Beggar: Leu?
Clouseau: What?
Beggar: You say, it's against the leu?
Clouseau: Yes. Unless you have a proper license.
Beggar: What kind of license?
Posted on 11/29/2014 3:29:48 PM PST by Second Amendment First
“Just more posturing by more slaves too scared to have the courage of their convictions. “
It certainly seems that way. If I went out somewhere with a gun no one would take it away from me. Big IF there. I WOULD NOT GO OUT INTO ANY SITUATION WITH A GUN AS A PROP!
Beggar: Leu?
Clouseau: What?
Beggar: You say, it's against the leu?
Clouseau: Yes. Unless you have a proper license.
Beggar: What kind of license?
That would be my only question in this matter. I'm guessing that MO, like virtually every other state licenses and regulates the private security industry. While the merits of doing so can be debated, if that is the case, and if any of these oathkeepers took any kind of compensation to stand guard over a certain structure or business, then they would in fact, be undercutting every other private security company in the state that complied with all the red tape and licensing.
My understanding is they were all volunteers, and if so, I agree with everything else in your post. If I want to go stand guard in my neighborhood after a hurricane, and I'm on my neighbor's property at their invitation, no license should be necessary.
A license to do what, exactly? Issued by whom? Approved by whom? Overseen by whom? How does one apply? What are the criteria for approval? For denial? For renewal? For revocation?
This sounds like the usual 'permit' excuse used to shut down parades, lemonade stands, bake sales, you name it.
It sounds officious and is obviously used as a threat but isn't it a case of police misquoting, misapplying the law or simply making it up?
It’s Oathtakers vs. Oathbreakers, son.
That is a sucker bet.
What did you expect them to do? Get into a fire fight with the police?
For evil to win, good men do nothing, but it happens faster when good men to bad things...Like shutting down Oath Keepers,
Notice that the about-face came AFTER a reporter asked questions...
Hmmm..
Yep
I guess the presstitutes are an arm of the just us department now?
So..do these people have a license?
The law abiding citizen is the one they[ the police] want to control. They are the ones that pays their salaries. they are the ones that, through their labors which are taxed to the braking point, keep the Government operation. they are the ones that the police will use deadly force against to control. The police care nothing about controlling the criminal and parasite element. There is no benefit to controlling them. It is the law abiding tax paying working citizen they intend to keep their boot on the neck of.
I guess I need a “License to Operate”
Wallet-sized card.
Yeah, it is time for all of us to get our License To Operate cards.
On the other hand, perhaps we should all Operate Without Licenses.
There is not a bad situation that will not be made worse by involving the police. And that includes rioting.
If armed citizens were allowed to take out a few of the perpetually offended you can be damn well sure that the looting would have stopped RIGHT NOW.
But they are “his people” - take your pick the guy in the White Hut or over at Dept of Injustice.
I'm in!
I am not convinced that the reports are accurate. This may be an effort to discredit Oath Keepers (OK) or conservatives in general, or it may be an error. I’ll wait for more information.
You can lawfully open carry anywhere in the state, and you can lawfully carry on private property with the owner’s permission. The police had no authority to intervene, and I suspect OK leaders knew that. There are a lot of options that could have led to this report and would not reflect badly on OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.