Has gnbrotz story made the newspaper?

[LastManOut]

No flames please, just an honest question. Has anyone verified the story by gnbrotz? I would be pleased to contribute to his legal defense if true.

[Frenchy]

No flames please, just an honest question. Has anyone verified the story by gnbrotz? I would be pleased to contribute to his legal defense if true.

From what I understnad, there are a few people in his area who actually know him, second, there is a print out of the letter he got from the sheriff's office on the board.

Third, I dont think any one would be stoopid enough to cum and grab cash from 1000+ active Pennsylvania members who also happen to own GUNS!
Then again, could happen.

Sheriff's 1st letter to Greg: http://www.gnbrotz.com/images/sheriffletter.jpg

You would be more interested in this one


Sheriff's 2d letter to Greg: http://www.gnbrotz.com/images/revocation.jpg

[Philadelphia]

No flames please, just an honest question. Has anyone verified the story by gnbrotz? I would be pleased to contribute to his legal defense if true.

Whatever you think the story might or might not be (and critical thinking is always important), the truly distubing fact is that the Sheriff has admitted in his letter that he revoked the license not for any illegal conduct, but for "apparently" illegal conduct. The question has to be: "apparent" to whom?

Do you want your constitutional rights, which our forefathers shed blood to secure for us, to hinge on what some Sheriff somewhere does or doesn't believe is "apparent"?

If someone is convicted of a serious crime, sure they're a criminal; take their guns.

On the other hand, if any Sheriff just feels like taking your license because in his personal and individual say so, you've done something he personally doesn't like, he should be viewed as having committed a federal and state crime (civil rights violation under color of law) and should be fired and prosecuted.

If the Sheriff had something real, it would have been in his letter. Instead he's got a huge stinking pile of BS and he's the one who should be stewing in it, not a law abiding citizen of the Commonwealth.

[normanvin]

after gnbrotz wins. it might be a good educational note for a story to be in the paper, or somewhere.

[Zef_66]

So you believe everything you read in the newspaper as true?

[LastManOut]

A newspaper article would be a way to verify the incident happened, probably not the facts. Please understand all, I wish to "trust but verify", especially when a thing like this evokes such a strong response.

[Frenchy]

A newspaper article would be a way to verify the incident happened, probably not the facts. Please understand all, I wish to "trust but verify", especially when a thing like this evokes such a strong response.

Believe me, if this where not true, the Sheriff would be the FIRST to seek him out

[DaveM55]

In today's world asking for verification is a very smart thing to do. I have seen scams on many different forums. It's very easy to get caught up in a situation with a lot of emotion.

That being said the letters posted here are evidence enough for me.
If that's not enough call the sheriff and see what he says. A "no comment" from him would be ample verification for me.

I'm behind you 100% gnbrotz!

[Roscoe]

I think "last man out" was looking for

What kind of { involvement} and what was the "apparent illegal manner"


"the reason for the Revocation is your involvement in which a gun was used by you in an apparent illegal manner"

And it would be best to here it from the sheriff

[carterbeauford]

I would believe it less if I read it in any of the papers around here.

I think a good time for the public to learn about this would be when the Sheriff resigns