A Tennessee TRTer with cojones

O

Oatka

New member
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392887966f73.htm#1

The poster received this as an email from the actual participant. A tip 'o the hat to whoever he is.

Note the police tactics.

"Sent to webmaster@trt-ca.org. I thought I'd share....

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:16:34 -0400
From: (name withheld)
Subject: The Knoxville Police Dept. vs The Tyranny Response Team

The Knoxville, Tennessee Police Department conducted a gun "buy back" program this morning.

I prepared a flyer explaining why citizens should not give up their firearms and questioning the PD's motives.

Upon my arrival at the Public Safety Building parking lot, about 30 minutes before the beginning of the event, I commenced to distribute my flyers to the dozen or so police officers present. I was immediately approached by a SGT who informed me I was "trespassing and disturbing the peace". I asserted my First Amendment right at which point the SGT informed me that if I did not leave immediately he would "arrest you and put you in jail". I again asserted my First Amendment rights only to be informed that the parking lot was not public property but police department property and that I must leave immediately. The SGT informed me that I could pass out the flyers on the sidewalk outside the parking lot.

I was allowed to stay on the sidewalk for perhaps 5 minutes when a Deputy Chief came out and told me that I would have to leave that spot also. Once more I asserted my rights and informed the Deputy Chief that I had been told by the SGT that this was where I should be. The Deputy Chief said the Police were expanding their area of operation to include the sidewalk and I would have to go across the street. Again, under specific threat of arrest, I moved.

After perhaps five minutes another officer advised me that I should move to the median on the next street. Again, protesting, I complied and while there was interviewed by the local ABC affilitate. This interview, of approximately 5 minutes, netted 15 seconds on the local news. After passing out 10-15 flyers from that location I was approached by two officers who told me that I was interfering with traffic and was a safety hazard. I pointed out, to no avail, that civic organizations constantly man so called "road blocks" on roadways much busier than where I was in order to solicit contributions. Made no difference and I was ordered further away to a point at which I would be totally ineffective.

After being moved further away four times I finally gave up and left. As to the sidewalk from which I was ordered by the Deputy Chief, no police activity of any nature was conducted there. No barracades, no traffic cones, no police, no nothing.

. . .

The Police Officers, with the exception of the SGT, were extremely polite and courteous. At no time were any harsh words exchanged. Just threats of arrest for exercising my First Amendment rights. Several officers leaving the parking area flashed me a thumbs up. Others emphasized they agreed with me but had to follow orders.

The police were requiring that a rather extensive personal information document be completed as part of the "buy back" transaction. At least one citizen refused to provide his personal information and left with his gun. Several citizens approached me after they left and advised that 90% of the guns they saw were quite obviously junk. The evening news, previously mentioned, devoted several minutes to the police propaganda in support of the "buy back" program and showed the guns collected. They were truly junk.

KPD has announced that two more of these "gun buy backs" will be held this summer. I place the words "gun buy backs" in parens because, it should be obvious even to the police and the media, you cannot "buy back" that which you never owned. The East Tennessee Element of the Tyranny Response Team will attend those events also but this time in large numbers and armed, hopefully, with a court order protecting our First Amendment rights.

(name withheld)
Heiskell, Tennessee"



------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
I don't participate on that forum ... any chance we can get a copy of at least the text from the flyer? Might be helpful elsewhere in the country.

Thanks. Regards from AZ
 
I'm here in Knoxville. If you talk to this guy again, send him my e-mail addy. I think I can get a couple other people involved with this.
 
Looks like the best bet is to contact webmaster@trt-ca.org and work through them.
The poster at FreeRepublic doesn't have an email address.

Good luck.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't participate on that forum[/quote]

you should

The AIMM rally was organized on Freerepublic

its a great group of patriots

dZ
 
I strongly suggest that the Tenn TRT consult legal counsel to find where the law lies. If the law I on your side, make the police arrest you. It will steal more than just 15 seconds of airtime.

Rick

[This message has been edited by RickD (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
I read this and was thinking that if he stood his ground and was arrested, that he could file charges for false arrest. I remember a preacher who was arrested for preaching at K-State in Manhattan, Kansas. He threatened to file charges for false arrest and the law backed off.

------------------
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
 
A TRT founder started just this way - the only guy there, denying the antis the headlines, for many a year. Only difference was he didn't have the snazzy shirt. ;)

Getting arrested has its merits and downside. You do have to pick & choose - wisely. & it can be very expensive.

First rule of being a millionaire? First, get a million dollars ....
 
We have a Phoenix-area activist with large brass ones. Because he had a problem with people parking on his front yard (or some such) the police asked him to come in and file a complaint.

He always carries openly. He is 6'2" and likes lots of pizza and beer.

Knowing that Arizona Revised Statute 13-3102(A)(10) is just a weapons checking statute not a ban on carrying in to government buildings, Mark entered the police precinct building (actually Glendale PD).

The "No Weapons Allowed" sign was emblazoned on the door. He walked through and told them he would like to check his firearm. They told him to put it in his car. He said under the statute they must either check it or let him pass.

An officer met with him and looked him in the eye. The cop demanded that he take the gun outside. Mark demanded that the cop follow the law and that the City of Glendale's only option is to check or let him pass. "Go get your supervisor," Mark instructed.

Another cop with more stripes appeared. Same discussion, with this twist.

Cop: You are tresspassing.

Mark: I couldn't possibly be tresspassing, Glendale PD told me to come here on business.

Cop: If you do not leave I will arrest you for tresspassing.

Mark: If you arrest me for tresspassing I'll arrest you for kidnapping. Go get your supervisor.

Mark stood down a string of Glendale's finest over thirty minutes or so. Finally, one of them arrived in a suit and tie. Mark repeated his position. The suit agreed to check Mark's 1911 pattern pistol in the locker.

Mark did his business, picked up his pistol and left.

It would have saved the Glendale PD quite a few man-hours if they had just obeyed the law and checked his gun instead of getting badge-heavy. They don't try to bully Mark anymore.

How many of you would be willing to do something similar (pick your issue)?

That's the type of action we need.

Rick
 
How many of *you* are willing to go my bail so I don't have to sit in jail for six months awaiting trial? Help with my attorney fees and court costs? Support my family while I serve time for serving RKBA?

You get my drift. A lot of folks are very brave with *other* peoples' butts.
 
"How many of *you* are willing to go my bail so I don't have to sit in jail for six months awaiting trial?"

Trial? No one is asking you to do anything illegal. Would one be likely to require bail for tresspassing? Not much of a flight risk.

"Help with my attorney fees and court costs?"

That's what friends and gun clubs and TRT are for. You can also pay certain law firms a small monthly fee for such activity. A local and experienced libertarian activist does just this. Look him up at www.safe.org (Second Amendment is for Everyone). (oh, heck, that ain't it.) Anyway, when I get the URL he may answer your questions if you don't whine.

"Support my family while I serve time for serving RKBA?"

Go see the movie "The Patriot" next month. Some of your questions will be answered.

"You get my drift. A lot of folks are very brave with *other* peoples' butts."

You're not talking about me. I have personally demanded that my pistol be checked at both the County Superior and State Supreme Courts. Had to face down armed guards threatening arrest for twenty minutes to do it too. They don't do that to me anymore.

Or you can just sit back in peace. But as Adams said, "...let your chains fall lightly upon you..."

Rick
Don't bother me, I got work to do.

[This message has been edited by RickD (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
Okay, I have posted this before and perhaps I should save a copy for cut n paste posts. You guys who participate in these activities need to get a copy of this citation and carry it with you when you are at these functions in California. The rest of you need to do some research as to where Pruneyard has been cited and the precedents it sets and how they affect you.

I am typing this exactly as it was sent to me by an activist aquaintance in California. She also included the appropriate section from West's Annotated. The case may be found at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=74

[start]
Westside Sane/Freeze vs. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., 224 Cal App 3d 546, (1990) clarifies and expands a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling (Robbins v Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal 3d 899; affirmed Pruneyard Shopping Center vs. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74). Pruneyard holds that sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the California Constitution protect speech and petitioning, reasonably excercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privetaly owned. The court ruled the California Constitution creates broader speech rights as to private prioperty than does the federal constitution.

The facts in Pruneyard involved students leafletting and soliciting signatures for a proposed ballot initiative. In Westside Sane/Freeze the appeals court makes clear that California's constitutional rights of of free speech and petition at private shopping centers and other private property where the public is invited is not limited to gathering signatures. The ruling extends protection to the interchange of ideas and information through political leafletting, picketing, and discussion with shoppers.

The court also holds that requiring owners of public access property to allow leafletting and speaking to patrons is not an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation under the 5th Amendment because allowing noncommercial expression does not unreasonably impair the value or use of the property. Nor does such state protected free speech infringe upon the property owner's 1st Amendment rights.

Therefore, activists do not need permission to engage in political expression on public access property such as shopping centers, sports and concert arenas, or railway stations, even if they are privately owned. Additionally, it is a felony to interfere with citizen participation in the politiocal process, under California Penal Code.
[end]

In other words, you are protected from being thrown out of, or off of, private property where the public is normally and customarily invited to enter. This should also extend to public property without argument.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
RickD, I read this tread 2 days ago and have been thinking abouthtis one brave man who tried to defy these bully officers. I though that at some point, an opportune one, I would want to do the same, to stand up.

Now, before I do that I want to be damn sure that I am indeed on the right side of the law and my rights. I cannot afford to pay legal expenses just to make a point of my rights. That in itself really stinks - the fact that you actually need money to exercise your rights.

My question ot you is, does the link you provided above point me to legal resources that can not only answer my questions, but also maybe help me out if "the law" actually carries out the threat of arrest?

There is going to be a "gun buy back" here in Houston soon. The very first here. I want to be there with some similar fliers attempting folks to keep their weapons and possibly to pick up on a real deal should I find one. I expect there will be "resistance" to my actions so I want to be ready.

More of us need to do these types of thing but in greater numbers. Even a dozen folks would present a more difficult problem for "the law" than just one.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
The link for Second Amendment is for Everyone is, apparently, not www.safe.org or com or whatever. Anyway, it is not a legal resource for you.

The purpose was to get you into contact with Arizona's premiere activist, Libertarian Chair, Ernie Hancock. Ernie's philosophy is to do what you are contemplating. That is, know the law before you start. That is, know you have already won before you begin because you exposed some government agent acting under color of law, or you know that for him to stop your protest, his only recourse is to break the law himself.

This takes study. That is why it is always good for an activist to spend lots of time studying the state statutes and the state constitution. A lawyer can help with some of that but not all.

For your gun buyback protest you will have to research the laws governing weapons possession, transfer, tresspass, etc.

One thing that Ernie will tell you is never to get a "permit" to protest. It allows them to control you. To tell you "It's okay to protest, but you have to do it over there...way over there." Also, in those situations, do not come as some named group, and do not have a "leader." Often the men in suits will ask you, "What group are you with? Who is in charge?" It weakens them not to have a focal point.

Simply say, "Group? I'm just an individual exercising my right to speech. There is no leader here. I don't need no stinking permit to be here..."

Go to the TFL archives and look up my Gun Buy Back protest at the third-annual Mary Rose Wilcox gun buy back at St. Anthony's church last fall.

We only had a half-dozen of us. We set up our gun buyback table in front of Mary Rose's table. It was called the "No Smelter Shelter" and was designed to poke a thumb in her eye. Yeah, we donated some guns to Arizona Game and Fish, but that was not our purpose. We wanted TV time. We wanted to expose Mary Rose. We wanted the questions posed to her to be altered by our very presence. We wanted her to change her answers as we were but a few feet away during her interview.

You simply must be there. Even if it is just one of you, the way I started. But if you can get on friendly talk radio stations and spread the word, you just might get more folks showing up on your side. Those who show up for this will show up for other things. These are the true activists you want to meet.

Rick
 
After being moved to the sidewalk, upon the second request to move on (beyond the sidewalk), I would have gotten in that POS cops' face and told hime to kiss my arse, go ahead and arrest me, and I'll sue you, your department, and do my dead-level best to have you fired!! It's called free speech, jackass - learn about it. The cops don't own the sidewalk (not even going to mention the safety hazard horse crap). No offense to the good LEOs who understand that people do indeed have rights, and respect them.
 
Oh yeah, I too encourage anyone who hasn't to go back are read the thread on RickD's protest at that gun buyback farse. It'll put a smile on your face, guaranteed. Rick, you clank when you walk, my man. :D
 
This was my first lawsuit against my Sheriff and PD Chief, filed 3/15/99 in California Superior Court, pro-per. It wasn't a total waste, I managed to force the barsterds to actually hand out the application forms to anybody walking in the door.

I've now formally applied for CCW and been denied. I just got off the phone with a civil rights lawyer who's been reading my site and wants to provide pro-bono support for me and the several dozen other co-plaintiffs I've collected from the local Libertarian coven :) and local NRA Member's Councils.

The next suit will be 10x more potent, in Federal court, backed by the Guillory decision from the 9th Circuit - see also my site at http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw

-----------------

James March
Xx xxxx xxx
Richmond, California xxxxx
Telephone: (510) xxx-xxxx
Attorney pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, MARTINEZ BRANCH

JAMES MARCH, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. )

SHERIFF WARREN E. RUPF, )

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S ) Case No: C99-00887

DEPARTMENT, CONTRA COSTA )

COUNTY GOVERNMENT, RICHMOND )

POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

CITY OF RICHMOND, ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, ) AND DAMAGES

Defendants )

__________________________________)

1) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN REFUSAL TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO APPLY FOR A CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS (CCW) PERMIT

2) PERPETUATING A CONTINUING THREAT ON THE LIFE OF THE PLAINTIFF

3) DECLARATORY RELIEF

James March, referred to as "Plaintiff" (hereinafter), and for causes of action, alleges as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(By Defendants for violations of civil rights)

1. At all material times, James March was a resident of Richmond, California.

2. At all material times, the Defendants or their agents/employees had the ability to issue a concealed weapons permit to the Plaintiff in accord with Penal Code 12050-12054.

3. On or about January, 1998 the Plaintiff examined the CCW permit policies of the Defendants, and learned of the general state of them as outlined below. Plaintiff gave up gaining a CCW permit until February 15th, 1999.

4. On February 15th, 1999 Plaintiff read the California Constitution and realized that the Defendant's policies are illegal not only by implication, but directly. Plaintiff found applicable Article 1 Section 7B: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

5. On March 9th 1999 Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Wayne Willett identified himself in person to the Plaintiff as the Sheriff's agent in charge of initial permit applications and enforcing the Sheriff's CCW policies.

6. On that date the Plaintiff identified himself to Willett as a Richmond resident with specific threats against his life.

7. On that date Willett informed the Plaintiff that issuance of CCW permits to Richmond residents does not occur without the specific consent of the Richmond PD Chief on a case by case basis. Willett confirmed Plaintiff's prior knowledge that this is also the case in Pittsburgh.

8. On March 10th 1999 Plaintiff called the secretary of the Richmond Chief of Police. The secretary confirmed the policy, explained that such special dispensation to apply for CCW with the Sheriff "just plain doesn't happen" and neither does issuance straight from the Chief. The secretary would not schedule an appointment with the Richmond PD Chief despite his well-publicized "open door policy".

9. At all material times Defendants Sheriff Rupf, Sheriff's department and Richmond PD had an agreement whereby the Sheriff would issue no policies to residents of the incorporated town of Richmond without the permission of the Richmond PD Chief of Police. This permission must be sought by the permitholder on an individual basis.

10. At all material times Defendants Sheriff and Sheriff's department had a similar agreement with Pittsburgh PD. These "cross-jurisdictional agreements" were NOT common throughout the county in that form, they were (and remain) specific to these towns.

11. At all material times the Defendants were aware of the racial makeup of the county in general and these two towns in particular, and were aware that a distinctive racial result of "limited legal gun carry for minorities" would be the logical and practical result of such "self defense redlining" in gross violation of basic principles of civil rights and equal protection laws.

12. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff's Department issued permits to people with political and personal connections to the Sheriff and the Department and seldom to members of the general population of the county, in flagrant violation of California's Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.

13. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff's Department issued permits to people of wealth, privilege and general high social standing. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.

14. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, permits were issued to citizens who had contributed large campaign contributions to the Sheriff's re-election fund or that of other County politicians.

15. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf the Defendants made a mockery of justice in the county, they deliberately antagonized citizens interested in their own self defense and flaunted an "armed aristocracy". Defendants severely reduced the general trust in the administration of justice within the county and of law enforcement and contributed to the lack of cooperation between law enforcement and the citizenry. Defendants contributed to the rise of crime, violence and general societal chaos, and gravely harmed every single individual in the county.

16. The Defendants systematically violated civil rights knowing that the ability to commit such violations were crafted right into the legislature's crafting of "Discretionary CCW" in 1923. The Defendants were aware of the historical origin of discretionary permits, they were aware it was an integral part of "Jim Crow", they were aware that it was a product of the former Confederate and other Southern states designed to allow bigoted Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to abuse civil rights without crafting an obvious statewide restriction on minorities that would alert the Federal Government to problems. The Defendants have knowingly perpetuated a key element of Jim Crow almost into the 21st century, relying on a generally low knowledge of history and low interest in personal defense to perpetuate illegal activity.

17. Plaintiff has been directly damaged by remaining in fear of his life or great bodily injury by specific threats to his life.

18. Plaintiff has been damaged by "having his nose rubbed in" an area of "justice" which clearly isn't, and being forced to realize that if lawlessness on this scale exists in law enforcement in this area of law, there is literally no way of knowing how much further the "rot has spread". As a result Plaintiff has suffered several years of lost sleep.

19. Plaintiff specifies Does 1 through 1,000 inclusive in case this turns into a class action suit because the Plaintiff is to date unaware of a single California law enforcement agency fully in compliance with legal and Constitutional issues relating to CCW issuance.

20. Plaintiff cannot be fully compensated in damages, is without an adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of damage plaintiff will sustain will be difficult to determine.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. On the all Causes of Action, for damages according to proof and a judicial order to cease and desist from all illegal and unconstitutional actions relating to CCW. The Plaintiff prays for the following findings from the Court:

A. A finding from the Court that the existing CCW system within the county is designed to violate civil rights, ever since its origin in 1923.

B. A finding from the Court that the Sheriff, the Chief and their officers/agents/deputies/employees cannot be trusted to use "subjective standards" in deciding the eligibility of CCW applicants to acquire the permit.

2. The Plaintiff asks the Court to impose on pain of contempt a set of OBJECTIVE standards for permit issuance to replace the illegal and unconstitutional SUBJECTIVE standards that have been used as a method of citizen abuse since 1923.

3. The Plaintiff asks for direct monetary compensation for aggravation and terror endured in the amount of $15,000 which is also the dollar amount necessary to perform an interstate move to someplace with reasonable laws and law enforcement.

4. The Plaintiff prays for the court to consider punitive damages.

5. The Plaintiff encourages the court to look up the racial identity of the approved permitholders. The Plaintiff feels close to certain that the court will find an extremely low and possibly non-existent rate of minority permit holding regardless of geographic residency, and the Plaintiff has hopes the court will take an extremely dim view of this. As a Caucasian the Plaintiff feels he cannot directly sue for this cause of action, however the Plaintiff is attempting to recruit his roommate Mr. Henry Hill in as a co-Plaintiff who is of obvious African-American descent if that's what it takes to get to the bottom of all this insanity.

6. For costs of suit and for general relief.

Dated this 15th of March, 1999

______________________________

xxx xxxxx xxx

Richmond, California xxxxx
James March, Attorney Pro Per

EXHIBIT A:

Statement in 1941 by Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford in the case of Warren vs. Stone, involving a Caucasian Florida resident caught packing a gun without a permit and referring to Florida's old Discretionary system thrown out in 1986:

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) (Note: Per scholarly work by Clayton Cramer (see also Plaintiff's Exhibit C).

EXHIBIT B:

(Attached): March 4th 1999 Newspaper article, Detroit News titled "History gives verdict on Self-defense" by Tim O'Brien. Proof that the Michigan Discretionary CCW system was literally written at the request of the KKK due to a justifiable homicide by an African-American against a member of a white lynch mob.

EXHIBIT C:

(Attached): Essay by Clayton Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" from the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4:2 [Winter, 1995] and widely reprinted, plus linked all over the Internet.
 
Jim:

Not being a lawyer, I don't understand how the history of CCW laws from other states might affect your suit in CA. That being said, if the point is to establish a pattern, then you might also look at the "old" CCW laws in Texas, which were also rooted in post-Civil War racial policies.

CMOS:

If you are looking for folks to join you at a local gun buy-back protest, let me know. I live in Beaumont and may be interested in participating, along with a few other folks from the local gun club.
 
rock-jock, yes, I would like your help. I've had a couple of folks contact me about doing this with Houston's first gun buy-back program.

Please contact me and let's start to get organized.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top