federal lawsuit filed against radnor lake ranger unlawful arrest ak-47

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Wait wait wait.


So you think that kwik is an agent provocateur, or me? Who the hell are you referring to here?

Also, if he IS an agent provocateur, then you ARE doing exactly what he wants.

I find it comical, Ruger, that people understand as reality all the little usurping and manipulative things the anti's will do, then you make a joke out of simply accepting there may be a completely different angle.

So make a joke. Then take a step back and realize it may be reality.

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

theqbn wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:
How many times do people need to iterate to some of you that it was the ONLY WAY HE COULD CARRY, before you actually get it?

For those of us who are new to this series of events, can you quote or link to some background on this?

This comment was in reference to the Belle Meade incident (in another thread). Quickly, Kwik carried a Navy model black powder handgun in his hand. This was the only allowed way to carry by Belle Meade ordinance and the Navy istol being one of the only two handguns allowed.

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Slow, you don't live in TN. You don't have a clue as to what the LEO climate is here. It isn't like what you may experience in Washington.

We just ahd a short spell of being able to carry our handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol, until a liberal judge shot the new law down with a bogus reason of "vagueness." Due to kwiks stunt at the park, we may not see a comeback of that law. And there's already been talk by some lawmakers of reworking the carry in parks law that we just got passed last year.

According to the lawmakers who sponsored both the Resturaunt Carry and the Park Carry bills... "Lenord who?"

 

[Pace]

imported post

deleted

 

[Pace]

imported post

What world did you just fly in from? Because he protects his rights, he's now some agent of the "anti-gun" lobby?

Wow.


Task Force 16 wrote:

Well folks, I believe kwik has exposed himself as a true liberal. His attempt to reject any responsibility for his actions and the consequences thereof is highly typical of a hard core liberal anti-gunner.

I, and I suspect everyone else on these forums, has seen this kind of argument coming from the anti-gun crowd and other liberals over the years. They always refuse to accept any responsibility for what they do (or don't do), blame everyone else for their misfortunes. Nothing is ever "their fault." The above post, which I respond to in red, that kwik made is right out of the liberal playbook. He shuns any responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

Wait wait wait.


So you think that kwik is an agent provocateur, or me? Who the hell are you referring to here? Kwik for sure, you and the others that have formed his cheering section, possibly. some of you may very well becolaberating with kwik to deliberatly create the impression that OC'ers are all the durogatory descriptions the anti's ahve leveled at us. Some of you may just be guillable roobs that have fallen for the scherade.

Also, if he IS an agent provocateur, then you ARE doing exactly what he wants. Actually, You may be partially right. The anti's would love to see us at each others throats. The old "devide and conquer" strategy. But they also need to be able to show that some in our ranks approve of the antics that kwik has pulled. That's just the sort of stuff they want to present to the general public, to prop up their demented claims against gun owners/carriers.

I find it comical, Ruger, that people understand as reality all the little usurping and manipulative things the anti's will do, LITTLE? The anti-gun groups are some of the most dishonest, ethically corrupt organizations in existence. There is no level of lowness that they would not stoop to. Their propaganda is total lies, use intimidation against businesses toattempt to coerce support for their agenda. I have no doubt that they would plant a pretender within our midst, have them gain reasonable reputation with our ranks as "one of us" and then go out in public and make an ass of themselves as kwik has done.

The anti-gun crowd has lost quite a bit of ground in the last few years. Their influence with state and Fed Legislatures and the publichas been failing. I believe that OC is responsible for much of the reversal of anti-gun/anti-carry sentiment the general public use to have. How? OC has brought the armed citizen out of the closet, so to speak. CC wasn't as much of a threat to the anti's because it was "out of sight out of mind" from the public. The public was clueless as to how many people were walking around amonst them ARMED or tht it even occurred. OC puts it out there for the public to see. This gives everyone the chance to observe for them selves that citizens CAN go armed for SD with out "gunfights in the streets" errupting, as the anti's had always promised would happen. OC seriously underminds the anti rhetoric. Doesn't do any good to claim gun owners/carriers are some sort of dispicable degenerates, when the people can see for themselves we are not.

So, the anti's need to attack OC and paint the movement as as bad a light as they can. Plant a few anti's posing as "assinine"pro-gun advocates, to selicit engagements with LEO and hope to turn public opinion against the movement.

then you make a joke out of simply accepting there may be a completely different angle.

So make a joke. Then take a step back and realize it may be reality.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Kwik for sure, you and the others that have formed his cheering section, possibly. some of you may very well becolaberating with kwik to deliberatly create the impression that OC'ers are all the durogatory descriptions the anti's ahve leveled at us. Some of you may just be guillable roobs that have fallen for the scherade

I can honestly say that this is the biggest, steamiest pile of horse crap I have ever seen uttered on this forum.

He is operating legally. He has broken no laws. You either support him on the fundamental level of exercising his rights, or simply GTFO.

If you disagree with his actions that is an entirely different subject, but SO LONG AS HE ACTS WITHIN THE LAW AND HIS RIGHTS, he doesn't deserve your giant "red flag" of ignorance.

Task Force 16 wrote:

Actually, You may be partially right. The anti's would love to see us at each others throats. The old "devide and conquer" strategy. But they also need to be able to show that some in our ranks approve of the antics that kwik has pulled. That's just the sort of stuff they want to present to the general public, to prop up their demented claims against gun owners/carriers.

Have approved of what? Legal, law-abiding activity?

Is that what you are screaming about?

Here let's draw this out crayola style:

He has not done ANYTHING illegal. NOTHING. PERIOD.
You do not support his wholly legal activities.
Therefore you do not support NORMAL exercising of ones rights.

Isn't that what you are complaining about? Yes. Yes it is in fact.

Sit here and scream at the top of your lungs at what Leonard is doing TF16. Make a huge spectacle out of it. Hell, with your help, and continued commentary, maybe it will be turned into a national circus! The more you complain about it, the more it is substantiated to others around you that it is in fact "odd", therefore lending credence to the idea that "carrying a firearm in the open is bad!". Slow down, take a deep breath, and figure out what you REALLY have a problem with here. Also realize that nobody is blowing this up as bad as you are.

In the end, it is apparent you simply do not support the following, as the facts present themselves.

1.) Wearing camo, perpetuating 'stereotypes' in a state park.
2.) An orange tip on a real firearm.
3.) Open Carrying a firearm in a state park, wherein it is legal.
4.) Open Carry of an AK47 Pistol
5.) Open Carry in the hand of a Navy Colt, as MANDATED by law in Belle Meade.


Comically, the only thing there that should bat an eye, then be forgotten, is the orange tip thing. It is a whimsical non-point.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe the thing they (antis) want us to do is disprove of his legal activities vehemently? Are you seriously stuck in the single track mind that having us "approve" of his actions (especially when they are completely LEGAL) is what they "want" us to do? How about DISPROVE and rage in bright red on the OCDO forum about his legal activities. How about that eh?

Ever think of that for even a second?


The rest of your post is disposable, and in doing so, nothing of value was lost.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Amen. TaskForce's polarization of friends of OC scares me. We are not some sort of "cult" that all agrees the same, and in fact, this message board and group was set to educate, not follow blindly what one person says. We all have different opinions, and different ways of handling things but to demonize anyone, let alone someone who is standing up for their rights reeks.

I do not agree with this sort of OC of Kwik, but I respect and will protect anyone who wishes to carry in this manner. In fact, at first my response was similar, I was a little disturbed and assumed he was insane. In retrospect, I see that he was trying to make a point.

Additionally if you think this is a "conservative" or "liberal" movement, you are highly ignorant, as many of the people behind the movement come from both sides of aisle, and our supporters are from all background. It's easy to call names to people, it's harder to try to understand what they are doing.

TaskForce, how about educating instead of attacking. Period.


slowfiveoh wrote:

Comically, the only thing there that should bat an eye, then be forgotten, is the orange tip thing. It is a whimsical non-point.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe the thing they (antis) want us to do is disprove of his legal activities vehemently? Are you seriously stuck in the single track mind that having us "approve" of his actions (especially when they are completely LEGAL) is what they "want" us to do? How about DISPROVE and rage in bright red on the OCDO forum about his legal activities. How about that eh?

Ever think of that for even a second?


The rest of your post is disposable, and in doing so, nothing of value was lost.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

Here let's draw this out crayola style:

He has not done ANYTHING illegal. NOTHING. PERIOD.
I didn't say he did.
You do not support his wholly legal activities.
Legal activities, I'm fine with that. Doing them in such a way to gaurantee a confrontation with LEO, for the purpose of ginning a law suit?Yeah, I gotta problem with that, especially when we don't seem to have the problems with LEO that occur in other parts of the country. WE actually seem to have it pretty good here in TN, re LE.
Therefore you do not support NORMAL exercising of ones rights.
Do you call carrying a AK47 pistol through an urban State Park normal? Do you call walking down a thorughfare with a handgun in the hand, rather than holstered,normal?

In the end, it is apparent you simply do not support the following, as the facts present themselves.

1.) Wearing camo, perpetuating 'stereotypes' in a state park. <-- not an issue
2.) An orange tip on a real firearm. <-- it's a dumb idea
3.) Open Carrying a firearm in a state park, wherein it is legal. <-- not an issue
4.) Open Carry of an AK47 Pistol <-- I thought it was a bit much
5.) Open Carry in the hand of a Navy Colt, as MANDATED by law in Belle Meade. <-- Apparently, a law that hasn't been enforced in quite some time, indicated by the officer that stopped him when he said he hadn't seen anyone carry that way before, in Belle Meade.


Comically, the only thing there that should bat an eye, then be forgotten, is the orange tip thing. It is a whimsical non-point.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe the thing they (antis) want us to do is disprove of his legal activities vehemently? Are you seriously stuck in the single track mind that having us "approve" of his actions (especially when they are completely LEGAL) is what they "want" us to do? How about DISPROVE and rage in bright red on the OCDO forum about his legal activities. How about that eh? You just don't get it. It's not about the actions being legal or not. It's the motivations behind deliberately drawing a confrontationwith police. Perhaps John and Mike should have cut him off like the other forums have. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all then. And kwik wouldn't be using OCDO as an online stage.

Ever think of that for even a second?


The rest of your post is disposable, and in doing so, nothing of value was lost. So, you didn't like that last part? Did I go over your head, or did I hit too close to home? It tells allot about some one when they choose to ignore pertinant parts of anarguments.

 

[Pace]

imported post

It is the job of police to deal with "confrontation" and handle themselves in a legal, respectable manner. You have it "pretty good" but you are scared the police won't act correctly?

I have friends in various departments in TN, including the TBI, they would handle this professionally, courteous as they should, period.

If law enforcement can not be expected to follow the law, who is expected.

Task Force 16 wrote:

You do not support his wholly legal activities.
Legal activities, I'm fine with that. Doing them in such a way to gaurantee a confrontation with LEO, for the purpose of ginning a law suit?Yeah, I gotta problem with that, especially when we don't seem to have the problems with LEO that occur in other parts of the country. WE actually seem to have it pretty good here in TN, re LE.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Pace wrote:

It is the job of police to deal with "confrontation" and handle themselves in a legal, respectable manner. You have it "pretty good" but you are scared the police won't act correctly?

I have friends in various departments in TN, including the TBI, they would handle this professionally, courteous as they should, period.

If law enforcement can not be expected to follow the law, who is expected.

Task Force 16 wrote:

You do not support his wholly legal activities.
Legal activities, I'm fine with that. Doing them in such a way to gaurantee a confrontation with LEO, for the purpose of ginning a law suit?Yeah, I gotta problem with that, especially when we don't seem to have the problems with LEO that occur in other parts of the country. WE actually seem to have it pretty good here in TN, re LE.

Pace, kwik has executed 2 events so far that have resulted in warrented encounters with LEO. I think the LEO handled the situation fairly well. kwik doesn't agree.

But both actions carried the potential for an engagement with another armed citizen that may not have reacted correctly. Either one of kwiks excursions could have gone bad in several ways, before LEO ever got involved. Nothing bad happened, but the actions were still questionable from a motivationalstandpoint.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Pace wrote:

It is the job of police to deal with "confrontation" and handle themselves in a legal, respectable manner. You have it "pretty good" but you are scared the police won't act correctly?

I have friends in various departments in TN, including the TBI, they would handle this professionally, courteous as they should, period.

If law enforcement can not be expected to follow the law, who is expected.

Task Force 16 wrote:

You do not support his wholly legal activities.
Legal activities, I'm fine with that. Doing them in such a way to gaurantee a confrontation with LEO, for the purpose of ginning a law suit?Yeah, I gotta problem with that, especially when we don't seem to have the problems with LEO that occur in other parts of the country. WE actually seem to have it pretty good here in TN, re LE.

Pace, kwik has executed 2 events so far that have resulted in warrented encounters with LEO. I think the LEO handled the situation fairly well. kwik doesn't agree.

But both actions carried the potential for an engagement with another armed citizen that may not have reacted correctly. Either one of kwiks excursions could have gone bad in several ways, before LEO ever got involved. Nothing bad happened, but the actions were still questionable from a motivationalstandpoint.

On everyone else's planet, kwik's events resulted in unwarranted arrests lacking in reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

TF16, you are throwing yourself off a cliff of despair. If "using OCDO as a stage" is indeed what is going on, you must be the producer.

Your entire argument reeks of hypocrisy. Don't worry though TF16, unlike you I will not:

1.) Fail to support you if you choose to carry a larger caliber, or larger magazine capacity firearm as a normal carry sidearm.

2.) Yell, howl, and make a fuss that you wore camoflauge garments while on a walk through a state park.

3.) Deny you the reasonable right to defend yourself by telling you that you are not allowed to carry within the laws legal guidelines.

4.) Make a piss-poor recommendation that a law is "not enforced", knowing full well that the same statute would have stood in a court of law, had he carried any other way, and law enforcement had seen fit to press charges. This would be like carrying loaded in California. ILLEGAL.

5.) Tell people who make comments in the Washington section, that they are big ol poopy-heads, and know nothing about Washington, therefore need to stay out of the conversations.

6.) Be selective in my acceptance and understanding of the 2nd Amendment, to such a point that I would make egregious comments about -

-Type of firearm carried
-Choice of carry method


Your entire argument absolutely stinks of "social norm", in that everything you think the 2nd Amendment stands for SHOULD be regulated by "social norms or acceptance". This is the same bigot point of view that would have left black people in the back of buses, gay people scared to "come out of their closets", and women as non-voting citizens whose opinions don't matter.

You are secreting irrational fear all over this thread. You have given poor legal advice.

Furthermore, the bottom part of your post was ignored because it a vomitous mass of irrelevant diarrhea.

I am sorry, but if anybody is taking the "OH NO ITS A GUN!" approach in this thread, it is without a doubt you, TF16.


EDIT: Pertinent Questions -

In light of another thread, I have a question. Do you believe that while dressed up in a furry suit, an individual should not be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

If said individual is dressed in a furry suit, and going to an event where the overwhelming majority of individuals are wearing props, does openly carrying a firearm seem like a bad idea that would construe itself as just another prop or toy?

If yes, why?

If no, why?


Thanks!

 

[Pace]

imported post

I'm not sure about the actions of the ranger, that seemed strange.

The other stop seemed reasonable, and the police, although debating him, did act reasonable.

But good point, I can admit being (partially) wrong.

Task Force 16 wrote:

But both actions carried the potential for an engagement with another armed citizen that may not have reacted correctly. Either one of kwiks excursions could have gone bad in several ways, before LEO ever got involved. Nothing bad happened, but the actions were still questionable from a motivationalstandpoint.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Slow, you are attributing non-existant aspects of argument towards me.

My contentions are that kwik intentionally carried out 2 acts (legal)that he knew would create some level of alarm from the public and draw attention of LE.

Kwik was fishing for a law suit, plain and simple. I don't believe his actions had a thing to do with advancing 2A rights.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Your statement is still based on conjecture, and in no way substantiated.

The same, precise, intricate arguments could be made against "normal" open carry as well.

The whole argument against kwik can only be made, if in the end, as in when the right to keep and bear arms is fully implemented, you still do not agree with his actions.

He did not actively engage law enforcement. As a law enforcement officer it is imperative that you know the laws that you are to enforce. There really is no argument against this, especially when every LEO should be aware of the content contained in the US Constitution, and far more hesitant to violate the rights of the citizens they are sworn to "serve and protect".

Indefinitely detaining an individual because of your own ignorance of law as a LEO is unacceptable. While I would wager a bet that most of us aren't disturbed by 5 minutes of conversation or "Oh hey bud sorry, didn't realize that it was legal here...", the fact is, that far more above and beyond this happens every day.

So, in contrast, TF16; What would you say to police officers being able to set up prostitution stings, or operating as an agent provocateur, with absolute impunity?

Is it acceptable to test the moral compass of the average citizen in scenarios you would not be "allowed" to do as a citizen, from behind the safety of the badge? Is it unacceptable to test law enforcement in kind when it has become increasingly clear that they will not police their own in an unbiased and fair manner?

If kwik tested the law enforcement in his town, then WHO CARES. The burden of response is on the LEA, not kwik.

What would have happened if the ranger said, "Ok sir, have a good day", and then walked off?

Answer that.

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Slow, you are attributing non-existant aspects of argument towards me.

My contentions are that kwik intentionally carried out 2 acts (legal)that he knew would create some level of alarm from the public and draw attention of LE.

Kwik was fishing for a law suit, plain and simple. I don't believe his actions had a thing to do with advancing 2A rights.

So what if he's fishing for a lawsuit?


Why is this a bad thing?


Why is it wrong for citizens acting in a legal manner to place a trap for police?


Why should it matter if Kwik intended to advance 2A or attempted to fill his wallet?


Do good police officers violate the rights of the people?


Should bad police officers be exposed?

 

[Pace]

imported post

My friend, fishing for a lawsuit? Do you know how little money he would get if anything? He's just trying to make a point, and we should be supportive, period. I think he's obviously a little on the weird side, and I wouldn't be amazed if next time they haul him away to a loony bin. Yet, he has every right to be a little crazy and protect his rights and make a point.

Still, if I saw him walking down the street with an AK 47 pistol in the middle of the night on my block, I might very well get him face down on the ground and put a boot in the back of his neck too. I said this in another forum, would anyone else do different if he was on your block? Would you allow your kids to play outside while there was someone walking down the block with an AK47?



Task Force 16 wrote:

Slow, you are attributing non-existant aspects of argument towards me.

My contentions are that kwik intentionally carried out 2 acts (legal)that he knew would create some level of alarm from the public and draw attention of LE.

Kwik was fishing for a law suit, plain and simple. I don't believe his actions had a thing to do with advancing 2A rights.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Great point, why did the Ranger arrest/detain him? It makes no sense, its not that he was just stopped and questions, the ranger went as far to harass and detain him. This is not an example of Law Enforcement having a discussion with him, its an example of them going above their duty, what they are legally allowed to do.

In this case, its not even if the Ranger thought he was doing something illegal -- the ranger knew it was legal, but still decided to go ahead and do something, to make a point?

Kwik has a right to make a point - the ranger, on duty does not. He has one responsibility while on duty: to serve the citizens. This is true of any police officer. The term police comes from CITY, the term means Officer of the City, Man of the City, meaning one who serves the people. Police are often heroes, amazing individuals, people who wake up daily and risk their lives. The rangers actions was not that of a good law enforcement officer, at all.

slowfiveoh wrote:

If kwik tested the law enforcement in his town, then WHO CARES. The burden of response is on the LEA, not kwik.

What would have happened if the ranger said, "Ok sir, have a good day", and then walked off?

Answer that.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Pace wrote:

My friend, fishing for a lawsuit? Do you know how little money he would get if anything? He's just trying to make a point, and we should be supportive, period. I think he's obviously a little on the weird side, and I wouldn't be amazed if next time they haul him away to a loony bin. Yet, he has every right to be a little crazy and protect his rights and make a point.

Still, if I saw him walking down the street with an AK 47 pistol in the middle of the night on my block, I might very well get him face down on the ground and put a boot in the back of his neck too. I said this in another forum, would anyone else do different if he was on your block? Would you allow your kids to play outside while there was someone walking down the block with an AK47?

If he were waving it around, or carrying it in his hand in a way from which it could be fired, then I might raise an eyebrow. If it is sitting on his chest slung, I would not think much of it at all.

A ton of irrational fear has been forced down our throats regarding firearms. Please realize that his AK47 pistol, bears no more danger to us than a .22 LR pistol.

In the end, I believe it is the goal to ensure everybody the right to bear arms as our very existence dictates. So in retort, let me pose this question...

If you are carrying as well, how much concern do you think you need to place, on what kwik was carrying?

There is equality, or there is NONE.