Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
By Vin Suprynowicz
For years, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over the sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.
Residents say officials grew dissatisfied with their existing easement, and announced they were going to excavate a new sewer line across the landowner's property. Capt. Chris Ricks of the Missouri Highway Patrol reports Watson's wife, Linda, was served with "easement right-of-way papers" on Sept. 6. She gave the papers to Watson when he got home at 5 a.m. the next morning from his job at a car battery recycling plant northeast of Bunker. Watson reportedly went to bed for a short time, but arose about 7 a.m. when the city work crew arrived.
"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan told me last week. "Then the three city workers showed up with a backhoe, plus a police officer. They'd sent along a cop in a cop car to guard the workers, because they were afraid there might be trouble. Watson had gone inside for a little while, but then he came out and pulled his SKS (semi-automatic rifle) out of his truck, steadied it against the truck, and he shot them."
Killed in the September 7 incident, from a range of about 85 yards, were Rocky B. Gordon, 34, a city maintenance man, and David Thompson, 44, an alderman who supervised public works. City maintenance worker Delmar Eugene Dunn, 51, remained in serious but stable condition the following weekend.
Bunker police Officer Steve Stoops, who drove away from the scene after being shot, was treated and released from a hospital for a bullet wound to his arm and a graze to the neck.
Watson thereupon kissed his wife goodbye, took his rifle, and disappeared into the woods, where his body was found two days later -- dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Following such incidents, the local papers are inevitably filled with well-meaning but mawkish doggerel about the townsfolk "pulling together" and attempting to "heal" following the "tragedy." There are endless expressions of frustration, pretending to ask how such an otherwise peaceful member of the community could "just snap like that."
In fact, the supposedly elusive explanation is right before our eyes.
"He was pushed," Clarence Rosemann -- manager of the local Bunker convenience store, who'd done some excavation work for Watson -- told the big-city reporters from St. Louis. Another area resident, who didn't want to be identified, told the visiting newsmen, "Most people are understanding why Garry Watson was upset. They are wishing he didn't do it, but they are understanding why he did it."
You see, to most of the people who work in government and the media these days -- especially in our urban centers -- "private property" is a concept out of some dusty, 18th century history book. Oh, sure, "property owners" are allowed to live on their land, so long as they pay rent to the state in the form of "property taxes."
But an actual "right" to be let alone on our land to do whatever we please -- always providing we don't actually endanger the lives or health of our neighbors?
Heavens! If we allowed that, how would we enforce all our wonderful new "environmental protection" laws, or the "zoning codes," or the laws against growing hemp or tobacco or distilling whisky without a license, or any of the endless parade of other malum prohibitum decrees which have multiplied like swarms of flying ants in this nation over the past 87 years?
What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors?
In his 1985 book "Takings," University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein wrote that, "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification.
Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."
"Unfortunately," replies James Bovard, author of the book "Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen," "federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors are making private property much less private. ...
Park Forest, Ill. in 1994 enacted an ordinance that authorizes warrantless searches of every single-family rental home by a city inspector or police officer, who are authorized to invade rental units 'at all reasonable times.' ... Federal Judge Joan Gottschall struck down the searches as unconstitutional in 1998, but her decision will have little or no effect on the numerous other localities that authorize similar invasions of privacy."
We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason." No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise.
Here's where you were unclear. I asked:
Do you have the right to carry a gun in a vehicle?
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
-- The question remains, does your employers attempt to prohibit arms in vehicles meet with your approval?
You said you agreed with the GA bill. Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
-- The question remains, does your employers attempt to prohibit arms in vehicles meet with your approval?
If the deed mentions a pre-existing easement, that means that even though you bought that property, you cannot use that portion of the property represented by the easement. That information is clearly stated on plats in town offices, on official surveys, and in deeds, when land is purchased.
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
A condition of employment is that I obey the rules of my boss. He has the right to not allow me on the property if I don't obey his rules.
You said you agreed with the GA bill. Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Not a daffy inference. I read the bill, did you? My employer is not in GA but if we had that state law, he would be allowed to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property. His policy is in strict agreement with the proposed GA law and in strict agreement with my position as stated to you prior to my reading the bill.
We agree on the easements and I did not mean to imply you did not understand them.
I would have issue with them telling you what you can or cannot build on your property if such restrictions did not exist prior to purchase.
Like I said... every person has to find their center and sadly there appear to be a few freepers who think any infringment by government on their property should be met with bullets. I am glad I am not the poor guy who has to read their meter!
--I am glad I am not the poor guy who has to read their meter!--
Fortunately, most of these guys live out their frustrated lives in a somewhat normal manner only acting out their frustrations by banging on their keyboard.
Thanks DC.. But we all know Luis thinks he's above the rules..
He's even convinced himself that employers can stop employees from carrying arms in their vehicles.
Property rights trump our RKBA's in his mind.
"Likely". We do not have enough information about the case. We do not know exactly what made this man snap and go berserk.
Maybe I've been paying attention for too long, but I simply do not trust government, and I really do not trust politicians. As a result, from a story like this one I must give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt and presume that he was being screwed by the government. It's an easy presumption. The guy snapped and tragedy ensued. But no matter what, I do not "condone" the man's actions.
On the other hand, from the story (and the title) it sounds like Watson issued a warning and that warning was clearly not taken seriously. Those workers should never have been put in harm's way like that. SOMEBODY had to know that Watson was not stable.
--He's even convinced himself that employers can stop employees from carrying arms in their vehicles.--
So does the GA bill that you support.
Clarification:
Lancey: But no matter what, I do not "condone" the man's actions.
Lancey has previously stated that the country needs more people like this man and that if we had more of these events perhaps government would straighten up.
I agree there is much more to the story that we don't know here and probably never will.
We certainly agree murder was not the right answer.
Still, some of the comments by a few anarchist on this thread are sad.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
A condition of employment is that I obey the rules of my boss. He has the right to not allow me on the property if I don't obey his rules.
You admit: "-- I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. --"
Does your boss have the right to stop you from carrying a gun in your vehicle"
You said you agreed with the GA bill. Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Not a daffy inference. I read the bill, did you?
Yes, and it intends to codify the right of GA employees to secure arms in their vehicles while at work.
My employer is not in GA but if we had that state law, he would be allowed to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Clever. now you claim the issue is about "uncontrolled guns" on his property; -- it's about guns secured in employees vehicles while parked.
His policy is in strict agreement with the proposed GA law and in strict agreement with my position as stated to you prior to my reading the bill.
It's becoming quite evident your position parallels that of Luis Gonzalez. -- Thanks for your candor.
I am convinced that I can control who parks on my property, you think that you have a Constitutional right to convenient parking on my property created by the gun in your car.
FLORIDA STATUTES: Trespass while in possession of a firearm is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine up to $5,000.
--We certainly agree murder was not the right answer. Still, some of the comments by a few anarchist on this thread are sad.--
Such as some of Lancey's previous posts:
Lancey: Like I implied in an earlier post, this country needs a lot more Garry Watsons, though preferably with better target selection.
This is apparently the earlier post he was referring to.
Lancey: Sadly, citizen responses like Watson's need to happen more often, only it should be the scumbag politicians who are held accountable for their greed and tyranny, not their minions. Watson did what many, many people only wish they had the guts to do.
--Clever. now you claim the issue is about "uncontrolled guns" on his property; -- it's about guns secured in employees vehicles while parked.--
No. It refers to guns uncontrolled by the owner. I did NOT say unsecured.
Private property owners have the right to deny you access to their property for any reason, or for no reason.
If that property owner posts a "NO GUNS" sign at the edge of his property, and you enter his property with a gun, you are committing a felony.
FLORIDA: Trespass while in possession of a firearm is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine up to $5,000.
--It's becoming quite evident your position parallels that of Luis Gonzalez. -- Thanks for your candor.--
I have no idea what Luis' position is. I gave you my position before I read the bill. It is in total agreement with the bill which you agree with. Either you can't read or you haven't read my posts or the bill.
-- I read the bill, did you?--
The WHOLE bill?
Let's start all over. Here is my original response to you BEFORE I read the bill.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774791/posts?page=199#199
My position is totally consistent with the bill. You agree with the bill. What is your beef?
Red herring.
You can carry a bazooka in your car, but a property owner has a right to stop you at the edge of his property and deny you access.
Show me your constitutional right to park on my property.
Isn't it amazing what passes for "journalism" today?
CA....
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.