Gun-rights activist sparks ire with Rosa Parks comparison

[90volts]

Nice turnout despite the cold and wind. Did not see any officers. Three news vans there for coverage that I saw (which was a surprise). No counter protesters that I saw.

[thundrr1]

Wonder if the news vans will get flat tires?????? Be careful gang!!!!!! Thanks for the update.

[RenoV8]

Nice turnout despite the cold and wind. Did not see any officers. Three news vans there for coverage that I saw (which was a surprise). No counter protesters that I saw.

I thought the event went well. There were roughly 80 people in attendance, not including the three news crews. Fox, NBC and, Channel 6 were present.

I thought the speech by Joshua Prince was informative as to why LM is in violation of the law. The lady who spoke about why she carries was well spoken too.

There were some neighbors who attended. They were cordial and after a little small talk seemed to get why we were there. What ticked them off was the article that was written by main line news and Ceasefire PA. Without anyone to counter those points of view its easy to see why they would all get upset.

On the way out there was one resident who had a sign around his neck which read" Guns are for the weak". I chuckled and kept on walking.......

I was pleasantly surprised that LM finest did not harass anyone. That is not to say we were not harassed by one neighbor who decided to put nails under the tires of some of our vehicles. That is pretty low in my book.

This should get some good exposure. For who? We will have to wait and see.

[allen16323]

While I think these protests on municipal property are ill-advised after the Erie fiasco, I agree that Rosa Parks is an apt comparison.

Montgomery, Alabama, had a city ordinance that required blacks to sit at the back of the bus, and to give up their seats to any white person.

From Wiki:
Under the system of segregation used on Montgomery buses, white people who boarded the bus took seats in the front rows, filling the bus toward the back. Black people who boarded the bus took seats in the back rows, filling the bus toward the front. Eventually, the two sections would meet, and the bus would be full. If other black people boarded the bus, they were required to stand. If another white person boarded the bus, then everyone in the black row nearest the front had to get up and stand, so that a new row for white people could be created. Often when boarding the buses, black people were required to pay at the front, get off, and reenter the bus through a separate door at the back.[13] On some occasions bus drivers would drive away before black passengers were able to reboard.[14] National City Lines owned the Montgomery Bus Line at the time of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

That's pretty much universally disgusting to us, today. But there's no explicit right to travel by bus in the Constitution (although there's an equal protection clause). By contrast, the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects our right to keep and bear arms, with or without our state preemption of local ordinances. So in some ways, the explicit denial of our gun rights is WORSE than the repulsive laws that Rosa Parks contested, because the violation of our liberties is even more clear, and the consequences of "gun free zones" are in the news almost weekly.

Nobody died because they were treated like 2nd class citizens on buses. Plenty of people die because they are defenseless. The lynchings of our past don't begin to compare in numbers to the bloodbath caused by misguided gun control, or to the nightmares created in our big cities by Progressive policies. More black lives were snuffed out by urban black teens this year than were lynched in the last 50 years combined.

Like I said to Mr stolfer so called guns people are our own worst enemy. All i have seen you do is armchair qb with your posts on here, compliancy is surrendering your rights to exercise your right. Until you get off your ass and do something shut the FUCK UP!!!!!!

[Sgt.K]

Like I said to Mr stolfer so called guns people are our own worst enemy. All i have seen you do is armchair qb with your posts on here, compliancy is surrendering your rights to exercise your right. Until you get off your ass and do something shut the FUCK UP!!!!!!

Brother, you're barking up the *wrong* tree here...

[GeneCC]

Wasn't NY's Sullivan Act aimed at the flood of uncouth Irish and greasy Italian immigrants (some of whom were my forebears, FWIW)?

The Sullivan Act was written by New York Senator Tim Sullivan of Tammany Hall fame. Tammany Hall had hoodlums on the streets. They would shake down people for political contributions.

Most of the hoodlums were young Irish immigrants or ethnics, hired for their loyalty to the Tammany Hall machine.

Italian immigrants began to shoot these "workers".

Tammany Hall realized that losing staff was bad for "business". They swung into action.

The Sullivan Act gave local police broad discretion in allowing people to carry handguns, knives or other weapons.

The Sullivan Act was a criminal protection law. One could argue that most if not all gun control laws ultimately protect criminals from the consequences of their dirty work.

[allen16323]

Brother, you're barking up the *wrong* tree here...

I am one of the erie 8 all he did was bad mouth us say we hurt the cause, he is an idiot that has done nothing i have seen to further us or to stop and preemption violations I stood with the govern signing bills to further our rights didn't see his ass in a seat for a show of support!!!! He strikes me as the kind that will sit back and not act until he is the next group on the list to be rounded up.

[GeneCC]

Like I said to Mr stolfer so called guns people are our own worst enemy. All i have seen you do is armchair qb with your posts on here, compliancy is surrendering your rights to exercise your right. Until you get off your ass and do something shut the FUCK UP!!!!!!

Gun Lawyer has probably done more to help gun rights than a battalion of protesters who show up, wave flags and signs and raise heck for a few hours.

A lot of us out here do not think that protesting means much. We prefer to spend our money and time changing people's attitudes. My time is quite valuable as is Gun Lawyer's time. So working here for us shows that we mean what we say here - that you have to change people's minds.

I regret that I never went to Law School. I would enjoy busting a gun control law or to build case law that weakens it.

[GunLawyer001]

Like I said to Mr stolfer so called guns people are our own worst enemy. All i have seen you do is armchair qb with your posts on here, compliancy is surrendering your rights to exercise your right. Until you get off your ass and do something shut the FUCK UP!!!!!!

I've never met you, and frankly I have no interest in doing so. You apparently have no clue what I've done, but I'm well aware that Footnote 9 of your case has made official what I told the "activists" would happen, with my very first post here in 2006.

Go back and read it. I was right. You guys were wrong. It's OK (and adult) to admit it.

It's often the case that doing the wrong thing is worse than waiting and doing the right thing.

[GunLawyer001]

Here, I'll make life easy for those who like to check the facts themselves.

Here's the unedited first post, from December 2006, 8 years before the Erie case, where I pretty clearly state that cities can't criminalize gun possession, but they could arguably ban guns on city-owned property using their power as property owners. This was aimed at discouraging the activists from attacking "policies" in the courts, because the courts would likely go against us on the non-criminal policies.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/150...html#post15891

Here's Footnote 9 of Dillon vs City of Erie, where the court shot down the criminal statute but basically told every municipality (via dicta, which they put in for a purpose) that they probably could ban guns on municipal property if they did it without summary ordinances, just like I warned you, for free, in 2006:

9. Not raised by the City is Section 3710 of the Third Class City Code, Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, as amended, 53 P.S. § 38710, which provides, in pertinent part, that the City “shall at all times be invested with the power and authority to adopt suitable rules and regulations concerning the use and occupation of [its] parks and playgrounds by the public generally․” It could be argued that the City may be empowered under that grant of power from the State to regulate the possession of firearms in its parks pursuant to its proprietary power to control conduct that takes place on its property rather than through an ordinance of general application enacted pursuant to its general police powers. Similarly, Section 11.215 of the regulations of the Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 17 Pa.Code § 11.215, generally prohibits “[p]ossessing an uncased device, or uncasing a device, including a firearm, ․ that is capable of discharging or propelling a projectile ․” in state parks, subject to a number of enumerated exceptions.