Test your civil liberties credentials

[Quantum Windbag]

This is one of the most straightforward cases I have ever seen.

When Rosenberg went to the MPD office to pick up his documents, on November 5, he brought a gun. Sergeant William Palmer, the department’s public information officer, knew Rosenberg was coming. He’d made an appointment. He knew that Rosenberg would be carrying. Rosenberg had even, in advance, called the Hennepin County Sheriff’s office for permission to carry at the MPD, as he was required to do under relevant state law, which allows the holder of a concealed carry permit to do so at a “Courthouse Complex” when permitted by the Sheriff. (Minneapolis City Hall hosts a small claims court, which bears about as much relation to what most people think of as “Court” as Judge Wapner, on an entirely separate floor) Rosenberg asked for permission and got it. Here Rosenberg either deliberately stepped on the toes of Trouble or made a miscalculation. I think it’s the former. See, to the sort of people who are proud of petty power, it is offensive for a mere citizen to invoke the rule of law to limit that power. During the Cultural Revolution, a jailed dissident quoted the Little Red Book to her jailers for the proposition that she was wrongly confined. The jailers, scandalized, replied “the Book is not for you!” In the eyes of the likes of Bill Palmer, the law gives the right people power — it is not for the likes of Joel Rosenberg.
So Joel’s stance was Trouble. Yes, it may be legal, technically, to carry a weapon into the Minneapolis Police Department under Minnesota law when the carrier is a permit-holder authorized by the Sheriff, but it shows an awful lack of respect for AUTHORITAH! And Sergeant Bill Palmer may not know much about the law, but he knows all about AUTHORITAH!

Minneapolis Police Arrest Joel Rosenberg On Bogus Gun Charge | Popehat


The law here is crystal clear.

A person who commits [the following act] is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both: …


possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex …

this subdivision does not apply to …
persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a [carry] permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate…

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66


I have looked around trying to figure out exactly what "Describe Behavior" is, and what you have to do to commit it, but no luck so far.

 

[Madeline]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

 

[ConHog]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

Well the point COULD be that the LEO simply wasn't aware of the exemption, NO ONE is perfect QW. Also, as a general rule I see no reasonable reason to allow weapons into a courthouse.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's hard to know all the facets of everything.

From what I can see, he's getting fucked with by the police.

But I don't have much pity for assholes looking for publicity. Just like the woman in the wheelchair who stripped to her underwear at the TSA checkpoint to get on the news.

On the other side of it, there is NO reason anyone other than law enforcement should be able to carry a gun ANYWHERE NEAR a courthouse, or police station for that matter.

 

[ConHog]

It's hard to know all the facets of everything.

From what I can see, he's getting fucked with by the police.

But I don't have much pity for assholes looking for publicity. Just like the woman in the wheelchair who stripped to her underwear at the TSA checkpoint to get on the news.

On the other side of it, there is NO reason anyone other than law enforcement should be able to carry a gun ANYWHERE NEAR a courthouse, or police station for that matter.

Here in AR a judge can prevent law enforcement from coming into their courtroom with a weapon, let alone joe schmo, who can't come into a courthouse even if they own a carry permit.

And you're right, what kind of lunatic would think anyone would need to carry a gun into a courthouse or police station? Some people just can't understand the concept of no right is completely unlimited.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

Well the point COULD be that the LEO simply wasn't aware of the exemption, NO ONE is perfect QW. Also, as a general rule I see no reasonable reason to allow weapons into a courthouse.

I suppose it is possible that the LEO was simply ignorant, but the judge that set the bail at $100,000 and the prosecutor should both know better. As for guns in the courthouse, he wasn't in a courtroom, he was in the offices, and was following applicable state law, so your personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's hard to know all the facets of everything.

From what I can see, he's getting fucked with by the police.

But I don't have much pity for assholes looking for publicity. Just like the woman in the wheelchair who stripped to her underwear at the TSA checkpoint to get on the news.

On the other side of it, there is NO reason anyone other than law enforcement should be able to carry a gun ANYWHERE NEAR a courthouse, or police station for that matter.

Why not?

 

[Mini 14]

Let me preface all of this by stating that I am an FFL (I have a Federal license to deal in firearms), I have a CCW (concealed carry permit), and I carry openly wherever allowed, and concealed wherever open-carry is not allowed but concealed-carry is.

Joel couldn't be more wrong.

Federal law prohibits carrying a weapon, concealed or open, in any courthouse (Federal. State, County or Local). The arresting officer made it clear that the Judge had issued an ordered that no firearms were to be allowed inside the building (whether or not he/she allows LE to carry is moot, and not indicated in the video). The Judge has authority over the Sheriff, no matter what level of jurisdiction the Judge falls under.

The LEO was extremely professional, extremely polite, and IMO, demonstrated exemplary behavior in handling the premeditated situation presented by the defendant.

You will not find a stronger advocate of the 2nd than me. That said, as an FFL, I work closely with ATF, FBI, and local Law Enforcement every day. There are limits to what "our rights" should allow. I have an 11 year-old daughter. It bothers me at times that I am not allowed to carry on school grounds, for the sole fact that I know that if the situation arose, I could take down, or severely limit a terrorist's actions. It bothers me that I am not allowed to carry in a bar, not because I don't drink, but because I used to drink, and I know the game.

But it has NEVER bothered me that I can't carry in a courtroom or government building, because I know that the professional LE are on site. I'm not a professional, but I'm better than nothing. In a situation where trained professionals are present, I *may* be an asset, but I also *may* be a liability. And I have extensive training (the same firearms training that LE goes through, and then some), but still, I don't do it for a living.

From the video of the incident (and common knowledge), there are a few things that are obvious:

1. Joel went there with the intention of causing a conflict.
2. The LEO handled the situation as professionally and as well as could possibly be expected.
3. A Judge has rank on a Sheriff.
4. The LEO, with the authority of the ATF and the FBI, bent over backwards to give Joel every benefit of doubt. I would have likely handled the situation the same, but in watching the video with bias the first time, I might have been inclined to seize his firearm and then arrest him.

I deal with LEO and ATF every day. They ALLOW me to make a living (I buy and sell guns). At the same time, I consider them one of the best and most beneficial and convenient resources I have (if I'm uncomfortable with a sale, I can deny the customer and blame it on them, and they will back me up). It's a 2-way street, and I know that, so I give them ANY and ALL information I might have to follow-up on a person they're concerned with (even though it is technically "their information" I am providing them).

At the same time, I am staunchly in favor of gun rights. My State (Alabama) is concealed carry, and for obvious reasons, I lobby for and support open carry. But there Must be cooperation between gun owners and LEO/ATF. The ATF is not Ruby Ridge. It is not Waco. Anyone who truly understands firearms and human nature knows that.

Something about Joel isn't right. Maybe he is Koresh, or Weaver. Maybe he's just "Joe Knowitall." I don't know what he is, but I'd rather err on the side of practicality and probability than to allow an unrealistic, uncooperative, pissed-off anarchist like himself to run rampant in a courthouse with a sidearm all for the sake of proving a point and settling a score with the Sheriff.

Cut to the chase:

Joel is wrong, the LEO is right.

I'm all for gun rights. I'm "all-in" on the 2nd.

Joel is everything that is wrong with "my side." He makes all of us look bad.

 

[JBeukema]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

If you don't think firearms should be allowed on premise, petition for a change in the law


Have you any evidence that the man violated the law as it exists today?

 

[JBeukema]

We don't know all the details and the writing is such that I'm skeptical that it's wholly honest and not a bunch of spin.

Without written authorization or a recording of the discussion, we cannot know for certain whether authorization to carry on the premise was given.

I object to the confiscation of the ammunition based on the available information but do not see how the request to return the weapon to his vehicle is unreasonable.

As for his later arrest, we need more information from a source that's not so obviously biased and designed to inflame.

As for the 'cut and paste arrest warrant', I'm pretty sure all arrest warrants consist of what amounts to a form letter. If the link is accurate and it read 'describe behavior', his attourney should have no problem getting the case thrown out on the faulty warrant.


All this is, of course, assuming any of this happened at all- which we can't know until we see a source that can be taken at face value.

 

[Mini 14]

We don't know all the details and the writing is such that I'm skeptical that it's wholly honest and not a bunch of spin.

Without written authorization or a recording of the discussion, we cannot know for certain whether authorization to carry on the premise was given.

I object to the confiscation of the ammunition based on the available information but do not see how the request to return the weapon to his vehicle is unreasonable.

As for his later arrest, we need more information from a source that's not so obviously biased and designed to inflame.

As for the 'cut and paste arrest warrant', I'm pretty sure all arrest warrants consist of what amounts to a form letter. If the link is accurate and it read 'describe behavior', his attourney should have no problem getting the case thrown out on the faulty warrant.


All this is, of course, assuming any of this happened at all- which we can't know until we see a source that can be taken at face value.

Watch the first 2 minutes of this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LpuUlYMXaU&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

And I can't believe I "thanked" Madeline, but this time, she's dead-on.

 

[Madeline]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

It is disingenuous to say "he was nowhere near a courtroom". You enter the structure where a courtroom is located, that's "near".

There are reasonable means by which a question of law can be resolved without subjecting yourself to the risk of arrest, etc. This man could have brought a Declaratory Judgment Action, and petitioned the courts for guidance. The sheriff and any other interested persons could have chimed in, everybody would have had their say, and if the man did not like the answer, he could have appealed.

What he chose to do instead put himself and others at risk. I am not applauding it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me preface all of this by stating that I am an FFL (I have a Federal license to deal in firearms), I have a CCW (concealed carry permit), and I carry openly wherever allowed, and concealed wherever open-carry is not allowed but concealed-carry is.

Joel couldn't be more wrong.

Federal law prohibits carrying a weapon, concealed or open, in any courthouse (Federal. State, County or Local). The arresting officer made it clear that the Judge had issued an ordered that no firearms were to be allowed inside the building (whether or not he/she allows LE to carry is moot, and not indicated in the video). The Judge has authority over the Sheriff, no matter what level of jurisdiction the Judge falls under.

The LEO was extremely professional, extremely polite, and IMO, demonstrated exemplary behavior in handling the premeditated situation presented by the defendant.

You will not find a stronger advocate of the 2nd than me. That said, as an FFL, I work closely with ATF, FBI, and local Law Enforcement every day. There are limits to what "our rights" should allow. I have an 11 year-old daughter. It bothers me at times that I am not allowed to carry on school grounds, for the sole fact that I know that if the situation arose, I could take down, or severely limit a terrorist's actions. It bothers me that I am not allowed to carry in a bar, not because I don't drink, but because I used to drink, and I know the game.

But it has NEVER bothered me that I can't carry in a courtroom or government building, because I know that the professional LE are on site. I'm not a professional, but I'm better than nothing. In a situation where trained professionals are present, I *may* be an asset, but I also *may* be a liability. And I have extensive training (the same firearms training that LE goes through, and then some), but still, I don't do it for a living.

From the video of the incident (and common knowledge), there are a few things that are obvious:

1. Joel went there with the intention of causing a conflict.
2. The LEO handled the situation as professionally and as well as could possibly be expected.
3. A Judge has rank on a Sheriff.
4. The LEO, with the authority of the ATF and the FBI, bent over backwards to give Joel every benefit of doubt. I would have likely handled the situation the same, but in watching the video with bias the first time, I might have been inclined to seize his firearm and then arrest him.

I deal with LEO and ATF every day. They ALLOW me to make a living (I buy and sell guns). At the same time, I consider them one of the best and most beneficial and convenient resources I have (if I'm uncomfortable with a sale, I can deny the customer and blame it on them, and they will back me up). It's a 2-way street, and I know that, so I give them ANY and ALL information I might have to follow-up on a person they're concerned with (even though it is technically "their information" I am providing them).

At the same time, I am staunchly in favor of gun rights. My State (Alabama) is concealed carry, and for obvious reasons, I lobby for and support open carry. But there Must be cooperation between gun owners and LEO/ATF. The ATF is not Ruby Ridge. It is not Waco. Anyone who truly understands firearms and human nature knows that.

Something about Joel isn't right. Maybe he is Koresh, or Weaver. Maybe he's just "Joe Knowitall." I don't know what he is, but I'd rather err on the side of practicality and probability than to allow an unrealistic, uncooperative, pissed-off anarchist like himself to run rampant in a courthouse with a sidearm all for the sake of proving a point and settling a score with the Sheriff.

Cut to the chase:

Joel is wrong, the LEO is right.

I'm all for gun rights. I'm "all-in" on the 2nd.

Joel is everything that is wrong with "my side." He makes all of us look bad.

1. If he is guilty of a federal crime they would be charging him under federal law, not state law. State courts do not prosecute federal crimes. The logic used in Lopez that prohibits the federal government from imposing gun free zones around schools obviously applies to local and state courthouses also, which makes the federal law unconstitutional. That might explain why it is not enforced, and is not being applied here. That makes the state law applicable.

2. Ignoring applicable laws is not professional behavior. It does not matter if he was deliberately ignoring the law, or simply ignorant, when he took away the weapon that was legally being carried he forfeited the right to be called professional. At best he was polite.

3. What does the judge having rank on a sheriff have to do with this situation? If he had entered a courtroom I would be fine with the judge telling him he could not carry in there, but he was not in a court room.

4. You might have arrested a man legally carrying a gun simply because you did not like his attitude? I have never understood why police think attitude is a criminal offense.

How is not being "right" a disqualification from owning a gun? He is not under psychiatric care, has no criminal record, and was scrupulously obeying all applicable laws. Yet, because you dislike his aura, you want to deny him his constitutional rights. Yet, somehow, you also think you support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum Windbag, you are being shortsighted. Courtroom violence is a growing problem, small claims courts are not immune, and no one needs a gun inside a courthouse except the law enforcement hired to work there. In many places, law enforcement with other assignments called to testify, etc., are not even allowed to bring their weapons.

Why do you object to reasonable time and place restrictions on CC weapons for civilians?

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

It is disingenuous to say "he was nowhere near a courtroom". You enter the structure where a courtroom is located, that's "near".

There are reasonable means by which a question of law can be resolved without subjecting yourself to the risk of arrest, etc. This man could have brought a Declaratory Judgment Action, and petitioned the courts for guidance. The sheriff and any other interested persons could have chimed in, everybody would have had their say, and if the man did not like the answer, he could have appealed.

What he chose to do instead put himself and others at risk. I am not applauding it.

Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and then sued? That would have been the reasonable method, Her actions endangered others, and I could easily argue that they ended up costing far more than a law suit would have, both in resources and actual injuries to other people who both supported her action and those who opposed it.

Yet she is rightly hailed as a champion.

Sometimes the only viable way to make a point is to be unreasonable. That is why liberals generally insist on people being civil, unless they think the cause is justified.

 

[Sallow]

We don't know all the details and the writing is such that I'm skeptical that it's wholly honest and not a bunch of spin.

Without written authorization or a recording of the discussion, we cannot know for certain whether authorization to carry on the premise was given.

I object to the confiscation of the ammunition based on the available information but do not see how the request to return the weapon to his vehicle is unreasonable.

As for his later arrest, we need more information from a source that's not so obviously biased and designed to inflame.

As for the 'cut and paste arrest warrant', I'm pretty sure all arrest warrants consist of what amounts to a form letter. If the link is accurate and it read 'describe behavior', his attourney should have no problem getting the case thrown out on the faulty warrant.


All this is, of course, assuming any of this happened at all- which we can't know until we see a source that can be taken at face value.

Watch the first 2 minutes of this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LpuUlYMXaU&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

And I can't believe I "thanked" Madeline, but this time, she's dead-on.

Wow.

 

[Madeline]

He has a carry permit, followed the law in the state, notified the sheriff that he was coming and that he had a permit, and was never anywhere near a courtroom. What exactly is your point again?

It is disingenuous to say "he was nowhere near a courtroom". You enter the structure where a courtroom is located, that's "near".

There are reasonable means by which a question of law can be resolved without subjecting yourself to the risk of arrest, etc. This man could have brought a Declaratory Judgment Action, and petitioned the courts for guidance. The sheriff and any other interested persons could have chimed in, everybody would have had their say, and if the man did not like the answer, he could have appealed.

What he chose to do instead put himself and others at risk. I am not applauding it.

Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and then sued? That would have been the reasonable method, Her actions endangered others, and I could easily argue that they ended up costing far more than a law suit would have, both in resources and actual injuries to other people who both supported her action and those who opposed it.

Yet she is rightly hailed as a champion.

Sometimes the only viable way to make a point is to be unreasonable. That is why liberals generally insist on people being civil, unless they think the cause is justified.

I have mixed feelings about guns, Quantum Windbag. I'll admit that. But after the recent SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment, I think all debate is over, the NRA won, and we should all move on. That said, I cannot compare Rosa Parks sitting in a bus seat to this man trying to bring a gun inside a building where a court is held.

So with all my bias hanging out, lemme say, I just don't think what this guy did was correct. There does not need to be a right to carry a concealed weapon inside a court building....if that gives you heartburn, so be it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is disingenuous to say "he was nowhere near a courtroom". You enter the structure where a courtroom is located, that's "near".

There are reasonable means by which a question of law can be resolved without subjecting yourself to the risk of arrest, etc. This man could have brought a Declaratory Judgment Action, and petitioned the courts for guidance. The sheriff and any other interested persons could have chimed in, everybody would have had their say, and if the man did not like the answer, he could have appealed.

What he chose to do instead put himself and others at risk. I am not applauding it.

Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and then sued? That would have been the reasonable method, Her actions endangered others, and I could easily argue that they ended up costing far more than a law suit would have, both in resources and actual injuries to other people who both supported her action and those who opposed it.

Yet she is rightly hailed as a champion.

Sometimes the only viable way to make a point is to be unreasonable. That is why liberals generally insist on people being civil, unless they think the cause is justified.

I have mixed feelings about guns, Quantum Windbag. I'll admit that. But after the recent SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment, I think all debate is over, the NRA won, and we should all move on. That said, I cannot compare Rosa Parks sitting in a bus seat to this man trying to bring a gun inside a building where a court is held.

So with all my bias hanging out, lemme say, I just don't think what this guy did was correct. There does not need to be a right to carry a concealed weapon inside a court building....if that gives you heartburn, so be it.

But, if the right exists like it does in MN, shouldn't a person be able to exercise it without getting arrested?

 

[ConHog]

Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and then sued? That would have been the reasonable method, Her actions endangered others, and I could easily argue that they ended up costing far more than a law suit would have, both in resources and actual injuries to other people who both supported her action and those who opposed it.

Yet she is rightly hailed as a champion.

Sometimes the only viable way to make a point is to be unreasonable. That is why liberals generally insist on people being civil, unless they think the cause is justified.

I have mixed feelings about guns, Quantum Windbag. I'll admit that. But after the recent SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment, I think all debate is over, the NRA won, and we should all move on. That said, I cannot compare Rosa Parks sitting in a bus seat to this man trying to bring a gun inside a building where a court is held.

So with all my bias hanging out, lemme say, I just don't think what this guy did was correct. There does not need to be a right to carry a concealed weapon inside a court building....if that gives you heartburn, so be it.

But, if the right exists like it does in MN, shouldn't a person be able to exercise it without getting arrested?

Let's get it straight that you have no right to carry a firearm into a courthouse. If you did, then states like AR couldn't make it illegal.

 

[Madeline]

Quantum Windbag wrote:

But, if the right exists like it does in MN, shouldn't a person be able to exercise it without getting arrested?

Let's assume that this is true. You and I both know, when the law was written the threat of courthouse violence was likely unheard of. It is also possible that changes to other laws, especially to the concealed carry laws, have impacted this without the legislature making the whole body of the law seamless.

It's a clash between reality and the letter of the law, Quantum Windbag. These things happen, as practices morph into and out of actual human experience. I'm saying the man who wanted to know the scope of his legal rights had nonviolent, nonthreatening, perfectly legal options to discover them and that a mature, responsible citizen would use them.