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##

[VA Advogado]

Apparently, you want to play word games, so please, -- do explain exactly what you think your point might be.

Well, the question isn't really hard to understand. What it requires essentially is you remember what you did about 3 posts (to me) ago. You cut and pasted to me something I posted earlier. You appeared to be trying to make some vague point. I, in term, asked whether you agreed with that statement of mine. After that I seemed to have lost you. Are you back yet?

[Dead Corpse]

how many times does this need to be said. You don't have to be arrested to have standing to challenge the law.

You already think I'm an idiot(for being a Libertarian), so please indulge me. Everything I have read to this point declares contrary to your statement. Can you point me to a link? I really would like to know.

If you are talking about the "petitioning for redress of grievences", the last few times that has been tried have failed miserably. All the petitions sent to Congress on RKBA issues have been apparently ignored if the current state of the laws is any indicator. Congress can ignore us, however a Constitutional Challenge before the Supremes will not be.

[VA Advogado]

You already think I'm an idiot(for being a Libertarian), so please indulge me. Everything I have read to this point declares contrary to your statement. Can you point me to a link? I really would like to know.

You are indeed having a difficult time. This link should be (I hope) a simple enough definition of 'standing'.

STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit.

[Dead Corpse]

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Need I point out that most of those in need of a gun that would meet this definition, but by law can't... are probably dead now. Abstractions, such a questioning the Constitutional Validity of a law before harm can be proven, are automaticly discarded as not rising to this level.

This guy in Colorado can now say he meets the Standing requirements and challenge the law before the Supremes DUE TO HIS ARREST. Without that, he would have no case under these criteria.

Thanks Va. I appreciate the info even if I took a different spin on it after reading it. Do you know of any case law that I could look into to see if anyone has mustered a successful challenge with a Standing as you described it? Just a link to point me in the right direction would be helpful, I really don't want you to feel that I have you doing my leg work for me. I just don't know where to start looking. Gimme a push...;-)

[Dead Corpse]

From VA's site

Hhhhmmm... looks like I did read that right after all. Cool link VA, Thanks again.

[VA Advogado]

This guy in Colorado can now say he meets the Standing requirements and challenge the law before the Supremes DUE TO HIS ARREST. Without that, he would have no case under these criteria.

Well, I didn't want to leave anyone with the idea that people who are arrested don't have standing; nor did I want anyone to think that standing is the only way to obtain standing. The test for standing is quite well established in law.

Thanks Va. I appreciate the info even if I took a different spin on it after reading it. Do you know of any case law that I could look into to see if anyone has mustered a successful challenge with a Standing as you described it? Just a link to point me in the right direction would be helpful, I really don't want you to feel that I have you doing my leg work for me. I just don't know where to start looking. Gimme a push...;-)

Well, interestingly enough, there is a case involving gun rights. Its on out of California. I provide you this link at the risk of you using this case to undercut my arguement. It doesn't, however it wouldn't be fair if I didn't point you to it and see what you think (by the way, I completely disagree with this case, but the TEST for standing is correctly stated (but not correctly applied)).

HICKMAN v BLOCK (Scroll down to part II for the standing discussion)

[tpaine]

Apparently, you want to play word games, so please, -- do explain exactly what you think your point might be.

Well, the question isn't really hard to understand. What it requires essentially is you remember what you did about 3 posts (to me) ago. You cut and pasted to me something I posted earlier. You appeared to be trying to make some vague point. I, in term, asked whether you agreed with that statement of mine. After that I seemed to have lost you. Are you back yet?

Never been gone.

I remember that 'thug' post well. I made a clear point, disagreeing with you about it, then YOU got weird, and started playing these games.

Why don't you repost what you think is vague, and where you got lost. -- I'll be glad to help once I know your problems. Trust me.

[VA Advogado]

Why don't you repost what you think is vague, and where you got lost.

It would be a little weird for me to repost my post that you quoted. What make you think I got lost? I presumed you understood my thug comment in its original context?

[BillofRights]

Will the Denver U.S. attorney get involved with Mr. Stanley's civil disobedience?

What difference does it make? With a gazillion un- or extra-constitutional laws already on the books, what's a few thousand more? They're all enforced selectively, anyway. Our Kings and Queens ("public servants" [barf]) as well as the elite ruling class are not bound by these pesty statutes -- only us common folk.

I admire the people who will use civil disobedience or any type of disobediance, in their protest of unconstitutional laws, more than anyone on the planet. They are the true heroes -- as were our Founding Fathers.

[tpaine]

I did. -- You are unhappy about my post to you. I am not.

Clarify what you are unhappy about, or don't, makes no difference to me. -- Comprende?

[Roscoe]

How about a good libertarian doper comment

You just made one.

[Roscoe]

...probable contracts for telco companies and space tourism.

Yeah.

[VA Advogado]

I did. -- You are unhappy about my post to you. I am not.

No, not at all. I am flattered, as always, that you chose to cite my own words. Makes me realize I am getting through to you.

[VA Advogado]

Alright, what have you done to change the law, that worked? There is nothing more frightening than observing ignorance at work!

huh? I'll have what you and Tpaine are drinking.

[Dead Corpse]

OK, I see your point. You are right though that I could use this case to under cut your argument. I won't though. It read about what I expected from a CA court. Nausiating.

Still, I don't think this guy in Colorado had even that much of a reason for his injunctive relief request. He was just a guy who wanted to carry a gun and was tired of the GodGov telling him he couldn't. That directly set against our 2A.

His methodology may be unorthodox, but I won't quibble if it produces the desired result.

[tpaine]

You have a lot of strange delusions. Dream on.

[tacticalogic]

His methodology may be unorthodox, but I won't quibble if it produces the desired result.

From VA's link:

This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court.

It seems a little odd to consider the "orthodox" methodology to be the one that has never worked.

[Dead Corpse]

I'm aware of that, but I thought I'd give VA the benefit. Been kinda hard on him this thread, but at least I got him talking rather than ranting about EVIL Libertarians. ;-)