Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth
Tri-Valley Herald ^ | 17 March 2002 | Dwight King-Leatham

Posted on 03/18/2002 4:18:27 PM PST by 45Auto

Edited on 07/09/2004 12:50:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Jim March is a self-described "gun nut," frustrated because the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office won't give him a concealed-weapons permit.

The towering redhead from Pittsburg has taken his beef with the sheriff over the permit to federal court, saying county Sheriff Warren Rupf and a few police chiefs in 2000 violated his constitutional rights.


(Excerpt) Read more at trivalleyherald.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; ccw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last
To: Eagle Eye
Then I hope you reported tpaine when he brought it up in #19. I'm just defending myself from his lies.
101 posted on 03/19/2002 9:48:11 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
unloading some of his frustration

Curious choice of words

102 posted on 03/19/2002 9:49:20 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; cultural jihad
Good grief, -- now you are reduced to the use of CJ's demented 'ideolog' lines.

Get more rest aggie, - its too early in the day to stoop so low.

103 posted on 03/19/2002 9:50:02 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I think, since Hannity and Colmes is so popular on Fpx News, tpaine and I should get a FR radio show going. Libertarians are more fun than Liberals anyway.
104 posted on 03/19/2002 9:53:35 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
that is the main reason they choose to be Libertarian?

What a ridiculous statement. Does that mean (assumes Republican) that the party you are member of is largely staffed by those who oppose drug legalization?

Such blanket dispersions do little for the debate.

105 posted on 03/19/2002 9:57:17 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"Show me that every single LP member is a non drug using ideologue"

Burden of proof is on you to prove this: "because they want to do them." And other smears populating this thread.

106 posted on 03/19/2002 9:57:31 AM PST by Stew Padasso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sorry, that's not the way I see it and I'm telling you because I want to be upfront about it.

From here on out, when you start calling anyone drug users without accurately specifying about whom you are speaking, I'll hit abuse. We don't need your contributions of divisiveness.

If you want to talk about guns, ccw, etc, stay on this thread. If not, why don't you leave?

107 posted on 03/19/2002 10:00:29 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
Such blanket dispersions do little for the debate.

Where is the blanket? Please show me.

108 posted on 03/19/2002 10:00:35 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Show me anyone on here that I have called a drug user.

You people are getting desperate.

109 posted on 03/19/2002 10:01:24 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Can you not even have the dignity to admit that many in the LP are drug users and that is the main reason they choose to be Libertarian?

I would say that is a pretty broad brush you wield, and you seem to be deft at narrow stokes.

110 posted on 03/19/2002 10:02:59 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
I already gave you the proof of me and my friends. That already qualifies as some. I have fully admitted to undesirables in my party, why can't you guys simply admit to quacks in yours?
111 posted on 03/19/2002 10:03:00 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
Broad? many is not most, Many in the Repubs are Rino Constitutional shredding punks.
112 posted on 03/19/2002 10:03:54 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
If you want to talk about guns, ccw, etc, stay on this thread. If not, why don't you leave?
113 posted on 03/19/2002 10:03:59 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Just type the words, "I like guns."

You can do it.

114 posted on 03/19/2002 10:07:16 AM PST by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
Guns are cool!!!!!
115 posted on 03/19/2002 10:09:05 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Had I not been challenged I would have been on here in the first place. Stop replying to me and you won't see me.
116 posted on 03/19/2002 10:09:55 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Stop replying to me and you won't see me.

TAG!....your it....neneneneeer neenener

117 posted on 03/19/2002 10:20:21 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then support the legal private ownership of nukes.

Sorry, but you will first have to explain your dementia on this subject, and its relationship to prohibitive unconstitutional state laws on guns, drugs or other mildly dangerous types of property that are constitutionally protected. [see the 9th].

The police power of the state is fully justified to write criminal law restricting private possession of virtually uncontrolable 'CBN' type weapons of mass destruction. -- This is a rational libertarian use of force, imo.

118 posted on 03/19/2002 10:23:41 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
This is a rational libertarian use of force, imo.

Well that's nice and all, but we are talking about the Constitution. How is it constitutional to ban THAT particular property, yet unconstitutional to ban the other? Seems to me that you are saying that the USC is based on your rational. I would just like to see where it says that.

See Eagle Eye, we are talking about the 2nd. Are nukes included?

119 posted on 03/19/2002 10:28:48 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sorry aggie, I'll not be an 'enabler' for your delusions of FreepRadio grandeur.

I suggest a comic monolog.

120 posted on 03/19/2002 10:37:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson