IL resident arrested for 1st Amendment expression of 2nd Amendment support

[BB62]

Full story at http://www.gunowners.org/op0545.htm and www.icarry.org

A few weeks ago we wrote to you about Shaun Kranish and his efforts to start another gun rights organization in Illinois, ICARRY.ORG. We welcome youth and vigor to the movement. Well now Shaun has his first taste of the war as he has been arrested at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois for carrying an empty fanny pack. Shaun tells his story below, but essentially Shaun disagrees with the College's policy on self-defense. Therefore, Shaun wanted to speak to the President of the school, but was referred to the campus public safety office (aka d'uh cops.)

What happened next is best said in Shaun's own words which are below. But the result of his two hour meeting with them was to be arrested for disorderly conduct by officer Edward Crumb (what a perfect name for a small-time "want to be a real cop.") It should be noted that Officer Crumb was allegedly acting under the direction of Chief Joe Drought.

Now Shaun can't even return to campus without being arrested for trespass and taken to county jail. I think you will be at first amused, and then appalled, by the charges which I now give you verbatim from the Criminal Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, County of Winnebago, Case Number 05-315.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: in that Shawn [SIC] Kranish knowingly did an act in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb Janna L. Shwaiko and provoke a breach of peace to wit Shawn [SIC] Kranish walked into the Presidents [SIC] office and requested from Shwaiko a meeting with the President. Kranish was wearing a blue jacket with the words "I Carry" on the front of the jacket and he was also wearing a black nylon pouch or handgun holster [Can't officer Crumb tell the difference?]. Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

Officer Edward Crumb, #167
Complainant

(remainder of story at links above, forums at icarry.org)
******

Help this fellow if you can!


BB62

 

[Flyboy]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a hero looks like.

I hope that if I'm ever in such a situation, I have the testicular fortitude to step up to the challenge.

Anybody have contact info to see if there's anything we can do to help?

 

[Jeff White]

It's the pioneers who take the arrows....Where would the civil rights movement be if the late Rosa Parks hadn't refused to give up her seat on the bus?

We should turn this into a similar situation and make certain the college gets plenty of negative press. However, given the political bent of the media, it will be somewhat difficult.

The bottom line is, that if you are going to make a public protest, you have to be prepared to be arrested, face your accusers and use then entire experience to your advantage.

Jeff

 

[Flyboy]

http://www.thefire.org

I'm working on notification right now (in the event they haven't been notified already).

 

[HankB]

I'm not an attorney, but if the events transpired as reported here, it would seem that there are a multitude of opportunities for Mr. Kranish and his attorney to become considerably more wealthy at the expense of the school, its administrators, and Officer Crumb.

Let's see . . . there's false arrest, unlawful detention, violation of constitutional rights under color of authority, theft by swindle (he paid tuition and can't attend class), infliction of mental distress, and probably a lot of things I've never heard of.

 

[R.H. Lee]

"Let's work within the system"
Yeah, right.

 

[Jeff White]

Hank,

The statute for disorderly conduct is pretty vague. Sometimes I think the legislature made it deliberately vague to give us the option of arresting people who become a nusiance but don't really break any other laws:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=53400&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 26 heading) ARTICLE 26. DISORDERLY CONDUCT

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1)
Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to

alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
(2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any

manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fire exists; or
(3) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any

manner to another a false alarm to the effect that a bomb or other explosive of any nature or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place that its explosion or release would endanger human life, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such bomb, explosive or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place; or
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any

manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed; or
(5) Enters upon the property of another and for a

lewd or unlawful purpose deliberately looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in it; or
(6) While acting as a collection agency as defined

in the "Collection Agency Act" or as an employee of such collection agency, and while attempting to collect an alleged debt, makes a telephone call to the alleged debtor which is designed to harass, annoy or intimidate the alleged debtor; or
(7) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false

report to the Department of Children and Family Services under Section 4 of the "Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act"; or
(8) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false

report to the Department of Public Health under the Nursing Home Care Act; or
(9) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any

manner to the police department or fire department of any municipality or fire protection district, or any privately owned and operated ambulance service, a false request for an ambulance, emergency medical technician‑ambulance or emergency medical technician‑paramedic knowing at the time there is no reasonable ground for believing that such assistance is required; or
(10) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false

report under Article II of "An Act in relation to victims of violence and abuse", approved September 16, 1984, as amended; or
(11) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false

report to any public safety agency without the reasonable grounds necessary to believe that transmitting such a report is necessary for the safety and welfare of the public; or
(12) Calls the number "911" for the purpose of

making or transmitting a false alarm or complaint and reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency.
(b) Sentence. A violation of subsection (a)(1) of this Section is a Class C misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(5), (a)(11), or (a)(12) of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(8) or (a)(10) of this Section is a Class B misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(7), or (a)(9) of this Section is a Class 4 felony. A violation of subsection (a)(3) of this Section is a Class 3 felony, for which a fine of not less than $3,000 and no more than $10,000 shall be assessed in addition to any other penalty imposed.
A violation of subsection (a)(6) of this Section is a Business Offense and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $3,000. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (a)(7), (a)(11), or (a)(12) of this Section is a Class 4 felony. A third or subsequent violation of subsection (a)(5) of this Section is a Class 4 felony.
(c) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of disorderly conduct to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours, if community service is available in the jurisdiction and is funded and approved by the county board of the county where the offense was committed. In addition, whenever any person is placed on supervision for an alleged offense under this Section, the supervision shall be conditioned upon the performance of the community service.
This subsection does not apply when the court imposes a sentence of incarceration.
(Source: P.A. 92‑16, eff. 6‑28‑01; 92‑502, eff. 12‑19‑01; 93‑431, eff. 8‑5‑03.)

I don't think you could make a case for false arrest, but you can expose the college president for the blissninny she is.

Jeff

 

[scout26]

(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace;

Officer Crumb's acted in an unreasonable manner that alarms and disturbs me. Therefore he needs to be arrested for breach of the peace.


Yes Jeff, you are correct. It's written to cover aggreviated mopery with intent to slink.


What can we do to help this young man and get him some (postive) media exposure.... (NRA News for starters.......)

 

[slugfast]

So if he can't come back onto the campus, has he had his tuition money refunded, or has he had any steps taken to figure out what happens to his grades, absences, etc?

I'm curious as to how the University would handle a request for a refund of tuition if he is unable to legally be on the campus to attend class?


To me that Disorderly Conduct charge is pretty vague, could be applied toward any Anti-Abortion protest or display on campus that would show a picture of an aborted fetus... not to mention any discussion related to Terrorism, as it could disturb someone.

 

[Geno]

As a college prof I have only one statement!

Shaun Kranish, you rock!

Doc2005

 

[mountainclmbr]

Don't sue the state(taxpayers). Sue them individually. Make them work like hell till they die only to be removed from their rented trailer with only pennies in their pockets.

 

[Flyboy]

http://www.rockvalleycollege.edu/

RVC College Directory

RVC Main Phone Number - (815) 921-7821

Criminal Justice - (815) 921-3255
(Note: this is probably the Criminal Justice academic department, but it might be amusing to get their opinion anyway )

President - (815) 921-4000

Public Relations - (815) 921-4510

Public Safety - (815) 921-4350

Let's light up the switchboards!

 

[lee n. field]

I'm curious as to how the University would handle a request for a refund of tuition if he is unable to legally be on the campus to attend class?

Rock Valley College is not a university, it's a junior college.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state: after all, they didn't kill the guy, did they?

 

[Ryder]

Worrying about what you're not allowed to do can be a problem.

 

[Logistics]

I hate this state! I know that kid (vaguely), he's an aquaintance I met at the local pistol club, (pinetreepistolclub.org) and he's just that, a "KID". If you met this guy you'd literally laugh. He's clean cut, vibrant, kinda geeky and straight laced.

All of this happened literally within less than 1 mile of my house as well..... . This really upsets me, I've met this kid in passing. I didn't even take him seriously to be quite honest. He's about 10 years younger than me and kinda dorky. But he's fighting the good fight and the blue taliban at RVC happens to take offense. Take note those that "arrested" him are NOT City nor County officers. "Sworn" college campus cops however that take themselves way too seriously.

If anyone comes across anything or anyone I can be in touch with on this particular incident please advise or PM me. I know I am rambling but it's late and this is personal now to some extent.

This ain't over yet....

 

[Strings]

Hmmm... the false arrest charge might actually stick, if he can find a sypathetic judge (wait... this is IL? maybe not). At the very least, he needs to jump on every possible button he can find...

And maybe some of the other students need to start finding things "disturbing"...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Birch missed the boat by saying Kranish was arrested for having an empty fannypack. I have no idea how Birch could have come to that conclusion, but it is wrong. Then, he apparently changed his mind and stated that Kranish was not arrested for disorderly conduct which was not the offense Birch originally claimed. Nope, Birch claimed Kranish was arrested for a third reason, "...not having a liberal anti-gun mindset that believes only "highly trained professionals" should have access to weapons designed for self-defense."

Then Birch provided a copy of the actual charge of disorderly conduct that indicated that Kranish's arrest for disorderly conduct was for several reasons, none of which were for carrying an empty fanny pack or having a particular point of view/opinion.

It was sort of ironic that Birch opted to make fun of the arresting officer's inability to know if Kranish had a nylon pouch or handgun holster. However, Birch didn't make fun of himself for calling the item a fanny pack when the item was never called a fanny pack by Kranish. So, the same can be asked of Birch. Doesn't he know the difference between a fanny pack and a drop leg holster?

Of course, if the events are close to being what is confusingly described, then Kranish was wronged. Most of you seem to be taking all of this at face value as truth. However, there is really just one source reported here as Kranish's witness, himself. Lot's of people claim to be wrongly arrested or claim they were arrested for reasons other than what is stated. No doubt Kranish has a significant vested interest and hence cannot be considered as a reliable or objective witness. He may be telling the absolute truth, but there is no way we can verify it, at least not yet.

I don't know how or where BB62 obtained a copy of the charge, but that charge and Kranish's statements are all we know about the case. Apparently, Rockford College does not run a police blotter and neither do Rockform's newspapers.

Something is up with the story that isn't being told. It seems overly formatted to paint Kranish as being victimized on several levels as part of conspiracy simply becasue he wanted to chat about gun issues with the powers that be.

HankB, no doubt. You are not a lawyer.

Kranish was given permission to attend classes on the day following his arrest.

 

[Jeff White]

BB62 got the copy of the carge from John Birch's site. I italicized copy because it's very obviously not the complete complaint. In fact the statute is wrong. Disorderly Conduct is (720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1), not
720 ILCS 5/25-1(a).

720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) is Mob Action:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=52800&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/25‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 25‑1)
Sec. 25‑1. Mob action.
(a) Mob action consists of any of the following:
(1) The use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law; or
(2) The assembly of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act; or
(3) The assembly of 2 or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of any one supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional powers or regulative powers over any person by violence.
(b) Mob action as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) is a Class 4 felony.
(c) Mob action as defined in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) Any participant in a mob action which shall by violence inflict injury to the person or property of another commits a Class 4 felony.
(e) Any participant in a mob action who does not withdraw on being commanded to do so by any peace officer commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of mob action to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours, if community service is available in the jurisdiction and is funded and approved by the county board of the county where the offense was committed. In addition, whenever any person is placed on supervision for an alleged offense under this Section, the supervision shall be conditioned upon the performance of the community service.
This subsection does not apply when the court imposes a sentence of incarceration.
(Source: P.A. 88‑558, eff. 1‑1‑95; 89‑8, eff. 3‑21‑95.)

I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we use the same tactics the antis do by exaggerating and stretching the truth. I'd really like to see what was redacted from that complaint. It might give us some more light on what really happened.

If we're going to take this case and run with it, then we need to be up front with it.

Here is the press release:
http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=10

My name is Shaun Kranish. I'm a twenty-year-old college student attending Rock Valley College, in Rockford, Illinois, a civil rights activist, and founder of I CARRY, an organization and community of members who meet at http://www.ICarry.org. Our organization is dedicated to the restoration of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in Illinois. We believe that countless laws and restrictions are in place that not only infringe the right to keep and bear arms, but also present serious public safety risks across the state. We maintain that countless lives are jeopardized, damaged and destroyed because of unconstitutional laws restricting gun ownership, self-defense and possession in this state by law-abiding citizens.

I am a law-abiding citizen that, until Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, had never been arrested for anything. I attend morning, afternoon, and evening classes at RVC, and am an ordinary student who has always endeavored to follow every rule and regulation of my college. My most serious infraction was, on occasion, being a little late to class. On October 11th, everything changed dramatically.

As a civil rights activist, I cherish my right to freedom of speech. I have been exercising this right on campus in order to raise awareness of the horrible situation in our state. I have never worn anything offensive or alarming. For approximately two weeks prior to my arrest, I had been wearing a small, empty, nylon pouch on the side of my leg. This enclosed pouch could be called a holster, a carry-case, or a fanny-pack, as we refer to them in the pro-self-defense community, as a symbolic expression of the fact that I and others are being wrongfully deprived our Second Amendment rights in Illinois.

I want to stress that in the two weeks I wore my small, empty pouch as a statement to my beliefs, I received no complaints from anyone, alarmed no one, was never approached by campus security, police, or any faculty members about it. I not once was asked what it was or why I had it, nor was I ever asked to take it off. On the contrary, this small accessory to my clothing caused a number of fellow students to approach me and begin friendly conversations about the Second Amendment, gun-rights, and the ongoing suppressive situation in our state and country. Once again, no one was ever alarmed, no one ever reported what I was wearing, and furthermore, no one ever expressed a bit of concern. This small, empty, harmless nylon pouch was a part of my everyday life, and allowed me to express my views in an effective and noticeable way, much as a black armband would express loss. It was never intended to frighten or intimidate any person, and it never did.

Another addition to my attire was a custom-made windbreaker or jacket. The type of jacket is commonly referred to as a “coaches jacket” that often carries a team name or logo. Mine was navy blue, and had “I CARRY.ORG” in printed yellow on two equal-sized lines on the back. I wore this to communicate the existence of my organization and to provide a silent means to let others know how they might communicate with me about it. The front bore a small “I CARRY” on the top right at chest level. I wore this jacket every time I was on campus with no prior problem. The same can be said of the jacket as the pouch. Not even one of my fellow students, teachers, or active-duty police officers questioned either item until I encountered Chief Drought and Officer Crumb.

On Tuesday, the day of my arrest, after my morning class I decided to speak with school officials, particularly the College's President, about the school’s policy against self-defense. I hold a strong belief based on statistics, human right, the beliefs of the founding fathers of this country, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and logic, that policies against self-defense are immoral and quite possibly the gravest threat to public safety. I wanted to share as many facts as possible, information on my organization, the Second Amendment, and the right to self-defense with someone who could really take it into consideration.

So, with honest intention, I walked into the school’s Administrative building, a small historical farmhouse converted into offices. I politely inquired about the possibility of setting up a meeting with the President and how one would go about it. I was asked what it was in regards to and informed the secretary that it was about school policy. She had asked if I had spoken to anyone else about the issue, and I said I had not. She said it would be best if I did that first before approaching the President, as he would most likely ask me to do the same if I were to speak with him. She suggested I seek whichever department the policy pertained to, and I replied that would most likely be the Department of Public Safety (DPS).

I thanked her for her help, and also asked for a business card in case I needed to get back in touch with the administrative office. She gave me one, and I thanked her again and told her I would be going to speak with someone at the DPS. I left the administrative building and drove straight there. The DPS is also the campus police department that houses deputized police officers who possess the same authority to enforce local and state laws as do ordinary city police. I walked into the small lobby or waiting room and asked the dispatch woman behind the glass-protected counter if I could perhaps speak to someone concerning school policies. She said yes I could, called one of the officers on dispatch, and then asked me to take a seat in the waiting area.

A few minutes later a man by the name of Chief Joe Drought came through the door that leads to the police offices. I stood up and introduced myself. I told him my reason for coming – I wanted to speak with someone regarding school policy. Another officer came in the standard entrance to the lobby, the one I had used when I entered. We spoke for a few minutes, and at some point the smug officer to my right, Edward Crumb, asked me to put my hands up. I complied of course, and he began fumbling with my empty carry pouch.

When asked if I had any weapons, I informed him that I did not, as he could plainly see. After Chief Drought frisked me to verify that was the case, i.e., that I was unarmed and defenseless, as school policy stipulates, we were able to continue our conversation. I began expressing my concern about the policy and explained how it puts the students at serious risk. We spoke about the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. I informed them of the organization I started, and we talked a bit about the laws in Illinois. Both officers claimed many times to agree with my views and claimed to share my beliefs. At one point in the waiting room, I was about to quote Thomas Jefferson, when Chief Drought said I didn’t need to, as he knew all of the quotes as well. This seemed encouraging to me – a knowledgeable and informed law enforcement officer that believes in freedom.

The Chief then asked me to come in the back, so we wouldn’t have to speak in the waiting room. He led me into a room, shut the door, and we sat down and talked some more. I don’t remember the specifics of our conversation, but I think it was still centered around what I thought were the beliefs we shared. At some point, he told me he had some other things to do and that Officer Crumb would be taking over. Officer Crumb came in the room, and we talked some more. I could tell he was a very haughty man by his attitude and demeanor. He would constantly patronize me with agreeing confirmations and quirky smiles, but this didn’t bother me. To each his own – I was perfectly satisfied in discussing my beliefs.

Officer Crumb was more interested in my actions that day, and he repeatedly tried to get me to fill out and sign a statement. I didn’t see the need for this, as I had done nothing wrong. I also didn’t know the legal implications involved in the document, so I respectfully declined. However, I cooperated by answering his questions, and we went through the entire story a number of times. I didn’t feel the need to stay silent, as I was confident I did absolutely nothing wrong. Furthermore, I never expected in the slightest that I would and most importantly COULD be arrested for doing nothing except conducting myself in a perfectly peaceful and lawful manner. So, though not free to leave, I answered his questions, all of them, and truthfully.

I was confined to the room for about an hour and a half to two hours. I grew very tired of going over the story, and even more tired of waiting countless times as he stepped out of the room and made phone calls and did whatever. I naturally like to cooperate with others, make friends, and develop good relationships. Even though it was now about noon, and I hadn’t eaten breakfast or lunch, I still cooperated. At about this time, I realized my next class was soon approaching. I had a class at 12:20 p.m. that day, and it was about noon or a little after. I informed Officer Crumb that I would need to be going soon in order to make it to my next class. He informed me, with a phony smile, that I wouldn’t be going anywhere. I asked why, and he said something like “we might be putting you under arrest.” I was now very concerned, as this would affect the exam I was to take in my upcoming class.

I pleaded with Officer Crumb to allow me to be at that class on time as I had expected, but he said that was "impossible." He went out and in some more, and I contacted my parents and my lawyer about what was happening. Officer Crumb told me I would most likely be placed under arrest, and that my car would be seized. He had asked about my vehicle, and I verified which one it was. He asked if I would agree to allow them to search the vehicle. I thought about this for a moment, and since it was about 5 minutes before my class, I said they could search my vehicle as long as they allow me to make it to my class on time. He said that wouldn’t be possible.

Officer Crumb went out and back in again, and this time brought in a document detailing my rights and requiring my initials and signature. The whole while he maintained his inauthentic smile and informed me that I would be placed under arrest. After a while, he informed me that, indeed, I WAS under arrest, and when I asked what the charges were, I was told “DISORDERLY CONDUCT”. The “justification” they said they had for this was that I “alarmed” the woman in the administrative office. She had apparently reported my visit.

I was absolutely appalled that they would or could arrest me. I was asked for my jacket and my holster, and told they were being taken as evidence. I had to sign a receipt for them. I was then taken into a holding room with a height-chart on the wall. Officer Crumb took my picture and then readied paperwork in order to book me. I was given a receipt for my belongings, a form with the criminal charges, and an Illinois citation and complaint. I now have a notice to appear in court at 9:00 AM on October 26th, 2005 at the Winnebago County Courthouse – 400 West State Street, Rockford, Illinois, Room 214 or 236. Officer Crumb also told me that I was not allowed back on campus and warned me that if I were caught I would be arrested for trespassing and sent to county jail.

In order to be allowed back on campus and attend my classes, I had to get in contact with school officials and arrange a meeting. I spent the remainder of the day doing this. After calling many times and leaving a message with a secretary and a voicemail, I was able to get in contact with Amy Diaz, the Associate V.P. of the counseling staff. I was thankfully able to get an appointment with her the next morning at 8:15 a.m. We met and went through the whole story again. She typed up a document entitled "Conditions for Return to Class" that she told me I would have to sign in order to return to my classes. The document stated I must not wear my jacket or my empty holster/pouch during the school’s "investigation of my arrest.” Under the duress of being deprived my college education, I reluctantly signed it because I couldn’t allow my college education to be forfeit.

My arrest was wrongful, unwarranted, and unconstitutional. I believe my First Amendment rights and rights as a student were also violated, since I was afforded no due process as a student. If I had been wearing anything else, no matter how offensive, disgusting, alarming, disturbing, deplorable, or otherwise, I believe I would not have been arrested. At the most, I would have been asked to remove what I was wearing, and possibly face punishment for violating school policies – not charged with a false crime that could ruin my future. I broke no school policy, and I certainly broke no law. Yet I now stand falsely charged with a criminal offense under Illinois Statute.

As a rights activist, I don’t just take this personally. I believe this is not only a direct attack on my rights but on beliefs I share with other law-abiding citizens. I support freedom and civil rights. I support the Constitution and those inherent rights that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I’m not a radical or extremist in any way. We live in a time when our rights are under constant attack – from both political parties. I believe the one right that guarantees the rest, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is under the most relentless attack of them all.

Making a harmless personal statement of one’s beliefs and the ideals this country was founded upon should not be a reason for arrest. This is an absolute outrage and a sad discredit to what we call a free society. It is a true testament to the anti-gun sentiment driven by FEAR and ignorance in this country today. This is the reason we must raise awareness to our rapidly eroding Second Amendment rights. This is the reason I took my stand and make this statement.

For the record, I never desired, intended, expected, or imagined to be arrested for what I wore on campus. I have never sued anyone for anything, and neither money nor fame motivate my actions. I simply seek awareness of the condition in this country today, and awareness for the negative influence that mainstream media has on people. I just want people to see the facts, and the truth, and demonstrate vigilance for freedom.

Since this incident occurred, I’ve received enormous support from the community. I want to thank everyone for all of the e-mails and words of encouragement. I want to thank everyone for helping to get the word out and helping to assure this sort of thing doesn’t happen ever again. We can’t let belief in the Second Amendment be a reason for arrest, harassment, and persecution. We should and must use this incident as a way to get the word out for our cause.

There are a few things you can do to help! Letters of encouragement and support are always great. They’ve made a real difference. Yet, I am gong to need help through all of this so that we can really take an effective fight against oppression to the actual perpetrators. Please keep us true to the cause and help us all along the way. I ask everyone to keep spreading the word about this as much as possible.

In order to mount the best and most powerful defense possible, vindicate my civil rights and protect us all in the process by filing a Federal lawsuit, I have retained Walter Maksym, a veteran constitutional attorney from Chicago to represent me. He has lectured at Northwestern University on Second Amendment issues, represents Concealed Carry, Inc. ( www.concealcarry.org ) and John Birch, its President, and recently won the Roderick Pritchett, John Horstman, Eric Booker and other cases that involved similar legal issues. Mr. Maksym can be reached at 773-929-2923.

Countless people have inquired about sending in donations to help fund the case. I haven’t decided on this yet and am not ready. However, from the way things are looking, it might be something I will need to consider. More details will be provided about that later on if things change. We are also contacting some national organizations that could assist us with what happens from here. Please help us if you can.

I think we could have a good case, but we have to have all the details before committing a lot of resources. If this is as good as it seems to be and we can get press coverage, it could do us a lot of good.

Jeff

 

[SMMAssociates]

Ever so slightly off topic....

In OH, a University, and other "entities" (like a major public park) can create a "Police District", which is (IANAL, so I'm not going to try to fully explain this) similar to a municipality.

Having done that, they can hire Law Enforcement Personell who are required to attend the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy (which is a curriculum rather than a place - the School can run the courses "in house"), and are "real" LEO's in about any sense.

While their orientation may be a little narrow, they are quite real, and disrespecting them may be a good way to get a ride to the County lockup.

YMMV, of course, and this probably varies by location. When I was in College, we had a new PD on campus, and it was often supplement by City and Special Police Officers (me) too. The City guys were not to be fooled with.... Us rentals didn't take it too seriously. "Please go stand in that line over there" rarely generated much excitement, and we were often classmates of the students we were "directing". Lord, armed students? How could that have been?

Times change....

 

[antsi]

Of course, if the events are close to being what is confusingly described, then Kranish was wronged. Most of you seem to be taking all of this at face value as truth. However, there is really just one source reported here as Kranish's witness, himself. Lot's of people claim to be wrongly arrested or claim they were arrested for reasons other than what is stated. No doubt Kranish has a significant vested interest and hence cannot be considered as a reliable or objective witness. He may be telling the absolute truth, but there is no way we can verify it, at least not yet.

I know John Birch. He uses a lot of inflammatory language but he is factual and truthful. He is a lawyer and an experienced gun rights activist. He knows well enough that making things up wholesale or withholding significant details can discredit his cause.

I don't know Shaun Kranish, but I do have some experience with anti-gun idiots in Illinois and the political climate at Rock Valley College, a joke of a Berkeley-wanna-be community college. This is the joint that famously brought a rabid anti-war propagandist from the NYT to speak at their commencement a couple years back. The jerk was booed off the stage, and rightly so.

I don't have any personal knowledge of the facts of this case, admittedly. But knowing what I do of RVC and the species of Illinois blissninny, I find Shaun Kranish's story quite plausible.

 

[BB62]

...I don't know how or where BB62 obtained a copy of the charge, but that charge and Kranish's statements are all we know about the case. Apparently, Rockford College does not run a police blotter and neither do Rockform's newspapers.

Something is up with the story that isn't being told. It seems overly formatted to paint Kranish as being victimized on several levels as part of conspiracy simply becasue he wanted to chat about gun issues with the powers that be...

I got my "copy of the charge" (?) from the web site I cited! I didn't figure it would take too much to figure that out...

As for all the back and forth about a pack, not a pack, etc., is everything a conspiracy??

"...part of conspiracy simply becasue he wanted to chat about gun issues with the powers that be..." Just where does Mr. Kranish refer to the matter as a conspiracy? Do you think you would have been well treated or differently treated in the same circumstances? And if you were treated the same, would it be a "conspiracy"?

As for Jeff White's comment, "I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we use the same tactics the antis do by exaggerating and stretching the truth. I'd really like to see what was redacted from that complaint. It might give us some more light on what really happened", I'm not sure who you feel is stretching "the truth", or exactly how "the truth" is being stretched.

The same tactics used by the antis??

Mr. Kranish has done *something* to earn himself a citation, something he describes, in his own words in the text you posted, AND on the website I referred to. I'm not and wasn't vouching for him, but what part is suspect?

Is carrying an empty holster provocative? It would seem so. Is refusing to give up one's bus seat provocative? Yep. Is wearing a shirt saying "You wouldn't understand, it's a black thing" provocative? (which I've personally seen) Yep.

So?


BB62

 

[R.H. Lee]

It's nothing less than the criminalization of a political viewpoint, which is the way liberals/lefties/progressives/nazis handle dissent.

 

[Winnisimmet]

So what happened with the kid's court date?

In reading what is suppose to be the kid's statement, he uses the word "holster" to describe part of personal items confiscated by the college Barney Fife cops. This is why the founders gave us the 5th Amendment against self incrimination within our constitution. Rule of thumb . . . Don't say nuthin and give no information or sign a statement without legal representation. Since the kid did not place the word "holster" within quote marks, the term can be attibuted to him by college authorities. It can be determined that he was actually carrying a firearm style holster rather than a random "fanny" pack of some type? Was the carrying of the holster meant to provoke or intimidate? That's the sort of question that will be asked. They'll use his own words against him.

Though it's probably a thin criteria, the receptionist in the office could then claim that she saw the "holster" as described within the statement of the student and felt threatened thinking that he was carrying a gun. Their arguement can be that with the logo of "I CARRY" proclaimed upon his jacket and with the student wearing a self described "holster", that college authorities acted in the interest of public safety.

Fact is, a person needs to realize that within that realm, he's interfacing with a horde of corrupt, hysterical liberal pukes along with their "Liar for Hire" attorneys. At his tender age, this trusting young person expected fair treatment within the establishment. Poor naive child! Sadly, it takes years of getting cheated and mis-treated by the swines for a person to develop the cynical seasoning needed to survive encounters with the system. One needs to be highly careful not to give the vile bastards any opportunity to get the upper hand. His use within a signed statement of the word "holster" might be this kid's un-doing. So what happened with his court date? :banghead:

 

[Henry Bowman]

To me that Disorderly Conduct charge is pretty vague, could be applied toward any Anti-Abortion protest or display on campus that would show a picture of an aborted fetus... not to mention any discussion related to Terrorism, as it could disturb someone.

If the "I Carry" on his jacket had been a refence to HIV status, the ACLU would be beating down the doors to represent him.

The use within a signed statement of the word "holster" might be this kid's un-doing.

Anything you say (or write) can and will be used against you in a court of law.