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##

[lavaroise]

Many Vietnam vets in the street are communists. I have seen a couple web site about communist vietnam vets, believe it or not. Those people are laying low waiting for the communist revolution. Let them have a gun legaly plus Hillary in power, thanks to Libertarians and you have hell in America.

[lavaroise]

And you seem to think the constitution was nailed to the staff of the flag at Valley Forge. It took a while after the fighting to get the government set up under the Constitution, thirteen years I think, and we weren't at war.

My exact point. The constitution is very difficult to enforce or workable, even during peace, without dictatorships set up chronicaly in the US in order to clean house. And to do that, you cannot be a Libertarian legalising drugs, allowing commies to speak in congress, giving guns to liberals, muslims and Unions with all their caches etc etc... As long as there will be a marxico-muslim threat, libertarianism is a dream of non-enforcement of the constitution that screams for a socialist vacuum of enforcement of anything but constitutional.

Whether it is by using bombs or democratic government authority to subvert the rights of people, it is something to forbid. The first amendment and the second amendment should not apply to all citizens but to those whose end is to uphold the US constitution under enforceable oath. It is a cult of prosperity that should abolish the cults of the poor and degradation.

[lavaroise]

Of course the constitution can be spun. It's been spun by the ACLU to let commies subvert the nation in congress and bash McCarthy as well as let gays enforce their skin preferences. Time and again the 1st amendment, which obviously understates that the right of assembly should not be to conspire against the state, is used by organisations in hopes the Supreme court will have a friendly political ear.

As a result, when one plans to use the majority of opinions in the nation to enforce their unconstitutional laws, we have no mechanism to stop this from happening, be it with re-precising the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, the latter which is to be employed by the law abiding and those planing to abide by the constitution in the future. For some reason we let those with open intent on subverting the constitution get the guns and the government guns. In this situation we are like Roosevelt when we let the Soviets build nukes we knew they would use to destroy us. Roosevelt and the Putins still believe that the same democracy we employ should be kept to allow our own betrayal.

Like they said, if using nukes later to deter or fight back, why not use them now?

[lavaroise]

At # 296, I proved, using your words, that you would ignore the constitution when it suits your political purpose.

Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is demanding laws that violate the constitution while using the constitution to instate her in Congress. Now who is ignoring the constitution? McCarthy or Hillary?

When she comes for you, what cha yo gonna say? The consitution in itself IS a political purpose that needs to be suited by force. Those against it should be stripped of their rights, 1st 2nd, etc, all of them.

[lavaroise]

Oh, I forgot, this nation was always free and was born in freedom, like a pink baby taken care by God.

Obviously the constitution did not exist when we fought for independence, and it probably violated the constitution. If you look at it, what was done during the war of independence violated the constitution. In other words no nation is born without an armed dictatorship, and no nation is maintained at peace when enemies abound without armed dictatorship embodied by the executive.

You want to save the constitution, ban libertarians and liberals, instaure a dictatorship, enforce the spirit of independence. AFter all, we never violated it back then when we jailed pro-British US troops, nor would we violate it today if we jailed pro-commi-muslim-nazi-sex-preference- cults of all kinds that are only there to use the government powers and guns to destroy us.

What would you do during the war of independence if a British would make a run for the guns? You'd demand abrogation of his right to run. Same thing today, it does not change.

[lavaroise]

Don't believe it?Check it out yourself

A member of the Nobel-Peace Prize winning Coalition to Ban the Sale and Use of Landmines, VFP has been undertaking arduous tasks since its inception. From bringing medical aid to Central American nations, to evacuating wounded children from war-torn Bosnian hospitals and securing medical treatment elsewhere around the globe, or just sitting down with American high school kids so that they may make choices for themselves based on reality, and not myth. We remain firmly committed to the abolition of war.

I ain't the one unfing believable.

[lavaroise]

ANOTHER COMMI VET HERE

[lavaroise]

HOW ABOUT THAT?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!

[lavaroise]

I'll be niceHere is a good guy

But there is much much more.

[Dead Corpse]

Yo! Little Hitler! Everyone else has gone on to other threads.

No one is listening to you.

[lavaroise]

I ain't Hitler, but it seems you like his penis.

[VA Advogado]

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

Well, I couldn't disagree with you there. I guess we differ on how much we're willing to bet that it does.

[VA Advogado]

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.

I appreciate your fairness. For those that are interested, that cite from the 9th circuit could be used to undercut the/my arguement that you don't need to be arrested to get standing to challenge a gun law because according to this court (and Dead and I both disagree with this) the 2nd amendment right that only belongs to states (milita), not their citizens. Therefore, according to the logic of this court, a citizen can not have a 2nd amendment right infringed upon by a localgun law.

This is a silly decision but it is dangerous because it's gotten to the federal court of appeals level and is binding on California and those other states in that district. The supreme court declined to review it. Hopefully this issue will be review once Bush appoints a few more conservatives to the court.

[VA Advogado]

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

Sure, if you want to cast your lot with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. To get to your conclusion you have to agree with theirs: that the second amendment only applies to states, not citizens. Ok Sarah Brady, are you with us or against us?

[VA Advogado]

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 I>

Only to you. :) The rest are still evil.

[VA Advogado]

The 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation.

Yep. You're right. However, the time may not be right for supreme court review of this issue. Wait till Bush can put a few rocks on the bench. Right now I would be scared to let O'Conner, Kennedy and Ginsburgh at this.

[Aristophanes]

Good point, Dane. Yes, if we could only get a Republican president and a Republican Congress, THEN we'd see a reduction in government, the end of abortion and probably a tax cut to boot!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA, hee hee, ho ho ... hoo!

Wait a sec -- you actually believe that BS, don't you?

[tacticalogic]

Sure, if you want to cast your lot with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. To get to your conclusion you have to agree with theirs: that the second amendment only applies to states, not citizens. Ok Sarah Brady, are you with us or against us?

I based the conclusion on this statement, taken from your 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.

This, to me reads that this methodology has never worked in any federal court. If I have misread the statement, or if it is not a factual statement, then I will reconsider. At present I do not see where where I have agreed with the opinion of the court in any way.