MTN Jack ARRESTED for OC near Obama rally site!

[Mike]

After browsing 51 pages, this is what I have to say...

NUTS!!!

Alright, not really.

For those that don't know, in order to be charged with any crime, a crime has to have been commited. There was none.

THIS JUST IN! OpenCarry.org has obtained a video of Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Shawn L. Schexnaildre on the job, investigating future crimes:

Video at http://tinyurl.com/5eus6b

Second Video at http://tinyurl.com/5h224x is in German - OpenCarry.org has not yet determined which language State Police Trooper Shawn L. Schexnaildre actually uses primarly on the job as he patrols Pennsylvania keeping it safe from future crimes. It is believed though that Trooper Schexnaildre speaks English fluently.

--

NOTE 1: In the story at http://www.timesonline.com/articles/...e040519053.txt
, note how Trooper Shawn L. Schexnaildre notes that in Pennsylvania having a political agenda is now an element of a crime. And postings on web sites to encourage others to meet in a park is nefarious, not protected by First Amendment freedom of assembly. Interestingly, there is no crime in Pennsylvania of merely "intending" to disrupt a meeting - here is the actual statute, entirely inapplicable to people merely assembling in a park where no meeting is being held:

"18 Pa. C.S. § 5508. Disrupting meetings and processions

A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he [actually] disturbs or interrupts it."

A Pennsylvania court in Commonwealth . v. Siwert reversed a jury trial gulty verdict for a violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 5508 where a woman was proved to have interupted a church minister for 5 minutes and refused to leave the prmises, holding that "[t]hough willful, [disturbing behavior] will not constitute an offense if it is done in the reasonable exercise of a right.” 4 Pa. D. & C.3d 589, 596, 1977 WL 461, 4 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1977) (citing 2 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, §813, 674-76 (Anderson Ed. 1957)).

--

Note 2: Now as for the Disorderly Conduct charge, Trooper Schexnaildre justifies this charge against Mr. Noble merely because, he alleges, "Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him." Bill Vidonic, Industry man charged with disorderly conduct, Beaver County Times, September 5, 2008.

"18 Pa.C.S. § 5503. Disorderly conduct

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public."

But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has emphasized repeatedly that "the offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as a catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people; it is not to be used as a dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community." E.g., Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943, 947 (Pa. 1999) (reversing disorderly conduct conviction for uttering profamity at police officer in public).

Further, judicial scrutiny of a disorderly conduct conviction does not end where conviction is proper under the statute - a subsequent constitutional analysis is applied to determine if the application of the statute interferes in the Constitutioal rights of the accused, i.e., to assembly, speak, and carry a gun. Without any doubt, carrying a bible and holstered gun is "expressive conduct."

"The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992) (holding disorderly conduct conviction unconstitutional) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003).(holding Virginia statute making all cross burning presumptively unlawful as facially invalid because "[t]he First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech").

"Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny." United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 726 (1990) (emphasis added). Further, the First "Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 18 (1945).

[Robert Kayland]

Just out of curiosity, which law (statute, case, or otherwise) are you relying on for your definitions?

You Philadelphia/outhouse lawyers are really getting tedious... the man showed up with a gun and Bible and was near enough the event so that a reasonable person could make the statement he was "at the rally", as apparently the local and state police did.

We're all in 100% agreement that in our minds no crime was committed, and hopefully that's the way the judge will see it.

But if you guys are planning on defending his actions because he was not "at the rally", you've got a weak case. We all know full well he was there to represent a message... in our minds a valid and righteous message... and he was close enough to the proceedings to be considered "at the rally".

And I got news for all of you "100 yards means nothing" nellies... if a judge decides that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm at, in, over, on or anywhere NEAR the rally, all of your "city block" sophistries here won't amount to a hill of beans.

You guys that don't want to admit the immaterial aspect of "at" versus "near" are the ones who "just don't get it".

So just STHU and kick in to the defense fund so that our man can get a fair fight... hopefully.

Whats next? A hunter who lives 300 yards from where a political rally is happening being arrested because he carried his rifle out his door to head out to his hunting camp? Or pre-emptively arresting anyone that even owns a hunting rifle and lives in the same city as the event?

Sounds like an interesting situation... how about you walk within 300 yards of the next Obama rally with a hunting rifle w/scope and let us know how it works out for you.

(Sheesh! And people are trying to say I "don't get it"!)

[LittleRedToyota]

You guys that don't want to admit the immaterial aspect of "at" versus "near" are the ones who "just don't get it".

no, you do not seem to "get" that we live in a land of rule of law. not rule of "common sense". not rule of what the police think. not even rule of a judge's opinion (that's why we have appeals courts...in case some abusive judge forgets that we actually live in a land of rule of law).

if a judge decides that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm at, in, over, on or anywhere NEAR the rally, all of your "city block" sophistries here won't amount to a hill of beans.

you clearly do not understand how our system works. it is not the role of a judge to decide "should he or should he not have done X". it is the role of a judge (or jury) to decide "was a law broken".

in the event a judge does stray from this...the appeals court comes into play.

So just STHU

unless you can cite some law to back up your contentions, you should prolly be the one to STHU.

(actually, no one should STHU, but since you decided to go down that road...)

really, though...if you want to be taken seriously, you need to cite some statutory or at least binding case law.

[ExtremeDooty]

I've been lurking here since the Dickson City incident. Being from Colorado, I felt that registering here would be something like crashing a party where I wasn't invited. However, I've read every post in the DC thread and this one and viewed all the videos posted by Lildobe. I think that alone qualifies me to post here even if I don't live in Pennsylvania.

Like most here, I support Law Enforcement, but I get very disturbed when LEOs overstep their bounds, making illegal arrests and seizures and trumping up charges to try and cover up their mistakes. A whole lot of trouble (and by this I mean the Gorilla) could be avoided if these LEOs would just admit they were wrong and apologize for their mistake. You guys have a legal response team that FEMA could take lessons from.

I spend a lot of time on gun forums (some would say too much), but I identify more with this one than any other as well as spending more time here. Most people on other forums "talk the talk" but here, many of you "walk the walk" like Mtn Jack and those involved in Dickson City. While I probably won't be able to show my support by going to any OC dinners, I can show my support by posting and donating to the legal defense funds whenever needed.

I have a feeling that there are many lurkers from other states that are hesitant to join like I was. I would like to encourage them to join and support this forum. While the NRA, GOA and others fight the "big fights," you are fighting at the grass roots level, police depts, State Patrol, and city councils. When individual LEOs and small city councils find that they will have to pay from their own pockets for violating the Constution, other LEOs and politicians will sit up and take notice. And this may be more important than anything the NRA and others accomplish.

Not trying to hijack this thread, it was just the last straw for me.
Carry on.

[mjfletcher]

You Philadelphia/outhouse lawyers are really getting tedious... the man showed up with a gun and Bible and was near enough the event so that a reasonable person could make the statement he was "at the rally", as apparently the local and state police did.

Based on the distance the state police gave, your claims of 'reasonable person assuming' mean someone standing on his front porch a block away was at the rally since that is within 100 yards.

We're all in 100% agreement that in our minds no crime was committed, and hopefully that's the way the judge will see it.

There is nothing "in our minds" about it. There is no law against OC, there is no law against possessing a firearm when a politician is in town, there is no law against possessing a firearm outside of a political event (which whether you like it or not, he was outside the event as per the perimeter set up by the secret service for the event). There is no law against anything he was doing. That means, as per the law not "in our minds," no crime was committed.

But if you guys are planning on defending his actions because he was not "at the rally", you've got a weak case. We all know full well he was there to represent a message... in our minds a valid and righteous message... and he was close enough to the proceedings to be considered "at the rally".

There is a world of difference between "considered" and "actually." According to the secret service, the people in charge of security at the rally, he was not at it. If he was, he would be in their custody right now.

And I got news for all of you "100 yards means nothing" nellies... if a judge decides that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm at, in, over, on or anywhere NEAR the rally, all of your "city block" sophistries here won't amount to a hill of beans.

No law against carrying a gun near a rally, if a judge finds him guilty of that it will be overturned on appeal. No law against means not illegal which means no guilty verdict.

You guys that don't want to admit the immaterial aspect of "at" versus "near" are the ones who "just don't get it".

"at" vs "near" is far from immaterial, it is the heart of the matter. The secret service set up a perimeter that defined where the event was happening. Either he was inside that perimeter, and under jurisdiction of the USSS and federal law, or he was outside of it and under jurisdiction of local/state LEO and PA law. The USSS already said he was not in the event area, so PA law applies.

So just STHU and kick in to the defense fund so that our man can get a fair fight... hopefully.

The attack in your first sentence, and this sentence are why you got neg rep from me. Regardless of your opinion, he was not in the secure area making him completely under jurisdiction of PA law. Unless you can show what PA law he violated, no crime was committed.

Sounds like an interesting situation... how about you walk within 300 yards of the next Obama rally with a hunting rifle w/scope and let us know how it works out for you.

If I was a hunter, lived 300 yards from where a rally was happening, and had already planned to leave on a hunting trip that day I would. Of course, you twisted the question I asked from "leaving on a hunting trip" to "walking towards the rally," two distinctly different situations.

(Sheesh! And people are trying to say I "don't get it"!)

You're the one who refuses to accept that even the Secret Service said he was outside the event area, meaning he was outside the secure perimeter, in the area where PA law applies, and that under PA law he committed no crime.

[pirateron]

I've been lurking here since the Dickson City incident. Being from Colorado, I felt that registering here would be something like crashing a party where I wasn't invited. However, I've read every post in the DC thread and this one and viewed all the videos posted by Lildobe. I think that alone qualifies me to post here even if I don't live in Pennsylvania.

Like most here, I support Law Enforcement, but I get very disturbed when LEOs overstep their bounds, making illegal arrests and seizures and trumping up charges to try and cover up their mistakes. A whole lot of trouble (and by this I mean the Gorilla) could be avoided if these LEOs would just admit they were wrong and apologize for their mistake. You guys have a legal response team that FEMA could take lessons from.

I spend a lot of time on gun forums (some would say too much), but I identify more with this one than any other as well as spending more time here. Most people on other forums "talk the talk" but here, many of you "walk the walk" like Mtn Jack and those involved in Dickson City. While I probably won't be able to show my support by going to any OC dinners, I can show my support by posting and donating to the legal defense funds whenever needed.

I have a feeling that there are many lurkers from other states that are hesitant to join like I was. I would like to encourage them to join and support this forum. While the NRA, GOA and others fight the "big fights," you are fighting at the grass roots level, police depts, State Patrol, and city councils. When individual LEOs and small city councils find that they will have to pay from their own pockets for violating the Constution, other LEOs and politicians will sit up and take notice. And this may be more important than anything the NRA and others accomplish.

Not trying to hijack this thread, it was just the last straw for me.
Carry on.

Welcome aboard.. Some very interesting reading here, no doubt.

[1861]

well said and welcome to the forum extreme dooty

[mjfletcher]

I've been lurking here since the Dickson City incident. Being from Colorado, I felt that registering here would be something like crashing a party where I wasn't invited. However, I've read every post in the DC thread and this one and viewed all the videos posted by Lildobe. I think that alone qualifies me to post here even if I don't live in Pennsylvania.

Like most here, I support Law Enforcement, but I get very disturbed when LEOs overstep their bounds, making illegal arrests and seizures and trumping up charges to try and cover up their mistakes. A whole lot of trouble (and by this I mean the Gorilla) could be avoided if these LEOs would just admit they were wrong and apologize for their mistake. You guys have a legal response team that FEMA could take lessons from.

I spend a lot of time on gun forums (some would say too much), but I identify more with this one than any other as well as spending more time here. Most people on other forums "talk the talk" but here, many of you "walk the walk" like Mtn Jack and those involved in Dickson City. While I probably won't be able to show my support by going to any OC dinners, I can show my support by posting and donating to the legal defense funds whenever needed.

I have a feeling that there are many lurkers from other states that are hesitant to join like I was. I would like to encourage them to join and support this forum. While the NRA, GOA and others fight the "big fights," you are fighting at the grass roots level, police depts, State Patrol, and city councils. When individual LEOs and small city councils find that they will have to pay from their own pockets for violating the Constution, other LEOs and politicians will sit up and take notice. And this may be more important than anything the NRA and others accomplish.

Not trying to hijack this thread, it was just the last straw for me.
Carry on.

Welcome to the forum.You should have registered sooner, just beacuse the name is PAFOA doesnt mean you have to be from PA to join. You support 2A rights, you're qualified to be a member and post freely. We love seeing out-of-staters here, it shows us that word is spreading and we're having an impact, and that means that people in other states might follow our lead.

Again, welcome to the forum and enjoy your stay. You got rep coming for your post, sometimes we forget that the "big dawgs" have a larger yard to patrol than we do.

[NineseveN]

I've been lurking here since the Dickson City incident. Being from Colorado, I felt that registering here would be something like crashing a party where I wasn't invited. However, I've read every post in the DC thread and this one and viewed all the videos posted by Lildobe. I think that alone qualifies me to post here even if I don't live in Pennsylvania.

Like most here, I support Law Enforcement, but I get very disturbed when LEOs overstep their bounds, making illegal arrests and seizures and trumping up charges to try and cover up their mistakes. A whole lot of trouble (and by this I mean the Gorilla) could be avoided if these LEOs would just admit they were wrong and apologize for their mistake. You guys have a legal response team that FEMA could take lessons from.

I spend a lot of time on gun forums (some would say too much), but I identify more with this one than any other as well as spending more time here. Most people on other forums "talk the talk" but here, many of you "walk the walk" like Mtn Jack and those involved in Dickson City. While I probably won't be able to show my support by going to any OC dinners, I can show my support by posting and donating to the legal defense funds whenever needed.

I have a feeling that there are many lurkers from other states that are hesitant to join like I was. I would like to encourage them to join and support this forum. While the NRA, GOA and others fight the "big fights," you are fighting at the grass roots level, police depts, State Patrol, and city councils. When individual LEOs and small city councils find that they will have to pay from their own pockets for violating the Constution, other LEOs and politicians will sit up and take notice. And this may be more important than anything the NRA and others accomplish.

Not trying to hijack this thread, it was just the last straw for me.
Carry on.

We have plenty of people from outside the Keystone state, there's no reason to roll up the welcome mat for our brethren outside of the border here, welcome to the site. We don't do selective invites to the party.

BTW, that's a solid first post if I ever saw one.

[NineseveN]

You Philadelphia/outhouse lawyers are really getting tedious... the man showed up with a gun and Bible and was near enough the event so that a reasonable person could make the statement he was "at the rally", as apparently the local and state police did.

We're all in 100% agreement that in our minds no crime was committed, and hopefully that's the way the judge will see it.

But if you guys are planning on defending his actions because he was not "at the rally", you've got a weak case. We all know full well he was there to represent a message... in our minds a valid and righteous message... and he was close enough to the proceedings to be considered "at the rally".

And I got news for all of you "100 yards means nothing" nellies... if a judge decides that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm at, in, over, on or anywhere NEAR the rally, all of your "city block" sophistries here won't amount to a hill of beans.

You guys that don't want to admit the immaterial aspect of "at" versus "near" are the ones who "just don't get it".

So just STHU and kick in to the defense fund so that our man can get a fair fight... hopefully.



Sounds like an interesting situation... how about you walk within 300 yards of the next Obama rally with a hunting rifle w/scope and let us know how it works out for you.

(Sheesh! And people are trying to say I "don't get it"!)

Dude, I of all people, realize the occasional necessity to get down and dirty in an argument that winds up in the trenches, but your animosity and insult is unfortunately misplaced here. I don't see what provoked the level of response that you provided in this post. I'll take Lysander's legal thoughts 10 times over your armchair opinion any day of the week. And that's not to insult you, but being able to read a statute doesn't make one an attorney or even an expert on the law, there's a reason why lawyers go through the amount of schooling they do, it's just not as simple as knowing the law, you have to know how the law works, how court procedure plays out and what constitutes a valid legal argument and not just the citing of the words in a statute. Perhaps you should give some long and hard thought about the value of the opinions of actual attorneys on a forum that takes the subject of rights and the law seriously, because while shitting on the welcome mat might give you a rush of the awesomes, it's not really the way to encourage the kind of help we do get from the various attorneys on this site. It's one thing to disagree, even with an attorney about the law, but to become adversarial over not liking the information given is simply juvenile.

If you neither want nor need that help or insight, I can assure you that you are in the minority, and if that truly be the case, then perhaps you're the one that should exercise some restraint when it comes to your mind meeting the keyboard.