Click The Logo
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/10/2002 10:28:15 AM PDT by AdamSelene235
A self-described "political agitator" who was cited for several traffic violations as he prepared to protest outside the home of a Columbine victim won a $20,000 settlement from two sheriff's deputies in a civil-rights lawsuit.
Duncan D. Philp, 45, accused Jefferson County sheriff's deputies Kirk Beaulieu and Donald Estep of violating his constitutional rights protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure and guaranteeing him due process.
Philp's attorney, Vincent Todd, also alleged that Beaulieu and Estep pulled Philp over, detained him and ticketed him as part of a concerted effort to deny him and other protesters their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.
"In my experience, it's a fairly large settlement for something that started as a traffic ticket for someone that wasn't actually jailed," Todd said Wednesday afternoon as he prepared to pick up a $20,000 check from Jefferson County authorities.
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Patricia Gilbert said officials decided to settle the lawsuit for "a variety of reasons."
"We don't admit these deputies did anything wrong," she said.
Estep said he could not comment until he had spoken with sheriff's administrators.
Beaulieu defended his handling of the situation.
"I saw what I believe to be a traffic violation and I acted upon it," he said Wednesday evening. "The judge didn't agree."
Beaulieu said he does not believe he violated Philp's rights.
"He still was able to do what he set out to do that night," he said.
Philp, who has a New Mexico driver's license and a Fort Collins post office box, says he's a resident of Wyoming. He could not be reached Wednesday.
The lawsuit stemmed from a protest last Dec. 14 outside the home of Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was murdered in the Columbine library in the April 20, 1999, killings.
Tom Mauser joined SAFE Colorado after his son's killing and championed a law requiring background checks at gun shows and called for measures imposing requirements on the storage of weapons.
On the day of the protest, members of a group calling itself the Tyranny Response Team planned to gather outside Mauser's home and rally for the Second Amendment.
The protesters gathered in a parking lot in the 7500 block of South Pierce Street and planned to march to Mauser's nearby home.
Shortly before the protest was to begin, according to the lawsuit, Philp decided to drive to Mauser's neighborhood and make sure some demonstrators hadn't already gone there. As he pulled out of a shopping center parking lot onto Pierce Street, Beaulieu followed and pulled Philp over a short time later. The deputy alleged that Philp hadn't used his turn signal when he pulled out of the parking lot, which is on private property.
Beaulieu, who was later joined by Estep, wrote Philp a ticket for making an improper left turn, driving without insurance, driving without a seat belt and driving without a valid license.
Philp did show the officers a New Mexico driver's license, according to court documents. However, Estep believed that Philp had lived in Colorado for more than 30 days, meaning that he needed a Colorado driver's license.
Philp and his attorney filed a motion in Jefferson County Court alleging that the traffic stop and everything that followed was illegal. Their argument: that state law did not require the use of a turn signal on private property, and, consequently, Beaulieu did not have probable cause and could not legally stop Philp.
"The problem here was that the sheriff's deputies were basically clueless," Todd said. "They never bothered to read the statutes under which they made their stop and arrest. They didn't apply."
On Feb. 8, Judge Charles T. Hoppin granted Philp's motion to suppress the traffic stop and any evidence gathered from it. On Feb. 25, prosecutors dropped all the charges against him.
After that, Philp filed suit against the two deputies in federal court.
On Sept. 24, Jefferson County authorities agreed to settle it for $20,000.
Although the suit had named only the deputies, Jefferson County taxpayers will foot the bill for the settlement.
Part of the lawsuit alleged that the traffic stop was part of a concerted effort by sheriff's deputies to "chill" the First Amendment rights of the protesters.
"I don't think there's any question about that," Todd said.
Both were convicted under the "Home Rule" clause of the state constitution which states city law supercedes both the State and Federal Constitution. Both have appealed.
The Second Amendment means exactly what it says. Self defense, and being able to own/buy/carry/use the most appropriate tools, is a basic human Right.
All that being said, this law-suit is only ridiculous in the amount forked over in the judgement. There was more posted on this story previously. These cops were harrassing him. Plain and simple. The cops themselves should pay the judgement, not the taxpayers.
Of course not, criminals never admit to any wrong doing.
Well, there were officiers on horseback, plainclothes officiers hidden in the crowd, and half a dozen unmarked cars thats seemed to insist the Bill of Rights does not apply to Denver.
Those in the Denver area who believe otherwise have found themselves raided by the BATF, tracked by secret police files,labeled criminal extremists and even gunned down in their own homes.
And that somehow makes it right? Simply because government agents crack down on them, it's all Constitutional.
I wonder if those on thier way to Treblinka felt the same way?
Here, read this:
Feel free to distribute this to anyone who is still under the misapprehension that the Second Amendment applies "only to the National Guard". You have my permission -- I wrote it, and I personally scanned the images.>Here is the Second Amendment verbatim: > >"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." > >Sounds to me like they were talking about a well regulated Militia. Yes they were. But not in the way you twist it below: >Since >that doesn't exist (though is constitutionally allowed and encouraged) the >rest of the sentence is pretty meaningless. Excuse me? > Actually, since I'm PRETTY sure >that sentence makes no grammatical sense at all that's yet another reason to >toss it out the window and try again. Hint: If it seems to make "no grammatical sense at all", you're reading it wrong. The Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were learned men whose English skills far exceeded the norm today. Madison, especially, is like reading a PhD paper. Washington was surprisingly erudite as well, to the point where his speeches are hard to follow (this is why there are damned few pithy Washington quotes). Jefferson was a clear writer, but extremely skilled in the language. >Well, maybe it makes sense...lemme re-write it for clarity: Let's not, if you're going to do it so badly. >A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed. Errrnt! The Second Amendment clearly states that what should not be infringed is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". I'm one of the people, how about you? > It is necessary for the >security of a free State that the people have the right to keep and bear >Arms in that Militia. Nowhere does the Second Amendment say anything about having to be *in* a Militia. But don't take my word for it, the Supreme Court was pretty clear about it when they addressed this in 1939. Nowhere, at all, did they find Miller's status as a private citizen, no part of any organized militia, to be any impediment to his Second Amendment standing. The *only* criteria they felt worth mentioning was whether the firearm in question was *suitable* for militia use (and not whether it was possessed or used *in* a militia context). Let me clarify it for you by *not* rearranging the Second Amendment, but instead simply substituting a few words: "A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." (Yes, I dropped two commas that seem to confuse people -- the versions of the Second Amendment that floated around during the time of ratification were sometimes printed with three commas, sometimes with only the one I show above. There is no "one true" comma layout for the Second Amendment. However, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress considers the "one comma" version to be the form that was actually adopted.) If the old phraseology is still confusing, bear in mind that the opening clause would today be more likely rendered as, "since a well educated electorate is necessary to the security of a free state..." Here, the meaning is quite clear -- the people, as individuals, shall be secure in their right to keep and read books, so that if/when they take part in casting their ballots as an electorate, they will have a better chance of being educated enough to fulfill their duties ably. One would have to be way out in left field to try to use that to claim that only people who were registered voters would actually be able to keep and read books, and/or that people could keep and read books only while in the voting booth. And yet, that's how anti-gun activists try to twist the Second Amendment. The original intent of the Second Amendment was for the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms, so that if/when they were called up for militia duty, they would be both armed and familiar with the use of arms, which would help them to be an effective militia instead of a bunch of unarmed, helpless boobs. Perhaps you're confused by the term "well regulated". It doesn't mean "heavily controlled by the government", it means "effective", "properly functioning", "proper". *None* of the contemporaneous usage examples of "well regulated" in the Oxford English Dictionary pertain to government "regulation", *all* make sense only in the context of "properly functioning": http://home.houston.rr.com/danday/pictures/oed.gifFew dictionaries have an entry for the now obsolete term "well regulated", but the few I've managed to find all point to a meaning of "being what a thing should be", for example: http://home.houston.rr.com/danday/pictures/dict2.gif
The Framers took the term "well regulated militia" from the treatise "A discourse of government with relation to militias", by Scottish writer Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun. Fletcher's "well regulated militia" was the armed body of citizens *not* under the strict control of the central government. The meaning is entirely clear from the most widely published introduction to the Second Amendment at the time its ratification was being considered: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1 <> James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, specifically praised Coxe's summaries of the articles (including the Second Amendment) which eventually became the Bill of Rights. When the colonies ratified the Second Amendment, *this* is what they understood they were agreeing to. What part of "their private arms" is unclear? Alexander Hamilton wrote directly on the subject of "well regulated militias", and had this to say: To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. [...] Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. --Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Publius," in the_Daily Advertiser,_ January 9, 1788 Note specifically that Hamilton says that what makes an armed populace a "well regulated" militia is the "degree of perfection" of their military ability, and that in his view the most practical way to do that would be to assemble "the people at large" once or twice a year in order to inspect them and ensure that they are "properly armed and equipped". The Second Amendment is about armed *citizens*, who are ready and able to defend themselves, their communities, or their country if need be. It's not about the "National Guard", which is the very sort of federal force that the founders wished to provide a check against if it became a tool of a tyrant. You don't have to agree with the wisdom of that, or believe that it's relevant today, but please don't try to twist its meaning. The meaning is clear.
And ends:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of people, keep,bear, or shall not be infringed don't you understand?
Try this one: Flour being needed to bake cakes, the right of the people to keep flour shall not be infringed.
Does this mean you can't have flour unless you are a baker?
EBUCK
Well, why would you need (no pun intended) flour unless you are a baker, hmmm? Why, I'll bet you keep a supply of that cheap, easily concealable, automatically rising jiffy mix in your kitchen, you dough nut!
Great report, BTW!
The clause "the right of the people to keeep and bear arms" is quite clear though.
Like every other story, there has to be a beginning, and as far as I have found (with much help from the Second Amendment Law Library) the story begins with the Virginia Bill of Rights.
Pennsylvania appears to have been the first colony to have used the phrase "A right to bear arms"
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
"Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. —
"Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;"
Editor's Note: The North Carolina Convention met from July 21 through August 4, 1788, but after debate agreed only to neither ratify or reject the Constitution, but did adopt a resolution containing a Declaration of Rights and a list of proposed Amendments to the Constitution on August 2, 1788. After the Constitution had been ratified by a sufficient number of states, the members of the convention reconvened and, apparently without further debate, ratified the Constitution November 21, 1789, and announced the Declaration below, which includes the resolution of August 2, 1788.
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Twelve amendments were proposed, and ten adopted, effective December 15, 1791. Those ten became known as the Bill of Rights, and their ratification is celebrated as Bill of Rights Day.
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Article the fourth [Amendment II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Another good article is: The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights by David T. Hardy
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.