Posted on 12/17/2001 2:33:37 AM PST by 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##
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is something called "local politics" and an incident called "Columbine", where two litlle Johnny Jihads went on their own killing spree. Owens could have committed politcal suicide, like you all want him to do, and given the democrats a hammer to beat him with or take the issue away. Things are fluid in political life and with the events of 9/11 people are becoming more aware of their 2nd amendment rights and buying firearms to protect themselves, but you don't care. You stand on "principle" and forget about political realities. I will never find my 100% perfect candidate and neither will you. Politicians have to gain a coalition to win office and having a coalition of 5% or less does not win elections.
Me, too. I wonder when "another day" is gonna get here?
1) Loose at trial and win on appeal.
note you must notice the other side of
your intention to challenge the constituttionality
prior to trial.
2) Have the question certified by the judge as
a question of great public importance and
the judge can then send it up for appeal
You must first file a sugesstion of certification.
If he wins at trial it is not necessarily binding
on other courts.
this is a long term proposition and not something.
to be completed by election 2002.
We're well aware of political reality. GOP "reality" got us the Brady Bill, etc. Thanks, Dane.
It's time you woke up to some political reality. The GOP will never have such a huge majority that standing up for RKBA will be completely risk-free. Some day you people will have to get a spine.
Besides, even with your party's limp spines, you are still vilified by the press as "in the pocket of the NRA" anyway. So, what exactly do you have to lose?
"I have no problem with Jack booted thugs when they're used against the right people."
"In this case, law breaking druggies are the right people. No mercy, no peas."
8 posted on 12/13/01 4:50 AM Pacific by VA Advogado
And mayor webb.
A distinction without a difference...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Brady Bill was enacted in 1994 with a democratic President(Clinton) and a democratic House and Senate.
OOOh, you whine, if we'd done that we would have lost the '94 elections. Guess again. Even Bill Clinton conceded that voting for the Brady Bill lost the Democrats the House. Even with the GOP wimping out. Think of what you could do if you actually tried to win.
===========================================
Jury nullification IS a good thing. Jurys have always, under common law, had the ability, & duty, to apply not only the facts, but the law itself to the case at hand.
Your anti-republic slip is showing again, in YOUR opinions. Keep up the good work.
As long as you are more afraid of anything, be it drugs, guns, terrorists, or anything else, than you are of losing your freedom, these people will play on that fear and use it to try and manipulate you into giving up your freedom willingly.
How much are you getting paid to be a disruptor anyway? I see idiots like you all over the internet. You all talk the same line. You are never in a majority, but always appear with one or two others and spout the same nonsense over and over.
And Tom Dashcle thanks you for your "beat my chest" idealism.
At this point, they sound like the Taliban claiming that they are "regrouping" (rather than running for cover).
let's see now, a judge upholding the constitution......probably not.
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.