Or at least, I think he was trying to make a point, but I'm not entirely sure.
Joel Rosenberg, author of Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota
Apparently, Sgt. Palmer noticed Joel's holster, hand gun, and a big knife.
I presume that Joel being a white Jewish guy (though I don't quite get the "Jew" theme as he has developed it) was at first politely asked to leave the building, since guns are not allowed there. Now, had he been "Abdul Lincoln, Author of the book 'Everything you know about packing heat in the Twin Cities' and proprietor of a web site called 'Black Guy with a Gun and a Knife' I suspect there's a pretty good chance that Sgt. Palmer would have drawn his weapon, forced Mr. Lincoln to the ground, and under certain circumstances, blown him away. I'm not saying anything here about Sgt. Palmer, really, but, well, you get the point. And I admit that's one of my racially charged digressions, so let's just leave it at that...
Anyway, Joel Rosenberg was asked by Sgt. Palmer to leave the building and he refused. Palmer pointed out that the building has a sign that says that handguns are banned on the premises, and ... this is where it gets interesting ... Rosenberg replied that the sign was not "applicable."
Palmer then disarmed Rosenberg, removed the loaded magazine from the gun and the live round that was in the chamber. Palmer then returned the unloaded weapon to Rosenberg and asked him to leave, police said.
[emphasis added]
Later, Rosenberg seems to have written an open letter on the Internet to Palmer that reads, in part,
When you stupidly lunged at me to grab my knife and gun, you didn't watch my hands. One of them was on my back-up gun; the other was within an inch of my back-up knife.
Here's the letter, on the Family Matters II web site, which is apparently run by Walter Slovotsky, who as far as I can tell is Joe's lover or something (that's a little unclear, but whatever, who cares).
Joel Rosenberg is the author of the The Guardians of the Flame Novels
In his open letter to Sgt. Palmer, Bill exhibits all the usual signs of being both an all out gun not and an Internet yahoo. For instance, consider this list of things that Bill tells Palmer he can do the next time they meet:
1. Chill. If you've got issues, bounce them upstairs to your boss. Me carrying at City Hall is an issue that's well above your pay grade -- bounce it upstairs. Maybe you want to get the law changed; take it up with the legislature. I'll warn you, in advance, that if you try that, you'll just make a public fool of yourself, but, hell, Bill, at this point, that'd be like wetting a river, given your job and your fool stunt on Friday.
2. Arrest me, soft. If you want to arrest me, Bill, all you've got to do is tell me, "Joel, I'm placing you under arrest." I will, slowly, raise my hands to shoulder level, getting them well away from any weapons that you see or don't see. You can then hook me up; if you don't want to use your own cuffs, you can use mine -- behind the hip, lefthand side. I won't resist, Bill; I give you my word. We'll settle our differences in court, me for whatever fool thing you've decided to falsely arrest me for, you for your false arrest.
3. Arrest me at gunpoint. Draw your service weapon, point it at me, after announcing that you're going to arrest me. Call for backup to secure me. I won't resist -- you have my word, Bill -- them or you. Keep your finger off the fucking trigger. You don't want my blood on your hands, and I won't have yours on mine.
4. Jump and thump me, MPD style. Yes, I know how you badged boys work; you just handed me all sorts of evidence of that. Again: I won't resist, and we'll settle it in court, unless it turns out to be the last possibility.
5. Execute me. I'm a hypertensive diabetic with two degraded disks up against his spine, Bill. I'm easy to break. You can do that, Bill, but you'll have to live with the consequences. I won't; I'll be beyond all pain.
First, Rosenberg is giving Palmer a list. that's pretty typical ... the yahoo has defined all of Palmer's options and is laying them out, rule like. The list is embedded within and includes lots of phrases that say things like "don't worry, I'll never hurt you" but also includes what I like to think of as a "rule trigger" that in this case literally involves a trigger ... in item number 3. Palmer is invited to arrest Rosenberg at gunpoint .... putting it another way, Rosenberg is giving Palmer permission to do his job ... but embeds in this permission a specific threat: If Palmer touches his own trigger finger, then ... then what? It's a little unclear, but it seems to involve some fantasy that Palmer has of grabbing a police officer's gun so that it goes off and shoots him (Rosenberg). Yeah, this threat of suicide by cop is probably enough to bring him in and have him committed.
Here's the interesting and important part. I've got a friend, a very good friend, who is a peace loving pacifist progressive liberal kinda person, who recently found out that there is a credible threat in her life. She indicated the other day that she might get a Minnesota carry permit, or at least, take the course for it.
If you look on the web for books, classes, and information about this, you will find web resources put together by various pro-gun organizations and individuals. Mr. Rosenberg is, it turns out, one of the main go-to guys if you want to pursue a carry permit in the Twin Cities. You can buy his book, too.
So I see this incident as proof positive that the line between gun advocates and gun safety related resources and teachers on one hand, and threatening and dangerous gun nuts on the other hand, to be either very thin or simply non existent. Assuming that Joel Rosenberg is a dangerous crazy gun nut. Which I tend to think he is.
According to police, numerous people in the community contacted police expressing concern over Rosenberg and the threat he may pose to public safety.
Rosenberg was arrested at 9:28 o'clock Wednesday morning. He faces a felony charge of dangerous weapon in a courthouse and a misdemeanor charge of contempt of court.
If convicted of both charges, Rosenberg could face a maximum penalty of five years and three months in prison.
- Log in to post comments
Yeah, that's pretty much Joel, from everything I've heard through the con circuit. The suicide fantasy, though, shows how fine a line there is between crank and danger when there are guns involved.
When I was a child I enjoyed the first of the "Guardians of the Flame" novels. Then I encountered Rosenberg on the Internet (well, it was the BBSes at the time, but same thing.) He was something never seen on the Earth since the last brontosaur died: a five and a half foot asshole. But I kept his book since I'd have to discard half my collection if I threw out every science fiction book written by an asshole.
THEN he got into a VERY bullying, abusive discussion with my spouse on the topic of writing. Rosenberg bragged of being a published author and told my spouse, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the St. Kate's English department, to shut the bleep up about literature until she had published as many books as he had. And that's digesting the discussion down to its skeleton, and not including the reams of abuse he heaped on her until she actually wept.
I threw out any Rosenberg novels I owned and have never read another since.
I've argued gun control with this lunatic on a couple of occasions, and I use the term lunatic advisedly. I'm sure he keeps a round chambered in his handgun because he fears at all times that his life could depend on that extra fractional second's delay if it were not: he's not merely delusional, he's a drama queen, as anyone who read the City Pages article about him can attest. However heated our arguments got, however, he never learned who I was in reality.
This was VERY amusing to me when I sat behind him for a play in one of the Rarig Center's theaters. I enjoyed the performance a lot more than I should have, imagining myself kicking him really hard in base of the skull, and then shouting "How's the chambered round in your goddamned handgun working for you now, asshole?!" at his twitching corpse. Likewise slitting his throat with my pocketknife.
I'm not normally given to such violent fantasies, but don't judge me until you've argued gun control or literature with Rosenberg. (And that's not hard to do - just find him anywhere online or in reality and say "I disagree." [Or, alternatively "Palestine."])
As far as making his religious and ethnic heritage a prominent part of his identity, Rosenberg like so many scared little men with tiny penises finds it very convenient to be the victim. Victims are never responsible for their actions, because they're victims. So, for example, if Rosenberg shoots you, it will doubtless because you forced him to do so in self defense - not because he's, say, a frightened, little man with a small penis and anger-management issues who simply lost control and shot you with the chambered round in his handgun.
It will be very interesting to watch Rosenberg age. It will not surprise me in the least if at some point he actually DOES kill someone, particularly if his mind unravels further over time.
This stunt plays into the hands of the people who would restrict gun ownership. It was unnecessary and foolish.
H.
Just a digression: I wonder what they are so scared of and why..
I think they were afraid of the the guns, Jared, because guns can kill people if used "properly"
No problemo, my invisible ninja assassins had you in their sights the entire time. You're lucky you didn't attempt to draw that backup gun.
What kind of nut carries a *backup knife* for fucks sake? (rhetorical)
yikes! Freaky to think there's people like that out there. Makes me think of a book "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin De Becker, he details people like this, what to expect from them and how to deal with (or disengage from)them.
I choose to disengage! Much too messed up for my liking.
Sorry to the people who've actually had confrontations with him.
Wow. What an idiot. The cops should probably have busted him when he refused to leave. Well, he was given his chance - obviously the cop didn't want to waste time on yet another case if he could help it - but then the moron just announces to the world how he doesn't care about the law. Nice move - I wonder if the judge will order his permits and licenses revoked and his weapons confiscated.
I wonder if the judge will order his permits and licenses revoked and his weapons confiscated.
That would be funny.
Oh yeah - wrong type of gun in the illustration of course - that one obviously doesn't have a magazine. It would be strange to see a revolver with all but one chamber loaded - unless perhaps you were a gambling Russian.
@MadScientist, I'm given to understand that most people who famously traveled on horseback with a '6-shooter' revolver tended to only load 5 rounds due to the propensity for the gun to accidentally go off while riding. (also the reason for the addition of a tie-down for the hammer being added to the western style gun belt...)
or did you mean 'only one chamber loaded' ?
wrong type of gun in the illustration of course
Click on the picture. It's from his web site.
If convicted he'll be a felon. AFAIK felons are not allowed to own guns. I wonder how that will work out for him?
Seems to me many of these sorts of situations, and the larger proportion of the Tea Party movement, share a common spark. Typically men they are also commonly of a certain middle or late-middle age. many of them are in the habit of considering themselves guardians of the good, if not outright heroes.
Of course if you have heroes you need villains. Which explains their frequent application of ugly names and labels to anyone not exactly like them.
This then, inevitably, it is in all the comic books, leads to a confrontation. Expecting this the good guys have armed themselves appropriately with the usual selection of guns and knives. these, being used by the good guys, the guardians of the good, are the tools of freedom and, as such, a universal good in their own right.
So far, so good. How they view themselves, how they label others, and what tools they carry are all unilateral decisions and under their control. The problem is when they get to mid-40s or 50s they have been maintaining this tense, hyper-vigilant stance for 25 or 35 years and with their age getting up there a flaw in their cunning plan to bait evil into a showdown has become clear. The heroes are getting older, slower, and less capable of holding their own in any Manichean struggle. And the evil they fight has, so far, failed to arrange for the great set-piece battle. Despite laying on every vile accusation and scandalous name in the book the evil has refused to come out for the great showdown.
Time is running out for the hero fantasy they have so deeply invested in. And if evil won't stand up and fight they will have to sally forth and to force the showdown.
The problem is that the good guys are not supposed to attack people. The good guys are defending right and, according to arcane rules laid down in 50 years of comic books and western, are not allowed to actually cause the mayhem they want and need to complete the vision.
So you get incoherent actions like sneaking into to courthouse armed like a domestic terrorist. Armed with everything but an active intent to use the weapons in a hostile manner. Going 'Postal' in time place and equipment but restrained by 'The cowboy code', or other such nonsense, from transforming from armed guardian acting defiantly to slayer of all who cross their path. Typically ending in suicide.
The Teabaggers are playing the same game of attempting to provoke the final and cathartic showdown that has been denied them so far. While some are armed they generally are, so far, sticking to political and rhetorical means. But the underlying spark and motivation is much the same. They are seeking to figure out what happens when Superman gets old while the evils of the world remain. Their hero persona is having to deal with the prospect of adult diapers and being spoon-fed by a condescending brown-skinned nurse.
Excellent analysis, Art.
As the go to guy for advice about permits -- that is, legal advice -- it's apalling how much ignorance is revealed in his list about the law and how the legal system works.
Point one: "Me carrying at City Hall is an issue that's well above your pay grade -- bounce it upstairs. Maybe you want to get the law changed; take it up with the legislature." Carrying a gun in the courthouse is illegal. I doubt as if Sgt. Palmer unilaterally decided to put those signs up. His job, which is sanctioned both by law and society, is to enforce the laws. There is no decision involved. NOT enforcing the law is a decision that is above his pay grade.
Point two: "We'll settle our differences in court, me for whatever fool thing you've decided to falsely arrest me for, you for your false arrest." Whatever fool thing is attempting to carry a gun in the courthouse. That's a criminal case, not a civil one. Sgt. Palmer won't be the one prosecuting the case, the people of Minnesota will. Enforcing the law in the face of clear defiance of that law isn't false arrest. Rosenberg might be able to challenge the law in higher court, but he won't be fighting Sgt. Palmer in that case; he will, again, be fighting the people of Minnesota.
Points three through five are not legal; they're the hero/martyr crap that Art just dealt with so well.
Everyone seems to keep complaining about Joel bringing a gun into the courthouse, which would clearly be illegal. Joel, however, didn't bring the gun into a courthouse. The "courthouse" in question is a "courtroom" in a different part of the same complex. If there wasn't a courtroom in the complex, there would clearly have been no violation.
The actual legal issue here is more complex, involving the interpretation of the exceptions to the legal carry law (that Joel himself helped to get passed, so he knows about the exceptions). Can an entire multi-use building or facility be included as an exception because there is one part of that building that is an exception?
The other issue is the timing of the charges and arrest. According to the Star Tribune, the incident occurred on November 5:
At the time the police considered the issue resolved, otherwise they would have arrested the "obviously" dangerous crazy man with a gun. What actually happened, of course, is that Joel ranted about how the cops were idiots and violated his rights, so the cops have decided to retaliate by arranging for charges to be brought. A month after the incident.
So, there are two issues that aren't being discussed here. One is the real legal question about how the exception the the carry law can be applied in multi-use facilities, and the other is that the charges are really a matter of cops retaliating for Joel's blog posts, not for the actual offense, which they resolved to their satisfaction the day it happened.
Interesting post, and I like Art's analysis too. I didn't know this about Rosenberg.
Side point - Walter Slovotsky is a character from the GOTF novels. Browsing the FM II website suggests that the use of his POV on that website is almost as odd as the behavior at the courthouse.
So, there are two issues that aren't being discussed here.
Ken, if you're discussing them, how can they be "not discussed"?
One is the real legal question about how the exception the the carry law can be applied in multi-use facilities
Can't any public facility or building have a "no guns on the premises" rule?
which they resolved to their satisfaction
Well, apparently not.
Bad Wolf
Talk the the hand.
(Sorry bad joke. Not really like me, but I couldn't resist. And by "bad" I don't mean not funny...)
Derender, yeah, like you get mugged a lot in Madison, Wisconsin.
Ken, if you're discussing them, how can they be "not discussed"?
Don't be obtuse. (You normally aren't.) These points had not been raised at all until I posted, and a discussion implies more than one person talking (or are you going to chide me for not saying "typing") about the issue. Everyone here before me was perfectly willing to just make the false statement that Joel brought a gun into a courthouse, and then rant on from that premise about how stupid such an act is.
Can't any public facility or building have a "no guns on the premises" rule?
Sure, if it's in the law. If the law, however, says that there are only certain public places that you can have a "no guns on the premises" rule, and you are otherwise permitted to carry a gun with the proper license, then the government can't just throw up a sign which creates an unlawful regulation.
Well, apparently not [resolved to their satisfaction].
The point (which I guess you missed) was that the gun in the building issue was resolved on November 5th, otherwise there would have been a charge and arrest that day. The subsequent charge and arrest a month later was retaliation for the blog posts and complaint filed against the cop.
It turns out that the cop involved also dug up an old charge against Joel's wife which previously had been dropped and reinstated the charge. All after the complaint against the cop was filed. This sounds more like a "contempt-of-cop" situation than a "nut-with-a-gun" situation.
Perhaps it's a little bit of both...
though I don't quite get the "Jew" theme as he has developed it
It's actually a common meme among gun proponents: "If the Jews had been armed, Hitler wouldn't have been able to kill them!" Spend time on any gun-rights forum, you'll run into some variation of "Well, THIS Jew ain't gonna let himself get killed by the jackbooted thugs of the police state" pretty quickly. See comment 19 for a prime example.
the live round that was in the chamber
Almost anyone carrying a handgun that's loaded at all will have a round chambered. You need 2 hands to chamber a round, you only need one to fire a round already chambered. I agree he comes across as creepy and dangerous, but you can't fault him for following what most firearm instructors teach as standard procedure.
Joel Rosenberg is the author of the The Guardians of the Flame Novels. Heard of them?
I vaguely remember reading them and being entertained, but I recall no details whatsoever. Probably brain candy I consumed in my less discerning, more libertarian youth.
In his open letter to Sgt. Palmer, Bill exhibits all the usual signs of being both an all out gun not
Typo alert: You meant "gun _nut_", and I agree, he seems to be a loon.
@21: Can't any public facility or building have a "no guns on the premises" rule?
Depends on the state.
@23: Derender, yeah, like you get mugged a lot in Madison, Wisconsin.
Depends where in Madison you are. The south side has a pretty high crime rate.
Peter @ 12: @MadScientist, I'm given to understand that most people who famously traveled on horseback with a '6-shooter' revolver tended to only load 5 rounds due to the propensity for the gun to accidentally go off while riding.
Technology has advanced a _little_ since then. ;-)
Don't be obtuse. (You normally aren't.) These points had not been raised at all until I posted,
I'm not being obtuse. I'm glad you're bringing up points not otherwise covered. Much of what you said could not possibly have been gleaned from the cited article, and I appreciate the additional information.
the law, however, says that there are only certain public places that you can have a "no guns on the premises" rule, and you are otherwise permitted to carry a gun
I would regard that as a flaw in the law.
This sounds more like a "contempt-of-cop" situation than a "nut-with-a-gun" situation.
It does sound like a little of both.
It's actually a common meme among gun proponents: "If the Jews had been armed, Hitler wouldn't have been able to kill them!"
Ah, right, of course, thanks, I get it now. He Godwined himself!
Technology has advanced a _little_ since then. ;-)
Did they get the horses to stop being so bouncy? Amazing.
Greg - no the horses are bouncier than ever
NOT WORK SAFE
I would regard that as a flaw in the law.
I think I misunderstood you again on that point. Yes, when making the carry law, the legislature can (and should) designate whatever public buildings they think should still not allow guns in them, such as schools and park buildings. However, once established, individual public facility managers (government employees) should not be allowed to make arbitrary changes to that list. You can't have different facility managers making up arbitrary rules for "their" building just because they decided put up a sign.
When carry laws are established, they detail when and where people with permits may and may not carry a gun to prevent confusion. Could this instance end up being a test case to determine just how the restrictions should be applied in such multi-use facilities? If so, the local DA may want to drop or modify the charges just to avoid such a question coming to court.
I think it should come to court. It is obvious that those who manage facilities should be able to impose reasonable safety restrictions. This is not an issue of individual managers of individual buildings ... that makes it sound like the janitor is deciding unilaterally to put up a "no guns" sign. But there are individuals and/or agencies in charge of public buildings that decide how to implement and comply with safety and other issues, and just as the owner of a restraint can put up a "no guns" sign a state, city, or county agency should be able to do that as well.
This particular instance would work well in court because we have a guy who is obviously a loony gun nut pushing the limit. The very fact that he has challenged the law in the way he did it, and the things he's said about it could be introduced as exemplary of why people should not be allowed to walk around with guns. In fact, this could backfire and instead of a judge simply agreeing that his building is part of the court (where it is specified in the law that no guns are allowed, I take it) or even that a government agency can ban guns in its premises, but he whole freaken second amendment could be repealed, once they get a look at him!
If I was the NRA I'd be doing whatever I could do to get this guy out of the trenches on this one.
Strange aside, and humorous trivia. Joel Rosenberg, for all his trollish behavior, really does have some friends in science fiction fandom. If you look closely at the photo, you will understand why he is known as a 'were-koala' in some circles. The resemblance really is uncanny.
Just for the record, there were armed police present. For some weird reason, however, the armed police declined to teach those left-wing fascist protestors (or, as we in the UK like to call them, "students") a lesson by indiscriminately gunning them down. Probably wouldn't have played well with the press. I know! Elf'n'Safety gone mad.
Seems to me that having people (seabirds?) who wanted to kick me really hard in base of the skull, and then shout at my twitching corpse, as well as wanting to slit my throat with their pocketknife, is more than enough reason to carry a gun... Or is that not sufficiently scary?
You could just try not being such an insanely flaming asshole all the time.
To be clear, Joel, YOU bring the violence.
I don't have violent fantasies. I didn't attend that play with any violence in mind. But YOU bring the violence with you. And your fantasy that carrying a gun everywhere somehow protects you both frightens normal people and elicits the counterargument - that sitting behind you in a theater renders your stupid, scary gun useless.
Additionally my story is to point out the hypocrisy of your behavior and your stated goals. You want to be secure from violence, so you carry a gun for protection, yet you recklessly make enemies of unknown people with your abusive online behavior.
So there you are in the theater, this arrgoant, smug bastard secure with your pistol, completely unaware that the guy sitting behind you could be motivated to enjoy kicking you in the head. Because of your behavior.
I didn't and don't enjoy having my theater visit interrupted with violent fantasies. But you bring the violence.
I didn't, and never would, do anything about my little fantasy. I didn't do anything that evening. I didn't do anything at the Prospect Park Pratt School ice cream social where I saw you wandering around. I'm not violent.
You bring the violence, and then you claim to be a victim of people with violent fantasies. That you inspire with your behavior.
You're your own worst enemy.
Oh, boy...
To be clear, Joel, YOU bring the violence.
To be clear, I am not Joel. He is in jail, remember? I am not even a fan of his.
I don't have violent fantasies.
That is a lie. You have described your violent fantasy quite vividly. You said you had it. Too late to deny it. It's right here in your own writing in post #2:
I enjoyed the performance a lot more than I should have, imagining myself kicking him really hard in base of the skull, and then shouting "How's the chambered round in your goddamned handgun working for you now, asshole?!" at his twitching corpse. Likewise slitting his throat with my pocketknife.
I find it hilarious how often people claiming to be "not violent" have these detailed fantasies about visiting various punishments on those that disagree with them.
Albatross, read what you wrote. You fantasized about killing a man in a brutal manner because of what, an internet argument? Gee, that's a solid reason right there. And don't pretend otherwise - you laid it out yourself.
However abrasive and abusive a conversation, it's just that - a conversation. Nobody forced either your wife or you to continue arguing, and yet you did. And it's the other guy's fault that you did. And it's his fault you wanted to kill him. Over an internet argument. And you are not violent. Yup, makes total sense.
Derender, you lost me when you wrote, "fascist socialist protestors". You seem to have been duped by the word "Socialist" in the name of the Nazi political party. They were Fascists, not Socialists. There's a difference and you ought to learn it.
Now I'm not going to go all fallacy-fallacy on you; I will read the rest of what you have to say.
Oh. That was almost worthwhile. "Anyone who believes they decended from a damned ape is prone to be a fascist criminal right from the start." Well, that pretty much wraps it up for your credibility.
Derender is a perfectly credible nut bag.
Greg @27: They invented these wonderful things called safety catches. For the most part they work, but not if you get too close to an MRI machine.
Albatross @25 & 26: I am confused. You seem to be directing your comments to both J. Paganel and Rosenberg. Considering Rosenberg is in jail right now, it seems unlikely that Paganal is an alias of his.
Further updates: Apparently, He's on a hunger strike and is refusing to take his insulin and blood pressure medications. This seems to support the martyr-complex theory. I wonder how long before Fox News posts his bail and invites him on as a special guest?
Our local Fox news is a relatively normal news station. Fox bought the station a few years ago. For the next several months the anchors, who were the same as before, spoke in sensationalized tones and some of the news copy was hyped up, but then they drifted off to more normal again. But the national Faux News network certainly could make hay of this. I wonder..
Hmmmm ... a local TV producer just asked me to keep him in mind if an interesting debate topic arose, blogger vs. whomever ... No, not this topic. Not yet.
@Albatross
Really? You're holier-than-thou attitude doesn't resolve into logic. You're argument that you're a victim of your described violent impulses, because Joel put them in your head, is cowardly and the tactic of someone accustomed to losing debates. You're not an adult. An adult is responsible for his thoughts and actions. Nobody makes you think offensive things, and nobody makes you submit crappy arguments. Think of things in this light and become an adult.
@Albatross.
Do you really think that? HE "brought the violence"...?
It's the same as when all those Jews put the the Reich in the unfortunate position of exterminator by creeping everybody out and putting those hateful thoughts into everybody's head. Right?
They essentially forced the government's hand. It's a shame that Rosenberg forced you to think unsavory thoughts by sitting in front of you and having the temerity to not notice you. Did he even apologize? If not, it's no wonder you thought of beating him to death. It is silly that he should choose to carry, after all you could just cut his throat at your pleasure. He isn't wise like you.
Greg @27 and Mike @40: Several different _kinds_ of safeties (sometimes three different kinds on one gun); also things like transfer bars. (http://www.armorysupply.com/Iver.html -- from what I've read, this was a really big deal in the late 19th Century; now really common on revolvers AFAICT (but I'm very much not a firearms expert).) Several different types of safeties, actually. I've seen a replica cap-and-ball (muzzle-loaded black-powder) revolver that (even with a "half-cock" safety) would make me a bit nervous to know someone was bouncing around on horseback with all six chambers loaded and primed, but apparently from the 1890s on, not such a big deal.
One thing I find fascinating about this matter (and a couple of other stories I've run across recently), is how we can have person A who is either heroic and principled or a dangerous not, entity B who is either a responsible person/institution or an oppressive villain, and various media outlets C who either give the story way more credibility than it deserves or bury a story everyone should know about ...
... And on various web sites, the same players, A, B, and C, will get branded "obviously" Liberals or Conservatives (and either heroes or wackaloons) depending on whether most of the folks on each site are themselves liberal or conservative. Usually without any reference to most of the parties' actual political stances, if they have made any public!
I've seen this bloke portrayed as obviously a brain-damaged liberal because he disrespected authority, obviously a dangerously demented conservative because he's "a gun nut", obviously a conservative hero because he didn't let liberal-leaning scaredypants hoplophobes cow him, and obviously a liberal hero because he politely and respectably stood up to defend his civil liberties against encroachment by overreaching agents of an obviously conservative State.
I saw much the same thing with the "enhanced screening" malarkey around Thanksgiving.
Gee, ya' think that maybe we (as a species) project much?
He is a wingnut. the whole set-up by him was in retaliation for his wife's arrest on some type of domestic charge.
There are people better suited to challenge a situation or law they feel is incorrect or applied improperly. Think along the lines of someone that has not had prior issues with the PD, think someone who is a low profile and more "normal" type person.
Nothing more than a "in your face" response by Rosenberg
Some people don't have your lust for the taste of cop shoe polish.
Can't any public facility or building have a "no guns on the premises" rule?
No, Doing so is in fact illegal, although many cities and parks in MN violate this fact.
MN Statue 624.714
Subd. 23.Exclusivity.
This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.
Sam, that's why it is a bad law.
As I read the law a peace officer (626.84) does have the authority (609.605 TRESPASS.1.b.11) to designate âany public or private area lawfully cordoned off by or at the direction of a peace officer engaged in the performance of official dutiesâ an area where someone not authorized by that peace officer is guilty of trespass.
The space designated by the peace officer as off limits for guns was posted. That makes it not a âpublic placeâ any more and unauthorized people entering that space are guilty of trespass. That the peace officer made the space non-public by virtue of gun possession status is (I think) legal.
As I read the statute, it is silent with respect to whether permitted guns are allowed in public spaces where a peace officer has designated the area as off limits for guns. The peace officer can make the space off limits for everyone, certainly he/she can make it off limits for a subset of everyone.
On the other hand, when a peace officer asks a permit holder if they are carrying a gun, the permit holder is required to say if they are. If he did have a backup gun and didn't disclose it, then he is guilty of not disclosing it.
It is a bad law because it doesn't explicitly address government controlled space that is not public.
@Daedalus2u
Ha! Not even close to how the statutes operate. Not even CLOSE. No, a peace officer may not. The statute doesn't declare what you want it to. I'll give you something of real value--no kidding--if you can cite an instance where the statute has been demonstrated to mean what you want it to mean. Go.
Sounds like Daedalus2u has it right to me.
It is a bad law because it doesn't explicitly address government controlled space that is not public.
The default assumption in our legal system is supposed to be that if a power isn't explicitly granted to a representative of the state, they don't have it. Noxious as he is, I think Rosenberg might actually be legally in the right.
Nope. The previous situation in Minnesota is that you could not walk around with the gun, or walk into a public place with a gun. The new law allows broad exceptions to this default. IF this law was repealed tomorrow, there would be no legal way to do what Rosenberg did. this is a very important distinction.
@Greg
The language you're discussing was specifically--and after very careful consideration by the authors and debate in the legislature)--left the way it is when MCPPA passed. Google ""MCPPA" and "Professor Joseph Olson" (make-happener of MCPPA). This was intended.
Excuse me. To be clear, it's not a loophole or accident. The law is as it's written by design. This is what everyone wants.
Mrs Majority, given the history of this bill, careful consideration is the last thing I would use do describe it. Or is your memory of that fiasco selective?
I remember it passing by wide margins in 2003, and then again after the interregnum. This wasn't an accident. It's what everyone wants.
You're upset because your beliefs aren't represented in the majority. Those feelings are understandable, and there's no shame in disagreement. However, that you feel alienated doesn't mean that the status quo is some kind of oversight or clerical error. It was carefully designed and then made law. It's what everyone wants.
and *the live round that was in the chamber*.
[emphasis added]
Yeah, heaven forbid that there should be a round in the chamber. (eyes rolling...)
So the guy's an asshole. Why don't you go after him for being a Jew, rather than being a gun owner? Makes about as much sense.
"So I see this incident as proof positive that the line between gun advocates and gun safety related resources and teachers on one hand, and threatening and dangerous gun nuts on the other hand, to be either very thin or simply non existent."
Par for the course on gun prohibitionist "research". One anecdote makes for a rule.