule of law is a very, very good thing. It is also highly abstract and conceptual; it is very dependent upon what people believe and perceive. It is therefore fragile.

The rule of law is undermined both by governments which make so many things criminal without "specific intent" or based upon "status" that nobody knows what the law is, and everybody violates it (whether they know it or not), and by people who decide to ignore bad laws, rather than insist they be changed.

To be clear, "insist they be changed" can be petitioning legislators to amend the laws, or it can be civil disobedience, or even, in theory, revolution. But going along to get along is complicity, and ignoring the laws makes you more vulnerable and therefore less potent.

If it gets bad enough, of course, everyone is vulnerable. It can, and often does, get to the point where legal agents of the lawful government will nail you whenever they find it convenient, and then, if they are even questioned, make up something after the fact. (E.g., Sheriff Joe Apria in Maricopa County Arizona has his “political corruption squad” search the homes of city councilmen who oppose his policies, looking for “evidence” of imaginary immigration crimes, and thus far he’s gotten away with it.)

Which brings me to my original point: the rule of law is a very, very good thing.

You had me until you bought into the anti-Arpaio myths. The long investigation into him and into his department was concluded without any finding of misconduct, and you just KNOW that Obama's goons really, really wanted to find something on the guy who keeps embarrassing them over the flood of illegals and the absence of adequate Federal response.

As evidence that the Feds really, really wanted to crucify the guy, the announcement of the dismissal of the investigation was yet another "end of business day on Friday going into a holiday weekend" attempt to bury the news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1848384.html

Seriously, you can't matter in this society without making enemies. Arpaio matters, he ruffles the feathers of the Progressives who want to flood the USA with criminal aliens, and they struck back with their usual innuendo and lies. Most everybody else loves Sheriff Joe.

[cruisepl]

Anyone willing to chip in with compelling argument, besides PA Constitution and the fact, that our rights to bear arms shall not be questioned? I'm very curious, whether I'll be able to get the permit or not, so I don't want to mess this up. So if anyone has an idea for the well written formal request - please, share it with the group.

.

The compelling argument thing kinda sounds a bit like what Marylanders are going through to get a concealed carry permit. MSP wants a good explanation and reason to carry, and generally just deny the application and say your reason is not good enough. A judge has ruled the Maryland process unconstitutional and Its all tied up in the court system now. Apps are still getting denied until a decision is made.

Do a search for Maryland shall issue and you should be able to get the details possibly including the wording that got MSPs ass handed to them.

[sjsufer]

Man arrested at sands with gun

It looks like he wasn't arrested for defiant trespass, but for unlicensed carry which raises the question of what if he was licensed.

Even if they weren't bound by gaming board regulations, I have a feeling the most casinos would enact a no firearms policy, but seeing as PGCB has enacted the policy for them, they haven't even thought of setting policy themselves. That means that in the non gaming areas you should be ok. I asked this on the PGCB side of it while talking to some gaming officials at a unnamed casino I may or not work at and they said they have no regulatory control over the non-gaming areas so it obviously up to the casino and it's policies.

[PeteG]

You had me until you bought into the anti-Arpaio myths. The long investigation into him and into his department was concluded without any finding of misconduct, and you just KNOW that Obama's goons really, really wanted to find something on the guy who keeps embarrassing them over the flood of illegals and the absence of adequate Federal response.

As evidence that the Feds really, really wanted to crucify the guy, the announcement of the dismissal of the investigation was yet another "end of business day on Friday going into a holiday weekend" attempt to bury the news.

Seriously, you can't matter in this society without making enemies. Arpaio matters, he ruffles the feathers of the Progressives who want to flood the USA with criminal aliens, and they struck back with their usual innuendo and lies. Most everybody else loves Sheriff Joe.

Well, except for my original point about the rule of law, Joe Arpaio would be irrelevant. He is relevant because IF the law does not apply equally to everyone, there is no law.

Actually, both the (two) federal investigations of Joe Arpiao were started by the Justice Department under George Bush, not by anybody in the Obama administration. If there are any Joe Arpiao "myths," the whole "Obama goons wanted to get him" thing is first among them.

It is also incorrect to say that justice department investigation regarding abuse of the "political corruption" squad ended "without any finding of misconduct." Actually, the finding was that the allegations presented to the U.S. Justice Department did not warrant a criminal prosecution under federal law. Big difference.

The second investigation, into systematic civil rights violations, ended differently. The U.S. Justice Department is currently pursuing a case against Sheriff Arpaio.

There have also been judicial findings in Arizona state courts to the effect that criminal cases brought by Sheriff Arpaio and his ally, prosecutor Andrew Thomas were prosecuted for political reasons and in the face of a patent conflict of interests. The cases against a former Arizona Superior Court Judge (The Hon. Gary Donahoe), and two Maricopa County Supervisors (Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley) were all dismissed based upon that finding. One of those supervisors was awarded $1 Million in a suit over that stunt. (So much for saving the County money.)

In the meantime, Andrew Thomas has been disbarred. An ethics panel of the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled he had abused his office by falsely prosecuting local officials for a criminal conspiracy to attack the sheriff's office. His Chief Deputy, David Hendershott, was forced to resign over charges that he (among other things) fed the media false statistics and falsely charged and arrested political opponents of Sheriff Joe Arpiao.

These are all findings of “misconduct.” High, wide and long.

As for "most everybody" loving Joe, that's nonsense. One sees "F--- Joe Arpaio" bumper stickers all of Phoenix. I don’t think they mean that in the loving sense of the word. Maricopa County has spent an estimated $50,000,000 defending law suits and paying judgments in cases brought by those who love him so.

Of course, those who agree with Joe Arpaio's choice of victims, and therefore lionize him without consideration of either the facts or the long-term implications of what he does, will dismiss his critics as illegals, gang-bangers or, worse yet, "progressives.” But how about cops?

Joe Arpaio is very unpopular with a lot of police who feel he is making their jobs more difficult by so thoroughly alienating the Latino population, comprised overwhelmingly of legal immigrants and U.S. Citizens of Latino descent. And if those cops criticize him, he goes after cops as well.

For example, in the town of Mesa, Arizona, there was a demonsration by protesters who were angry over the tactics of the guy you suggest is "loved" by "most everybody." Arpaio has sent deputies to confront protestors in the past, resulting in trouble. This time the Mesa, Arizona police put up a cordon around the protestors. This made Joe Arpaio angry. His response was to actually conduct a midnight raid on the Mesa City Hall, supposedly looking for illegal immigrants. He arrested several custodial staff, only to discover all of them had proper "papirin."

Undeterred, he then raided the Mesa Arizona Police station to obtain the computerized personnel records of those illegally arrested janitors, "on suspicion" their documents were forged. (No evidence of forgery was uncovered.) Just ask Mesa Arizona Police Chief (retired) George Gascón how loved Sheriff Joe is.

Bill Louis, the former Chief of Police in El Mirage, Arizona, wrote a whole book about Joe Arpira’s department ignoring sex crimes (over 400 of them), because Sheriff's Department resources were devoted to grandstanding on the immigration issue. The book is entitled “If There Were Any Victims,” a quote from Sheriff Joe commenting on the incident.

If the law does not apply to Joe Arpaio, there is no law. Those who think he's just great for attacking Latinos overlook the fact he can decide to disarm all “civilians” as readily as he can decide to round up all the “illegals.” And I think he would, too, if he thought it would bring him political power.

As can be seen from the above, it is still touch-and-go in Maricopa County.

[GunLawyer001]

Well, except for my original point about the rule of law, Joe Arpaio would be irrelevant. He is relevant because IF the law does not apply equally to everyone, there is no law.

Actually, both the (two) federal investigations of Joe Arpiao were started by the Justice Department under George Bush, not by anybody in the Obama administration. If there are any Joe Arpiao "myths," the whole "Obama goons wanted to get him" thing is first among them.

It is also incorrect to say that justice department investigation regarding abuse of the "political corruption" squad ended "without any finding of misconduct." Actually, the finding was that the allegations presented to the U.S. Justice Department did not warrant a criminal prosecution under federal law. Big difference.

The second investigation, into systematic civil rights violations, ended differently. The U.S. Justice Department is currently pursuing a case against Sheriff Arpaio.

There have also been judicial findings in Arizona state courts to the effect that criminal cases brought by Sheriff Arpaio and his ally, prosecutor Andrew Thomas were prosecuted for political reasons and in the face of a patent conflict of interests. The cases against a former Arizona Superior Court Judge (The Hon. Gary Donahoe), and two Maricopa County Supervisors (Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley) were all dismissed based upon that finding. One of those supervisors was awarded $1 Million in a suit over that stunt. (So much for saving the County money.)

In the meantime, Andrew Thomas has been disbarred. An ethics panel of the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled he had abused his office by falsely prosecuting local officials for a criminal conspiracy to attack the sheriff's office. His Chief Deputy, David Hendershott, was forced to resign over charges that he (among other things) fed the media false statistics and falsely charged and arrested political opponents of Sheriff Joe Arpiao.

These are all findings of “misconduct.” High, wide and long.

As for "most everybody" loving Joe, that's nonsense. One sees "F--- Joe Arpaio" bumper stickers all of Phoenix. I don’t think they mean that in the loving sense of the word. Maricopa County has spent an estimated $50,000,000 defending law suits and paying judgments in cases brought by those who love him so.

Of course, those who agree with Joe Arpaio's choice of victims, and therefore lionize him without consideration of either the facts or the long-term implications of what he does, will dismiss his critics as illegals, gang-bangers or, worse yet, "progressives.” But how about cops?

Joe Arpaio is very unpopular with a lot of police who feel he is making their jobs more difficult by so thoroughly alienating the Latino population, comprised overwhelmingly of legal immigrants and U.S. Citizens of Latino descent. And if those cops criticize him, he goes after cops as well.

For example, in the town of Mesa, Arizona, there was a demonsration by protesters who were angry over the tactics of the guy you suggest is "loved" by "most everybody." Arpaio has sent deputies to confront protestors in the past, resulting in trouble. This time the Mesa, Arizona police put up a cordon around the protestors. This made Joe Arpaio angry. His response was to actually conduct a midnight raid on the Mesa City Hall, supposedly looking for illegal immigrants. He arrested several custodial staff, only to discover all of them had proper "papirin."

Undeterred, he then raided the Mesa Arizona Police station to obtain the computerized personnel records of those illegally arrested janitors, "on suspicion" their documents were forged. (No evidence of forgery was uncovered.) Just ask Mesa Arizona Police Chief (retired) George Gascón how loved Sheriff Joe is.

Bill Louis, the former Chief of Police in El Mirage, Arizona, wrote a whole book about Joe Arpira’s department ignoring sex crimes (over 400 of them), because Sheriff's Department resources were devoted to grandstanding on the immigration issue. The book is entitled “If There Were Any Victims,” a quote from Sheriff Joe commenting on the incident.

If the law does not apply to Joe Arpaio, there is no law. Those who think he's just great for attacking Latinos overlook the fact he can decide to disarm all “civilians” as readily as he can decide to round up all the “illegals.” And I think he would, too, if he thought it would bring him political power.

As can be seen from the above, it is still touch-and-go in Maricopa County.

I've seen equally compelling unilateral cases against totally innocent political figures. When he's convicted of a crime by an impartial jury, I'll believe it.

As for the idea that anyone going after illegal aliens from Mexico must have an anti-Mexican animus, that's kind of silly. Because most of the illegal aliens from Mexico will be Mexicans, except for the illegals from further south, the ones passing through Mexico, the ones that Mexico goes after with a hatred and severity that makes Arpaio look like Welcome Wagon. Yet nobody claims that the Mexican government is "anti-Latino" for rounding up Guatemalans....

Cops pursue bank robbers whether they are black, white, brown or yellow (even the albino dwarfs). When they pursue illegal aliens, they will naturally be targeting foreigners. To claim that this is bias based on race or natural origin is sort of a "duh" moment, but has as little validity as claiming that prosecution of armed robbers is a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.