🚀 go-pugleaf

It was not illegal, and the police were called. The cities attorneys office
determined that Stonewall had the "rights" to the grounds because of their
permit, and the police ordered the gun carriers off the premises.

"Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4nHc.16$FP1.9@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> To make a long story short, an official from Stonewall Columbus tried to
> illegally ban some GLBT community members from openly carrying firearms
> in their parade.  As is typical in the anti-gun community, rather than
> drop the issue they decided on a tactic of threats and physical
> intimidation (by surrounding the armed individuals with security guards)
> and threatening to call the police.
>
> http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html?areaID=254&newsID=1112
>
> It'd be interesting to see a video of this altercation.

Netsock wrote:
> It was not illegal, and the police were called. The cities attorneys office
> determined that Stonewall had the "rights" to the grounds because of their
> permit, and the police ordered the gun carriers off the premises.

What is your source on that?

To quote the article:
"The intricate nature of the new concealed-carry law was discussed at 
length, including where the law permitted a firearm owner to carry a 
weapon, whether a licensee could carry on government property, and 
whether a parade permit afforded 'private property' control to the 
permit holder. Eventually, after running the chain of police command, a 
call to the City Prosecutor was made, and the point was still ambiguous."

A parade permit does not give the permit holder a right to impose 
restraints on civil liberties - otherwise when the KKK gets a permit to 
parade around at the Statehouse they could just make a rule that no 
"anti-hate speech" is permitted and be done with it.

If you have better information from a better source I'd love to read it 
though.  I am wondering what "premises" the Pink Pistols were on. 
Judging by the article, they were asked to leave the area.  Failure to 
do so would have resulted in a "disorderly conduct" charge as opposed to 
a "criminal tresspass" charge based on the initial complaint.

Netsock wrote:

>>What is your source on that?
> 
> The Other paper.
> 
> The city attorney aparently disagrees.
> 
> Get this weeks Other paper. The article also stated that they WOULD be
> arrested for trespassing if they did not leave.

Thanks, I'll check it out. :)

"Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2PvHc.24180$2T2.5572@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Netsock wrote:
> > It was not illegal, and the police were called. The cities attorneys
office
> > determined that Stonewall had the "rights" to the grounds because of
their
> > permit, and the police ordered the gun carriers off the premises.
>
> What is your source on that?

The Other paper.

> A parade permit does not give the permit holder a right to impose
> restraints on civil liberties - otherwise when the KKK gets a permit to
> parade around at the Statehouse they could just make a rule that no
> "anti-hate speech" is permitted and be done with it.

The city attorney aparently disagrees.

>
> If you have better information from a better source I'd love to read it
> though.  I am wondering what "premises" the Pink Pistols were on.
> Judging by the article, they were asked to leave the area.  Failure to
> do so would have resulted in a "disorderly conduct" charge as opposed to
> a "criminal tresspass" charge based on the initial complaint.

Get this weeks Other paper. The article also stated that they WOULD be
arrested for trespassing if they did not leave.

Netsock wrote:

> "Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2PvHc.24180$2T2.5572@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> 
>>Netsock wrote:
>>
>>>It was not illegal, and the police were called. The cities attorneys
> 
> office
> 
>>>determined that Stonewall had the "rights" to the grounds because of
> 
> their
> 
>>>permit, and the police ordered the gun carriers off the premises.
>>
>>What is your source on that?
> 
> 
> The Other paper.
> 
> 
>>A parade permit does not give the permit holder a right to impose
>>restraints on civil liberties - otherwise when the KKK gets a permit to
>>parade around at the Statehouse they could just make a rule that no
>>"anti-hate speech" is permitted and be done with it.
> 
> 
> The city attorney aparently disagrees.
> 
> 
>>If you have better information from a better source I'd love to read it
>>though.  I am wondering what "premises" the Pink Pistols were on.
>>Judging by the article, they were asked to leave the area.  Failure to
>>do so would have resulted in a "disorderly conduct" charge as opposed to
>>a "criminal tresspass" charge based on the initial complaint.
> 
> 
> Get this weeks Other paper. The article also stated that they WOULD be
> arrested for trespassing if they did not leave.

Quote from the end of The Other Paper article:
"So who was right?
Apparently, Stonewall.
The group had a permit for the parade, so it was essentially 'taking 
what is a public space and turning it into a private meeting,' said 
Scott Varner, Pfeiffer's spokesman."

Interesting that they can take a public space without asking the public, 
then call it a "private meeting" that walks down the middle of the 
street, invites, and is open to the "public".  Seems like a load of 
bullshit to me.


Another quote from the end of The Other Paper article:
"The same set of rules lets the Arts Festival keep people from, say, 
distributing propaganda."

Oh, they must mean "distributing propaganda" as in FREE SPEECH?!?  I 
wonder how The Other Paper would feel if they were declared trespassers 
at an event where the organizers had decided that the media were unwelcome.


More quoting from The Other Paper article:
"'In a sense they are renting the park,'
Varner said, 'so that means they can impose restrictions.'
And in the future, Stonewall will be more than happy to impose those 
restrictions again.
'We don't want to deprive people of their legal rights,' Berger said,"

...yeah, they just want to deprive people of their rights that they 
don't *like*.  Kind of like the way politicians don't want to *ban* gay 
marriage - they just want to re-define what marriage is so that it 
doesn't apply to gays in the first place.  Sheesh, it's so simple. 8-)


The Other Paper article also said:
"'but we felt as if safety was the most important thing.'"

...and before that it elaborated:
"Berger said they also had safety concerns: What, they wondered, would 
happen if a homophobe who'd come to heckle marchers went too far?"

I'm unclear here - is Berger concerned for the safety of the marchers or 
the safety of homophobic hecklers?  And what does Berger mean by "went 
too far"?

For one person, "too far" might be defined to mean cases where they 
might face "serious bodily harm or death".  In this case, the person 
would be justified in shooting the "heckler gone too far".

Other people might define "too far" as "getting in their face", "being 
aggressive", or any number of other transgressions short of anything 
that might result in "serious bodily harm or death".  In these cases, 
something short of lethal force would be employed - most likely starting 
with a call to event security or police for assistance but possibly 
moving up to the use of chemical defense sprays.

Such people might decide that a form of lethal force was necessary, and 
if this were the case, a ban in the name of safety might become a safety 
issue in and of itself.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if guns were the only weapons 
banned from the event?  For example, where kinves and baseball bats 
permitted?

Neb Okla wrote:

>>> A parade permit does not give the permit holder a right to impose
>>> restraints on civil liberties - otherwise when the KKK gets a permit to
>>> parade around at the Statehouse they could just make a rule that no
>>> "anti-hate speech" is permitted and be done with it.
>>
>> The city attorney aparently disagrees.

One more thing, there are several city attorneys in the state that are 
violating "Section 9" of the new Concealed Handgun Law by prohibiting 
firearms on city property, so I'm not suprised at rumblings along these 
lines from Columbus city attorneys.

I'd like to think that I can go for a walk down a city street or in a 
park and not have to worry about the "daily rules" set by whomever might 
be declaring it a private meeting area that day.

In article <d0BIc.203725$DG4.200064@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
Neb Okla  <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Interesting that they can take a public space without asking the public, 
>then call it a "private meeting" that walks down the middle of the 
>street, invites, and is open to the "public".  Seems like a load of 
>bullshit to me.

Me too, FWIW.

>Another quote from the end of The Other Paper article:
>"The same set of rules lets the Arts Festival keep people from, say, 
distributing propaganda."
>
>Oh, they must mean "distributing propaganda" as in FREE SPEECH?!?  I 

Quite. What are they frightened of?

(snip)
>...and before that it elaborated:
>"Berger said they also had safety concerns: What, they wondered, would 
>happen if a homophobe who'd come to heckle marchers went too far?"
(snip)

Much as what would happen if such a homophobe were acting outside the
context of a parade, I assume!

-- Mark

Mark Carroll wrote:

>>...and before that it elaborated:
>>"Berger said they also had safety concerns: What, they wondered, would 
>>happen if a homophobe who'd come to heckle marchers went too far?"
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Much as what would happen if such a homophobe were acting outside the
> context of a parade, I assume!

Exactly, but I fear it all goes back to liability and PR fears.  If a 
marcher shot someone under any circumstance, that would undermine the 
peaceful spirit of the march.

Of course, one wonders why the marchers didn't bring real loaded guns to 
the march in the first place if self defense was a true concern.

Long ago I suggested to a friend that I would like to buy a replica 
firearm (prop gun, whatever).  It seemed like a cool idea at the time. 
But my friend pointed out that they cost about the same but one has real 
utility.

He said something to the effect of "If you found yourself in a position 
where you were pointing it at someone, and they pulled out a gun of 
their own, that is not the time to be wishing you hadn't bought a prop".

Back on the subject, some people just like to erect imaginary barriers 
from harm so they can enjoy a false sense of security.  If some psycho 
homophobe really wanted to attack the parade it'd be a lot easier to use 
a car as a weapon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/national/main563809.shtml

Admittedly there is some debate as to wether or not shooting a driver 
who is using a vehicle as a weapon is a good thing to do.  On one hand 
you stop the driver from further malicious action - but on the other 
hand you may end up with a runaway car that could harm even more people.

"Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:irBIc.203730$DG4.6106@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Neb Okla wrote:
> I'd like to think that I can go for a walk down a city street or in a
> park and not have to worry about the "daily rules" set by whomever might
> be declaring it a private meeting area that day.

Lets not get carried away...

Nobody "sprung" the threat on the gun carriers...they knew in advance they
weren't welcome.

I would assume if I were to walk into a public place with a firearm where
someone has a "private meeting permit", I would be asked to leave first.

Again, the gun tooters were warned ahead of time that their weapons weren't
welcome.

"Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmHIc.204315$DG4.101782@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Of course, one wonders why the marchers didn't bring real loaded guns to
> the march in the first place if self defense was a true concern.

It was assumed one did have a real gun, but it was obvious that even the
ones carrying other guns than true firearms, were only being defiant to the
organizers that asked them not to bring guns in the first place.



I think the proper decision was made. If I procure a "private" permit in a
public park, I have the right to say what is allowed, and what isn't,
whether it's smoking, animals, alcohol, bullhorns, and even guns. If some of
the public disagrees, they have the right to "challenge" my permit with the
city counsel.



Now I would also have the responsibility to communicate any restrictions. I
certainly could not walk up to a smoker for example, and have him arrested,
without giving him/her the opportunity to comply, or leave.



That same "opportunity" was given to the gun carriers, by the way...

Netsock wrote:
> "Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:irBIc.203730$DG4.6106@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> 
>>Neb Okla wrote:
>>I'd like to think that I can go for a walk down a city street or in a
>>park and not have to worry about the "daily rules" set by whomever might
>>be declaring it a private meeting area that day.
> 
> 
> Lets not get carried away...
> 
> Nobody "sprung" the threat on the gun carriers...they knew in advance they
> weren't welcome.

Nobody emailed the cities CHL holders and told them that they risked 
arrest for criminal trespass if they walked down the public street or in 
the public park that had temporarily been deemed "private" and subject 
to rules of a private organization.

I take issue with laws that put a person at risk of arrest even if it is 
unenforced "most of the time".

I also take issue with a city attourney who backs the notion that any 
group with a parade permit can set and enforce the law of the land and 
have it enforced and prosecuted by the city.


> I would assume if I were to walk into a public place with a firearm where
> someone has a "private meeting permit", I would be asked to leave first.
> 
> Again, the gun tooters were warned ahead of time that their weapons weren't
> welcome.

People express their opinion that weapons aren't welcome all the time, 
but Section 9 of the Concealed Handgun Law ensures that statewide CCW is 
permitted outdoors on city property regardless of city law.

Section 9 of HB12 specifically prohibits counties, municipalities or 
other political subdivisions of the state from making any laws that 
extend bans on carrying concealed firearms on public property beyond 
buildings.

It would seem that if the city law allows people to have a private 
meeting in a public space, then this would also be preempted by Section 
9, though my concern over this issue is not limited to the posession of 
firearms.

"Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxRIc.209388$DG4.186147@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Nobody emailed the cities CHL holders and told them that they risked
> arrest for criminal trespass if they walked down the public street or in
> the public park that had temporarily been deemed "private" and subject
> to rules of a private organization.

I don't know what mode of communication they used to relay their concerns
before the event, but they were yet again advised the day of the event.


> I take issue with laws that put a person at risk of arrest even if it is
> unenforced "most of the time".



"Risk of arrest" is subjective. Just like when I'm hunting, I have never
been arrested for trespassing if I'm found on private land, as long as I
didn't see any signs, or cross a fence line.



Hunters are always given the opportunity to immediately vacate the land, or
*then* be subject to arrest.



Again, the offer to comply was given before any arrests.


> I also take issue with a city attourney who backs the notion that any
> group with a parade permit can set and enforce the law of the land and
> have it enforced and prosecuted by the city.



It would appear it is that attorney's interpretation of the law. Sounds like
you don't agree with him...I would take it up with him...the police enforce
the interpretation of laws by the city attorney.


> People express their opinion that weapons aren't welcome all the time,
> but Section 9 of the Concealed Handgun Law ensures that statewide CCW is
> permitted outdoors on city property regardless of city law.



Sounds like they have a good challenge to the decision then.


> Section 9 of HB12 specifically prohibits counties, municipalities or
> other political subdivisions of the state from making any laws that
> extend bans on carrying concealed firearms on public property beyond
> buildings.



Again, perhaps they should file suit.


> It would seem that if the city law allows people to have a private
> meeting in a public space, then this would also be preempted by Section
> 9, though my concern over this issue is not limited to the possession of
> firearms.



And I don't agree as long as the city attorney says so. It would appear (at
least at this time) permit holders *do* have the right to limit and/or
restrict certain "rights" as outlined in section 9, and others as well.



At this point, If I had a (legal) CCW, I would have to vacate the public
premise, to which a private party had permit to, if they asked that no CCW
were to be allowed.

Netsock wrote:

> "Neb Okla" <n_okla@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uxRIc.209388$DG4.186147@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> 
>>Nobody emailed the cities CHL holders and told them that they risked
>>arrest for criminal trespass if they walked down the public street or in
>>the public park that had temporarily been deemed "private" and subject
>>to rules of a private organization.
> 
> I don't know what mode of communication they used to relay their concerns
> before the event, but they were yet again advised the day of the event.

They advised people who didn't know about, weren't attending, and just 
happened upon the event?  Impressive.

They bullied some protestors who chose to carry openly at the event 
instead of asking for more information such as (will the weapons be 
loaded?  will the weapons be real guns?).  Stonewall, by all accounts 
used only threats and intimidation, and when that didn't work they 
called in the police and the city attourney to do it for them.

Private organizations should be proibited from sitting on the fence by 
holding public events on public property and and declaring them private 
for the sake of rule-making.  If they rented out a private venue such as 
Nationwide Arena and then charged a membership fee or otherwise 
restricted entry to keep the event private, I'd not object if they 
wanted to set their own rules (though I would probably not go attend an 
event with such restrictions).


>>I take issue with laws that put a person at risk of arrest even if it is
>>unenforced "most of the time".
> 
> "Risk of arrest" is subjective. Just like when I'm hunting, I have never
> been arrested for trespassing if I'm found on private land, as long as I
> didn't see any signs, or cross a fence line.
> 
> Hunters are always given the opportunity to immediately vacate the land, or
> *then* be subject to arrest.
> 
> Again, the offer to comply was given before any arrests.

Congradulations, you've been lucky so far.  It's unsafe to assume that 
people will ask you to leave - though they are under no obligation to do 
so.  I'd rather not have "trespassing with a firearm" on my record.


>>I also take issue with a city attourney who backs the notion that any
>>group with a parade permit can set and enforce the law of the land and
>>have it enforced and prosecuted by the city.
> 
> It would appear it is that attorney's interpretation of the law. Sounds like
> you don't agree with him...I would take it up with him...the police enforce
> the interpretation of laws by the city attorney.

I ceartainly intend to delve deeper into the issue.

One question I would like to see answered is that of Open vs. Concealed 
carry.  It's quite possible that the Pink Pistols could ahve 
participated while carrying concealed and not been subject to the "no 
guns rule" (partially because nobody could see the weapons, and 
partially because of Section 9 protection).  My impression is that 
Section 9 does not apply to people who do not have CHL's though and I 
haven't seen anything to indicate that this is the case.


>>Section 9 of HB12 specifically prohibits counties, municipalities or
>>other political subdivisions of the state from making any laws that
>>extend bans on carrying concealed firearms on public property beyond
>>buildings.
> 
> Again, perhaps they should file suit.

They are filing suit in August on this matter - so far in Columbus 
against COTA at least - unless they change their policy before then.

Neb Okla <n_okla@hotmail.com> writes:

> I'd like to think that I can go for a walk down a city street or in
> a park and not have to worry about the "daily rules" set by whomever
> might be declaring it a private meeting area that day.

I suspect there is no way around that until some case law gets on the
books. 

-- 
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP.  Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)