U.S. Senate candidate released from Denver jail after act of civil disobedience

Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 ^ | December 17, 2001 | n/a

[LibertyRocks]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 17, 2001

NEWS RELEASE & MEDIA ADVISORY

Stanley for U.S. Senate
Web site - http://www.stanley2002.org
Contact: Michelle Konieczny,
Campaign Office: 303.329.0481
Email: michelle@stanley2002.org

===========================================================

Stanley Released from Jail; Charged with Violating an Unconstitutional Gun-Control Ordinance

(DENVER, CO) Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, Rick Stanley, was released from Denver Police custody on Sunday, December 16, 2001, at approximately 3:30 PM, after being charged with violating a local gun-control ordinance. Stanley contends the law he is charged under violates his civil rights and he will be seeking a jury trial to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Second Amendment supporter Duncan Philp was also arrested and faces an identical charge.

Stanley and Philp were arrested by the Denver Police, Saturday, December 15, 2001, shortly after noon, upon performing a planned act of civil disobedience by openly carrying a loaded handgun in a holster upon their hip, during a Bill of Rights rally being held in Denver's Lincoln Park. Both Stanley and Philp, stated their actions were an attempt to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution. They are now facing one count each of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon in violation of Denver's Revised Municipal Code, 38-117.5(b).

Paul Grant, a civil rights attorney who will be representing both men is optimistic about their chances in court. On Saturday Grant stated, "There's absolutely no way a judge should be able to uphold Denver's ordinance in light of the state constitution". Public support and attention would be an essential part of the case, said Grant who has argued cases on several different occasions before the Supreme Court. He urged all supporters to attend these men's court dates and to speak out publicly on this issue explaining that; "Jurors must realize how important this case is".

Mr. Stanley's next court date is Wednesday, January 30, 2002, 8:30 AM, Courtroom 151P, in the County Courts Building located at 1437 Bannock Street in Denver. Supporters are requested to pack the courtroom that morning.

-----------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA ADVISORY:

The Stanley for U.S. Senate campaign will be holding an informal press conference on Monday, December 17, 2001, at 6:00 PM. All members of the media are invited to attend to learn more about the case, and this candidate for U.S. Senate who is truly different from all the rest. The conference will be held at the campaign office located at 6280 E.39th Avenue in Denver. For directions please call the campaign office at 303.329.0481. Mr. Stanley is also available for personal interviews by calling the same number.

##30##

[Dead Corpse]

Uh nothing, I was making a joke, you are a pagan. I thought it funny that a pagan would say "Shut the hell up" as a derogatory term, for hell is a "term" used in Christianity and not paganism.

Norse Paganism. Norse/German/Ukrainian ancestry. Hel, while not the same as the judeo-christian version, is very much an under world.

Or you can consider it using the common vernacular.

Now, would you please answer my question:
Disregarding political party membership. Do you support the Second Amendment of the US constitution as defined in the writings of the Founding Fathers?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[NittanyLion]

Take three major issues. Drugs, gun control, and abortion. Libertarians take the far left position on two of the three, drugs and abortion.

I understand the LP platform reads pro-abortion, but I would assume a libertarian who believes life begins at conception would be pro-life. That happens to be my personal decision, and I believe you'll find like-minded people who call themselves libertarians, conservatives and liberals (maybe liberals). I'd also assume you'd find opposite-minded people in all parties.

Sheesh you are impatient.

Well, I flagged you because I directed the original question to VA. But I'm guilty as charged... and I expect a response to this post in 10 seconds or less, or I'm going to assume you've ceded me the victory (just kidding).

[Aric2000]

You know, I'm having a REAL hard time with this abortion crap.....

Where in the constitution does it say that you have right to an abortion, or that abortion is illegal and can't be done. WHERE in the constitution does it talk about abortion? WHERE?!!!!

The 2nd amendment is a MAINSTAY of the constitution!! HELLO!! It is SPELLED OUT!!! It is MORE IMORTANT THEN ANY ABORTION DEBATE. Abortion is OPINION, the 2nd amendment is a constitutional FACT!!! Which is MORE important?

Principles, sminciples right? so what if gun rights are spelled out in the consstitution and abortion is not, IT's ALL about principles!! Well, those principles had better be spelled out in the constitution, because if you go after the one not spelled out, then you HAVE NO PRINCIPLES!!!

The constitution is what is important, NOTHING ELSE!!!! All others take a back seat to constitutional questions, especially when they are SPELLED out in the constitution as the 2nd amendment is. Words mean things!!! and you cannot misinterprate the 2nd amendment unless you are a lawyer AND a criminal liar!!

Anti-abortion is all well and good, but it is not based on a constitutional principle, it is an opinion. The 2nd amendment is NOT an opinion, it is a constitutional fact, and if your principles do not include standing up for the constitution and a spelled out right, then you have NO right to be a political party!!

The constitution is what is important, nothing else takes a back seat to that, I don't care what principle it is!!

[1_American]

The constitution is what is important, nothing else takes a back seat to that, I don't care what principle it is!!

Very well said and absolutely CORRECT ... good post

[Dane]

Norse Paganism. Norse/German/Ukrainian ancestry. Hel, while not the same as the judeo-christian version, is very much an under world.

A question, what is considered Norse? Would you include present day Iceland and Denmark, Norse?

Do you support the Second Amendment of the US constitution as defined in the writings of the Founding Fathers?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Hmm I didn't know I was in a court of law(of course that is how you frame your question for maximum effect).

Yes I support the Second Amendment and our current Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has stated that owning a firearm is an individual right(reversing a 30 year old Justice Dept. stand that owning firearms is a "state right").

[NittanyLion]

Anti-abortion is all well and good, but it is not based on a constitutional principle, it is an opinion. The 2nd amendment is NOT an opinion, it is a constitutional fact, and if your principles do not include standing up for the constitution and a spelled out right, then you have NO right to be a political party!!

Well, abortion is not an opinion so much as it's murder of a person. I'm not sure you can order the right to life with the right to bear arms; they're both rights that can't be infringed.

[LibertyRocks]

Does a Libertarian only take Republican votes?

No...

EVIDENCE:

In polls run through the summer by political pollsters Ciruli and Associates Strickland and Allard were running neck and neck, just like back in 1996. Both men polled around 40% with approx. 24% remaining undecided.
In a poll conducted for the Denver Post last September, Allard and Strickland were both polling at 42%.
Even though Stanley's name was not mentioned in their polls, - nice and scientifically unbiased, huh? - there was a report of OTHER in July at 1%, in August at 2% and in September 4%.

In late October the Stanley campaign massed a group of volunteers in true grassroots style, and conducted their own scientific, random poll. Out of 2,000 households contacted, slightly over 200 participants were polled. They were asked several very simple questions. The most important of which was this one -

" If the 2002 election for U.S. Senate from Colorado were held today, who would you vote for; Republican Wayne Allard, Democrat Thomas Strickland, or Libertarian Rick Stanley?"
(the names were also rotated during polling).

The results?

Wayne Allard (R) - 34%
Thomas Strickland (D) - 35%
Rick Stanley (L) - 8%
Undecided - 23%

As you can see it is not just the Republican's vote totals that drop when a Libertarian is in a race. At least in this race that is a fact.

As evidenced by this poll, Stanley drew equally from both Allard and Strickland's percentage points. Allard lost approximately 8% of his totals, while Strickland lost 7%. The undecided category stayed roughly the same.

7% of those polled by Ciruli Associates talked of extreme dislike for Wayne Allard. While only 3% felt that way about Tom Strickland.

Why is Allard only getting 34% of the vote as an incumbent? Because, he is a weak candidate, and a man who does not obey his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

The truth is Libertarians would not pose a threat to Republicans if those Republicans were truly interested in limited government and the principles they espouse - instead of being hypocrites.

The unaffiliated, unregistered and pissed off Republicans AND Democrats number way more than the Republicans and Democrats combined. Someone like Rick Stanley will energize the public as they will finally have someone REAL speaking to them about issues important to us all. Unlike Republicans and Democrats who act as our rulers, and not like PUBLIC SERVANTS.

The Republicrats are voting away more of our freedom everyday. Vote Libertarian and Restore Freedom.

Vote Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 - he's got what it takes to defend America.

[NittanyLion]

Forgot to add in my last post, isn't constitutionally-limited government a conservative cause as well as a libertarian one?

[sneakypete]

No where in the Constitution does it GIVE the Government the power to set up an institution like NASA.

And there is no where in the Constitution where it is forbidden,either.

[Dane]

In late October the Stanley campaign massed a group of volunteers in true grassroots style, and conducted their own scientific, random poll. Out of 2,000 households contacted, slightly over 200 participants were polled. They were asked several very simple questions. The most important of which was this one -

Hmm, out of 2,000 households contacted you only took 10% of the sample.

Can anybody say "skewing a poll", I knew you could. Oh BTW, a poll of two hundred people probably has an error rate of 10%.

[Aric2000]

Again, the murder phrase is an opinion, a person is someone that can survive on thier own. A fetus cannot survive on it's own, therefore legally, it is NOT a person. Therefore it is NOT murder.

The above is an opinion, it is debatable, you're opinion is that that fetus is a person, therefore it is murder. THEREFORE, because it is debatable, it is an opinion.

The 2nd amendment is NOT an opinion, it is a constitutional FACT!! it is NOT debatable, there is no room for political compromise, the constitution is not to be given up for political correctness or compromise. If you compromise on the constitution, then it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The constitution is the mainstay of this country, if it is compromised, then the person who compromised it is a traitor, and cannot be trusted. There is a reason that public officials take an oath uphold the constitution.

[tpaine]

Anyone out there have a good freeper name for this mania? - tpaine -

"Democratic Underground"

Good call. -- Maybe we should ask the phony conservatives on this thread, 'are you now, or have you ever been, members of the DU --- ?

[VA Advogado]

Good call. -- Maybe we should ask the phony conservatives on this thread, 'are you now, or have you ever been, members of the DU --- ?

I am much more of a friend of the constitution than you or your friends at DU.

[1_American]

I am much more of a friend of the constitution than you or your friends at DU.

From what I have seen from your posts on this thread and many others I would say that you get up and personal to the Constitution at least once a day. I think you substitute it for Charmin. I also think you would be far more comfortable on statists underground.

[LibertyRocks]

COLORADO TO TRY AND AMEND CONSTITUTION

Check out this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/592385/posts

I guess we'll see how great the Republicans in this state are won't we?

Amendment the Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with a sitting Republican Governor? Who coulda though?

Thanks Owens, your leadership sure has help us, a lot!!!

Without Owens backing Amendment 22 I have doubts they would even by trying this one

It's time to vote the traitors out of office!

[tpaine]

Governments do not have rights, they have delegated authority.

Since you can't be bothered to crack a book yourself, I will give you an example. Article 1, Section 1 states:All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...
Note that the word "rights" does not appear. Note that power is granted to Congress, not the other way around.

261 posted by alpowolf

You are stating demagogy and wishful thinking. It's just not how it actualy works. Balance of power is balance of power. Yet even this balance at times need to be skewed such as when threatened by the Soviet Union abroad, or when Dimbocraps use free speech at home to campaign against the nation. If America is to survive, the communist cults of congress will have to go, that means not more but less freedoms. After all, Marx was all for democracy because he knew that was how he could beat any nation out there. His screams against a strong bourgeois government or body are all too obvious.

Incrediible. You ignore the constitution, and prattle on that we should have 'less freedoms'. --- Mindboggling.

[Aric2000]

Yep, i saw that thread and as I stated in it, if the state changes it's constitution to fly in the face of the Bill of Rights, I believe that legally it can be kicked out of the union. It is breaking with the constitution and that IS NOT allowed!!

State laws are one thing, but when you change the constitution of a state, that is a horse of a different color!!

[Dead Corpse]

Yes I support the Second Amendment and our current Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has stated that owning a firearm is an individual right(reversing a 30 year old Justice Dept. stand that owning firearms is a "state right").

You could have saved us both a lot of time and just posted that the first time I asked. Just trying to determine commonality.

Ashcroft however is there to only ENFORCE the law, not interpret it. It is his perview to prosecute violations of the law, not determine their Constitutionality. Are we agreed on that?

It is up to the Courts, through cases brought before them, to determine whether or not a Law is Constitutional. Our Legislature should be mature enough to do this themselves, but unfortunately they don't. Hence the Courts role in this. The Courts, however, cannot rule on the Constitutionality of a Law until someone has broken the Law and the case comes before them. Sorry if you know all this already, but like I said, I'm trying to avoid misunderstandings.

Assuming you agree with most of the above, would it be safe to say that your only beef with this guy in Colorado is that he is a Libertarian?

[VA Advogado]

From what I have seen from your posts on this thread and many others I would say that you get up and personal to the Constitution at least once a day. I think you substitute it for Charmin. I also think you would be far more comfortable on statists underground.

I think you fear the truth because it doesn't fit with your twisted, perverted and disgusting notion of what this honorable document stands for. Good men have died for this country to protect this document and our God fearing way of life. What they didn't die for is so certain clowns among the citizenry can twist it to serve their own means and selfish ends.