 |
The Public Opinion Soapbox
Welcome to the Public Opinion's community message board. You must be registered to post, and all posts are subject to moderation by our staff.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 490
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| so when did this rouzer guy cross from being a responsible gun owner to not being one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simply based on the media coverage, I'd say it was when he made the decision to carry it to the other guy's house, then aim at him and pull the trigger in an apparent attempt to resolve whatever dispute they had.
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well i'm just glad there are no other potential criminals that own guns. now that rouzer's in jail all gun owners are responsible right? i thought that's why we should feel safe that all these people have guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd imagine that Mr. Walters is quite glad he had his own firearm at hand to defend himself. Mr. Rouzer should be thankful too, as he may well have been facing a murder charge if Mr. Walters had not been prepared to defend himself, rather than attempted murder as he is now.
Of course, he's quite fortunate he's around to face any charges at all.
BTW....anyone that has a pulse (including law enforcement officers) is a "potential criminal". Maybe we should outlaw cars because of all the potential drunks in the community.
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties.
Last edited by armed_citizen on Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, good point, for a second i was about to think that easy access to guns allowed rouzer to do this
(sorry for the thick sarcasm, I'm glad to have someone who like you who is very respectful) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm....I have 'easy access' to firearms (I'm actually armed as I type this), yet I'm not blasting away at your avatar on my monitor because we seem to disagree....not sure how to explain that. Any thoughts?
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just curious if there's any reason the PO thought it prudent to 're-run' the old story on LTCF revocation/reinstatement when it was already referenced in the AP piece?
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guess it makes sense now. It was a foundation for today's brilliant editorial. This forum provides more flexibility for quoting and point-by-point rebuttal than Topix, so I'm going to post my thoughts here. Also, generally speaking, the crowd here seems a little more....mentally stable?
On Topix, I would have posted the following comments under my real name, so in the interest of full discloser and avoiding sock puppetry: armed_citizen is Greg Rotz.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
Another Pennsylvania sheriff has revoked another citizen's concealed gun permit outside Pittsburgh, setting up another courtroom showdown similar to the one in Franklin County in January.
|
The story here is not that another Sheriff has revoked another LTCF. This happens very frequently, and usually for good reason. In 2006, according to PSP reports, 2,318 Licenses To Carry Firearms and/or Sportsman's Firearms Permits were revoked. What we don't know is how many of these are justified, the specific reason each was revoked, how many were appealed, and the outcome of those appeals.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
Except this time, instead of merely seeking the return of his permit, the plaintiff intends to challenge the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania gun law that gives sheriffs the power to revoke permits based on their judgment of character and reputation.
|
Exactly what is the problem with that? I think the real constitutional question is whether or not a citizen can have their LTCF arbitrarily revoked without a clear and just reason for doing so. In addition to the 'character and reputation' provision, Title 18 §6109(e) has a list of offenses which provides for revocation if someone is convicted of them. Not arrested for. Not charged with. CONVICTED of. Arguably, these are more serious offenses than some arbitrary circumstance for which a Sheriff must stretch to the extreme of using the 'character clause'. It only makes sense that some due process would be afforded a licensee before a revocation be issued.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
We see nothing inherently wrong with vesting such power in a local, popularly-elected official. After all, we elect people and send them to Harrisburg and Washington, D.C., to make far-reaching decisions on behalf of the common good, and many aren't nearly as familiar with their constituents as your average county sheriff.
|
Any evidence to back up that assertion? I have frequently contacted my elected state and federal representatives to express my opinions on matters which are before them. I have never contacted my county Sheriff to lobby for or against any position his office has, nor has he consulted me. Sheriff Wollyung had never spoken to me in person, and did not even contact the references provided on my LTCF application. So much for being 'familiar' enough with me to make a character judgement.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
But we have to wonder whether it's time to update state law to provide more specific justifications for concealed carry permit revocations, if only to provide sheriffs a stronger defense against those who cloak their desire to erode gun control in the guise of personal freedom.
|
I have to wonder whether it's time to update state law to provide more specific justifications for LTCF revocations, if only to provide citizen's a stronger defense against those who cloak their desire to advance gun control in the guise of authority.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
The character and reputation clause exists in this context to give sheriffs the means to preempt potentially deadly trouble in the absence of an incontrovertible reason for permit revocation.
|
If such “deadly trouble” is imminent, the validity of a plastic card will do nothing to stop it. If the party is in custody for such actions, again, the validity of a plastic card makes no difference. The removal of the 'character and reputation' clause from the law will not lead to an increase in crime. Having a LTCF does not grant permission or immunity to someone using a firearm to commit a crime. Improperly revoking one does leave an innocent citizen far less equipped to defend themselves if necessary, unless at their residence or place of business.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
And it's impossible to anticipate every possible context in which it makes sense to make sure certain people can't carry concealed firearms. To some extent, the vagueness of the character and reputation clause is necessary.
|
How misguided. Quantifying when to limit the carrying of firearms is very simple. It's always permissible to carry for a lawful purpose (ie – self defense). It's never permissible to carry for an unlawful purpose. Simply carrying a firearm should never be a crime. It's what is done with the firearm that constitutes criminality.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
Our state lawmakers carry the politically unenviable burden of determining that extent, and putting it into law.
|
It almost sounds like you pity them, or think we should just accept such poorly worded and vague pieces of legislation. Let's not forget: they ASKED for the job.
| Matthew Major wrote: |
Law enforcement needs all the help it can get when it comes to preventing gun violence, and sheriffs should not be a position -- thanks in part to precedent established here in Franklin County -- where they cannot trust their professional judgments to withstand the advocacy of the gun lobby.
|
Sheriffs are bound by the same laws and limits and the citizens. Many of them carry out their duties in an admirable fashion and deserve our utmost respect. This is not about the “gun lobby” vs. Sheriffs. It's about law-abiding citizens vs. law-ignoring officials.
The only 'precedent' set here in Franklin County was a practical one: Exceed your authority and you will be challenged (probably successfully). A precedent is binding authority that some other court is obliged to follow. Since the only court below Common Pleas is the local District Justice, and since all appeals from revocations of LTCF's go directly to Common Pleas, this decision will have no binding legal impact. Other Common Pleas courts are not bound by this case, and the appellate courts are only bound by statutes and the PA Supreme Court. It can't be cited in any legal case other than a future revocation of my LTCF for the same incident, which I don't foresee as likely to happen.
When you have opposing counsel arguing in your favor, and stating in open court, “It's not going to be the policy of Sheriff Anthony's administration to arbitrarily use the power of the sheriff lightly. And with regards to this particular situation, I don't know that the same result would have affected if, in fact, Sheriff Anthony had been in charge” it seems quite clear that not ALL Sheriffs would take the same action in the same situation. Also, the notable absence of Robert Wollyung himself was very telling. Out of office or not, if he felt so strongly about his position and resulting actions, you'd think he would have been anxious to speak out on the matter publicly.
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coppy
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2265
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Armed, I have to say that your knowledge of the gun laws, both federally and within in this state are unprecedented; that's something you should take into account. Your knowledge on this subject would challenge, in my estimation, any private attorney literally specializing in these sort of cases. And a journalists job is to report a story as they see it and as factually as possible, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are not the utmost expert in that field. I think you did a respectable service in your counter-argument.
I know next to nothing about gun laws, gun ownership or anything to do with firearms; I am not a gun owner and I will never be. But I do know one thing I consider to be important... the constitution. And I have to say that your knowledge on the subject is refreshing, if not a bit overwhelming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.45chel
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2748
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Armed_Citizen pwn'd Mr. Major
_________________
I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnonyMouse
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For a Major, he sure don't know much about guns.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.45chel
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2748
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in the rear with the gear
_________________
I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mavis
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We sure spend a lot of time on this site congratulating ourselves on our brilliance!! But there are many v iews on every issue. Mr. Major has a right to his and I admire his guts in presenting it although I'm sure he expected to be blasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnonyMouse
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mavis wrote: | | We sure spend a lot of time on this site congratulating ourselves on our brilliance!! But there are many v iews on every issue. Mr. Major has a right to his and I admire his guts in presenting it although I'm sure he expected to be blasted. |
Coppy's the brilliant one. And Armed Citizen seems exceptionally well informed on the gun rights issue. The rest of us just pitch in our two cents.  I'm glad you do too.
I definitely agree that there are many views on this issue. I for one support some reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. We have restrictions on most every potentially dangerous activity so it doesn't seem unreasonable to have some limits on this as well.
So while I don't see eye-to-eye with Armed, I do love the constitution and I believe that for its health we need people who are passionately committed to the freedoms spelled out there - even when we don't agree with their positions. People in this area demonize the ACLU, but again, I think it's vital to the health of our constitution to have people passionately defend the fringe areas; areas where they see infringement on rights that many of us would tend to ignore as unimportant. I don't support flag burning, but I support those who defend the underlying freedom that allows it.
In a healthy democracy, there will be passionate defenders of both ends of the spectrum on nearly every issue. So while Armed strongly rejects what he sees as infringements on the second amendment, there is someone on the other side who would like to seen guns completely banned. It's the tension between these two sides that keeps our country healthy. We all hate the tension, but it's the key to our success as a nation. And I think we work for a balance here - we just try not to be nasty about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.45chel
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2748
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As usual, AnonyMouse is far more eloquent than I, but I have absolutely no self-control so I'm throwing my change in.
Mavis,
I hardly think we blasted Mr. Major. We goof around and we're commenting on something besides where to eat, drink and shop. I thought you'd be happy. Why can't we please you Mavis?
BTW, I heard on the morning news that the VA snipers were driving a Gremlin.
_________________
I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
