 |
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 |
armed_citizen
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 233
Location: Chambersburg, PA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Coppy wrote: | 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. |
Coppy, I thank you for your compliment. I hope I don't come across as a 'know-it-all'. The wealth of information should certainly not be credited to myself alone. I have learned much (and still have much to learn) from another bulletin board I frequent. There, gun owners from all over the state can share their experiences and knowledge of the law. These folks include LEOs and attorneys. The paragraph about legal precedent was from one of those attorneys as we were discussing what precedent (if any) was established by my win. I think I spent about 30 minutes double-checking sources, etc. to make sure my statements were accurate. While basing an opinion on solid information makes that opinion appear more credible, having the facts right is much more important when stories are reported as 'news'. The bulk of legal questions regarding firearms can be answered by a single PA statute, which is readily available on the internet. There should be no excuse for sloppy fact-checking (assuming that's even done anymore).
I've certainly absorbed alot over the last six months, mostly out of necessity. I must confess that there are some who's knowledge makes me look like a babbling idiot. I'm fortunate enough to be able to remember key points and to track down the specifics I wish to articulate when useful in situations like the rebuttal I composed.
I must say that I believe the actual reporting of my case was pretty decent (better than I expected actually) - especially that of Jim Hook. Should I ever be in a position that warranted media coverage again, I would speak to Mr. Hook without hesitation.
What amazed me most of all is the sheer volume of fallacies and assumptions contained in the online comments - some even from fellow gun-owners. That's part of the reason that I feel the need to speak out when such glaring errors make it into print. There are Sheriffs out there who provide a handout with LTCF and propagate information contrary to the law. Whether intentional or not, this misinformation gets handed down and simply accepted as fact. No one ever considers perhaps they should investigate for themselves. Online commenters thought certain things were illegal when they were not, and also stated that some things were permissable, though they do indeed violate state law. At one point I was keeping a list of these items to correct when I was able to finally speak publicly about the situation. The list grew impossibly long, and of course, most of the commenters quickly moved on to the new 'hot topic du jour', so the idea was abandoned.
When I saw mention of the Gary Young story posted on another board, I immediately checked to see if his number was listed (it was) and gave him a call. I've spent several hours on the phone with him, provided him with copies of all of my own court documents (he began the appeal process on his own), and assisted him in finding an attorney that was knowledgeable of and sympathetic to firearms legalities. His situation is far more complex than mine, and I won't go into all of that. I believe that if the story as related to me is true, he will prevail in his appeal.
I also believe I've already seen evidence of the 'practical precedent' my case has set. Shortly after my matter concluded, another party in Susquehanna county had his (first time) application for a LTCF denied. The reason the Sheriff gave was that someone reported seeing this gentleman openly carrying a firearm on his own property (which is absolutely legal to do, even without a license). The man was a fellow-member at the site where I received the majority of my support. We immediately began to raise funds for an attorney. After counsel was retained, the appeal filed, and plans underway for a show of support at the hearing, suddenly the Sheriff wanted to talk (despite prior refusals for an 'unofficial' discussion of the matter). In the end, the Sheriff said there had been a 'clerical error' and he issued the license rather than proceed to court. We absolutely believe that my case had a strong bearing on this change in thinking.
I certainly believe that the large majority of LTCF revocations are proper, but if there is even one per year that is not, it should be rigorously challenged to the full extent provided under the law. In these cases, I will do everything I can to assist when I am aware of such a need.
| AnonyMouse wrote: | | 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. |
I agree with Mavis that Mr. Major has every right to express his views, just as I have the right to rebut them. I doubt strongly the he and I have much in common when it comes to firearms issues, but it's also important to remember that he's doing a job, and what he writes may exceed or exaggerate his own personal beliefs.
AnonyMouse, I consider you to be a great American. You clearly understand that it's not about insisting that everyone agree. It's realizing that disagreement doesn't make us enemies. I encourage everyone who disagrees with me to do the same thing I am doing: get actively involved in supporting your position - that's what America is all about.
_________________
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 |
|
 |
AnonyMouse
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| armed_citizen wrote: |
AnonyMouse, I consider you to be a great American. You clearly understand that it's not about insisting that everyone agree. It's realizing that disagreement doesn't make us enemies. I encourage everyone who disagrees with me to do the same thing I am doing: get actively involved in supporting your position - that's what America is all about. |
Thanks, man. |
|
| 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
