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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mongo the Mutterer said:
Henry --

Still wiping the coffee off my desk, luckily it has a glass top.

Thanks, Henry.
Click to expand...

Calling the ACLU... ACLU where are you??


BB62
 
This forum was recommended to me, and I came across this thread. I'll address some of the questions you guys have, and try to give you more information.

First off: What I wore into the administrator's office was what I wore to class everyday. I had just gotten out of class and it was a convenient time for me to inquire about meeting with the school's president. I didn't put my jacket on or strap my carry-pouch on just for this. I had been wearing these things already, and no one was ever "alarmed" by it. I didn't feel I should have to change what I wore and who I am before going in there, that would be ridiculous.

Second: My conduct was never disorderly. I was never threatening, I never raised my voice, I never made threatening gestures or acted in ANY way that might offend/alarm someone. On the contrary, I was as polite as a person in my situation could possibly be. I inquired about the possibility of setting up an appointment with the president.

Third: I never even argued with the police. We had a lengthy discussion, but it always remained civil. Hell that doesn't even matter, even if I would have argued heatedly would I have been breaking the law? Either way, I remained polite, respectful, and completely civil that entire day. Our conversation only ended when they told me I was under arrest and being charged.

Fourth: You can believe what you want. If you think that a person being arrested means they certainly did something to deserve or warrant it, I would say you are very biased and prejudice in agreeing with every action of law enforcement.

Fifth: As far as John Birch calling it a fanny pack, I think I can shed some light on this. John isn't a liar, and he isn't out to mislead people. The reason he called it a fanny pack, I believe, is that all of us sensible and knowledgable people in Illinois willing to exercise our rights within the law call them "fanny packs". It doesn't matter if it's a holster, a carry case, an actual fanny pack, doesn't matter. If it's an enclosed case that attaches to your body designed to carry an unloaded pistol in accordance with the law in the People's Republik of Illinois, it's a fanny pack. This is why he used that language I am sure. He wanted people to know what he was talking about, and like I said that's what we always call them.

The following is the entire story in my own words:

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.
Click to expand...


It's long as heck, and I apologize for that. If you want to believe that's just "my side" of the story that's fine. I stand behind that though, and put my word behind it as being truthful in every respect. I hope this adds a little fact to the discussion.

I've received overwhelming support from the community, and I want to thank everyone for that. I will be fighting this, and I continue to need your support in this. Every bit of encouragement means a great deal to me.

We've asked that people help to contact organizations to seek support for this matter. All of the info you could need is on our website at www.ICarry.org. We also have a defense fund if anyone is interested in helping out that way.

I'll be watching and I'll try to answer questions as best I can. I'm advised to keep my mouth shut of course, but I will try my best to provide information. Thanks again for all of the support!
 
Shaun:

IANAL....

I'm going to guess that when the Campus Police told that admin lady what "I CARRY.ORG" actually meant, she concluded that you had a gun in the bag, and said so.... :cuss:

That no gun was ever located would be helpful, but you should be prepared to document your activities between the time you left her and got to the Campus Police building.

If the two LEO's are honest, nothing you said or did in their building will mean anything except the search results, neither of which prove that you didn't have the gun at the admin office.

"Disorderly Conduct", IMHO, would be about the least charge anybody could bring if they were prepared to accept your having the gun. (Makes it look like a flaky case for them, too....)

A good lawyer should be able to establish that the woman didn't feel threatened until she learned of your "background", but again, "Disorderly Conduct" would be a valid charge in the event of a complaint by the lady.... Your word against hers, I suppose. Look for witnesses....

(I don't think I'd have said a word to the PD guys, or permitted the vehicle search, once it looked like they'd decided to charge you with something, but it's hard to feel that sometimes. If they'd found a gun, you'd be screwed, I suppose, but they now may have to prove that you had one earlier, and that'll be tougher.)

IMHO, and I'm not really experienced in this, is that when you're going to be an activist, you never do anything without friendly witnesses. Video tape is good, too.... If you don't want to be provocative, just bring a couple of friends. Their reputations need to be clean. Not a lot of help at the PD building, I suppose, but that admin gal's not going to be able to say that "HE HAD A GUN!" if there are several people there to say that you didn't. :what:

The NRA should get involved in this. Don't expect the ACLU unless you're Black, a Terrorist, have HIV, are Islamic, or a Nazi.... :fire:

Regards,
 
1. If you've not been on a variety of college campuses for awhile (or in Northern Illinois, for that matter) you may be finding Shaun's story a bit hard to believe. I do not. I'm not saying I know he's telling the truth, just that it's not at all difficult to believe that he was treated exactly as he says he was. It's absolutely plausible.

2. Whether we call it a holster or a fanny pack shouldn't matter. It was empty. That said, I know you're thinking of appearances, but the idea that Shaun should lie and say a holster isn't a holster so that no one can ask him about it in court is ridiculous. If a lawyer wants to ask him why he was wearing a "holster," that's what he'll ask. Whether Shaun called it a "holster" or a "calculator pouch" isn't going to matter. It was EMPTY. There was no firearm in it.

3. Shaun has not alleged a conspiracy. He is alleging that the campus cops got tired of dealing with him and decided they'd had enough of him, so they decided to arrest him for disorderly conduct. To do that, they called the secretary and asked her to make a complaint of disorderly conduct. She did. This kind of stuff happens every day across the country for a variety of reasons, so I don't know why it's hard to believe or requires a huge conspiracy.


The point is that he was NOT being disorderly as far as we know and they arrested him for "disorderly conduct" anyway. Now, if it turns out he was being threatening or menacing or disorderly, fine, I'll deal with that and let him take his lumps. But at the moment I find his story more credible than theirs.
 
Byron Quick said:
denfoote,

Your post helps the individual involved or the cause of acquiring concealed carry in the state of Illinois in what way?
Click to expand...

IMHO, and IANAL, a First Amendment issue regarding the expression of a desire to have Second Amendment rights honored.... "Raising Awareness" is important, too, and the whole "College Carry" issue is extremely important. For example, here in OH, adults can't carry on a College campus, but can lock the gun in the glovebox. Half a loaf, in that the Campus Police can neither protect the cars nor the students from folks who will walk by the signs, and a denial of rights. Not to mention that "I" paid for the buildings....

A good "target" for us....

I'm not in charge here, but it seems like a good fit when compared to "Carry In" activities & such.

We are stuck with the Constitution and it's Amendments. We can't sit here and holler about 2nd Amendment issues without being concerned about violations of others - particularly when they're related to our goals.

Regards,
 
SAK,

You or someone else mentioned the NRA. Are you a member? If not, you sure should join, and not just for this occasion.

You, or others intimately knowledgeable of your circumstances ought to contact FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) http://www.thefire.org/ and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, http://www.isi.org/ .

If you intend to seek the NRA's help, have your attorney contact the NRA's Office of General Counsel, and take direction from them as to what materials must be submitted to them so they can properly consider the situation and present the matter to the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund board.

Do you have a copy of the citation? How about posting it?

Not that I'm complaining because we all need to know about this kind of activity, but why is your attorney letting you "talk" about this so much?

BTW - I called you the other day.


Regards,
BB62
 
Fourth: You can believe what you want. If you think that a person being arrested means they certainly did something to deserve or warrant it, I would say you are very biased and prejudice in agreeing with every action of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

lol...we have a lot of that here, unfortunately.
 
We need more information. The complaint that was read in court at the preliminary hearing , which is what I think was paraphrased on John Birch's website doesn't tell us anything.

What we need to see is the statement that was made by the alarmed woman in the president's office. Neither Chief Draught nor Officer Crumb witnessed what happened in the office. The only probable cause they had to make an arrest would have been the statement from the alleged victim. Without that, there is no case.

Somewhere in the case file, there is either a written statement from the alleged victim, or a transcritption of what she told the investigating officer.

This is what John Birch put on his website:
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
Click to expand...

There are a couple things wrong with this (unless they do things differently then they do in the 4th Judicial Curcuit where I'm at). First off Edward Crumb ID number 167 can't be the Complainant, he did not witness what occurred in the president's office. Janna L. Shwaiko would be the complainant. Secondly, as I said in my earlier post, the statute is wrong, although that could simply be a typo.

I find it hard to believe a states attorney would file on this limited information. A black fanny pack could have had his lunch in it. MS Shwaiko must be hopolophobe who obviously couldn't walk through a mall or amusement park without being terrified that every fanny pack she saw contained a handgun. I'd really love to see her statement, that seems to be the key to this.

Shaun, can you post her statement?

Jeff
 
SMMAssociates said:
That no gun was ever located would be helpful, but you should be prepared to document your activities between the time you left her and got to the Campus Police building.
Click to expand...
Stu --

Immaterial. His lawyer should not allow ANY discussion of what he did between the visit to the prez's office and his arrival at the public safety offce.

The salient facts are: No gun was visible or "brandished" while in the president's office, and no gun was present in the public safety office. He does not have to account for anything else. Any suggestion that there could have been a gun in the pack while he was in the president's office is sheer speculation, and that is not admissible.
 
Jeff White said:
There are a couple things wrong with this (unless they do things differently then they do in the 4th Judicial Curcuit where I'm at). First off Edward Crumb ID number 167 can't be the Complainant, he did not witness what occurred in the president's office. Janna L. Shwaiko would be the complainant. Secondly, as I said in my earlier post, the statute is wrong, although that could simply be a typo.
Click to expand...
While it would be nice to beat the charge on its merits, a dismissal for technical insufficiency will also do the job. If the officer incorrectly listed himself as complainant and cited an incorrect statute, that should be grounds to move for dismissal. Period.

I assume the attorney will be on top of that.
 
The issue is what happened in the office. What Shaun did between the presidents office and the police station is not an issue here. He was charged with disorderly conduct, not unlawful use of weapons. He was not charged with assault so we can assume that he said nothing threatening to Shwaiko.

It does look like they are going to try to push the issue that a jacket that says "I carry" combined with an empty fanny pack is disorderly conduct. That makes no sense. I could see the school attempting to do something like that administratively, but I can't see a court buying off on it. And I can't see a states attorney actually filing a case based simply on the combination of the jacket and fanny pack. It's been my experience with states attorneys that they don't really want to take something they have a chance of losing into court. If you add this into what must be an overwhelming load of real crime for the states attorney's office to deal with, it makes no sense to file such a case. That's why I'm so interested in seeing Shwaiko's statement of what transpired in the president's office.

Jeff
 
Hawkmoon said:
Stu --

Immaterial. His lawyer should not allow ANY discussion of what he did between the visit to the prez's office and his arrival at the public safety offce.

The salient facts are: No gun was visible or "brandished" while in the president's office, and no gun was present in the public safety office. He does not have to account for anything else. Any suggestion that there could have been a gun in the pack while he was in the president's office is sheer speculation, and that is not admissible.
Click to expand...

Hawk:

You're correct, of course, but since the woman apparently swore that he had a gun, or she thought or was led to believe that he had one, it'd be nice to be able to prove (or make a good showing of) that he didn't go home and hide it on the way to the PD. Belt & suspenders.... Smells like one of those things that a jury is told to disregard after it's said, and having some sort of "documentation" to discredit the woman might be useful.

It's a bear to prove that he didn't have a gun at the president's office if the office worker swears that she thought he did. The search at the PD building establishes that he didn't have it when searched, but not that he didn't have it earlier. In most states, "assault" is defined as "putting in fear", and while "disorderly conduct" is pretty low on the scale, the idea that the gal thought there was a gun may be a problem.

It'd be nice to show who called whom first - did the gal call the PD, or did they call her? Having the latter - having the PD tell the gal that a crime had been committed, begs the "why didn't she call it in?" question. That kind of screws up the case for the PD....

Probably a non-issue in that State, but think about a CHL going into a store and then the storekeeper finding out later (perhaps courtesy of one of our OH newsrags printing lists) that the CHL might have been carrying. Sheesh....
 
I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, to answer your question. As far as what happened between the administrator's office and the DPS, that's simple. I walked to my car, put the key in the ignition, drove to DPS, stepped out of car, stepped inside building and into the DPS lobby.

I'll have to speak to my attorney about the formal complaint and all of that stuff. The defense fund you were wondering about, Hawk, is HERE.
 
TallPine said:
The school should just require all students to be naked to come on the campus so that they won't alarm anyone... :rolleyes:

:D
Click to expand...

Damn.... I graduated from College right before the girls' skirts got short enough to be negligible.... :what:

(And driving by the school was hazardous to your neck and/or vehicle.)

Sure weren't wearing any guns under those outfits. :D

Got my vote....

Regards,
 
SAK said:
I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, to answer your question. As far as what happened between the administrator's office and the DPS, that's simple. I walked to my car, put the key in the ignition, drove to DPS, stepped out of car, stepped inside building and into the DPS lobby.

I'll have to speak to my attorney about the formal complaint and all of that stuff. The defense fund you were wondering about, Hawk, is HERE.
Click to expand...

I am VERY pleased to see that you are a Life Member (me too).

The NRA may or may not choose or be able to help, but your member status is beneficial, as best I can tell in my dealings with them. You NEED to contact those other organizations too. Attorney fees, the charge itself, whether dropped or litigated, are very serious things - some of which can have serious, unanticipated repercussions.

On the other hand, your success is critical to all of us, and to the aims of the aforementioned organizations. Please don't fail to contact them.


BB62
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
College Student Sues School for...
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Fletchette
F
B
  • Locked
Illegal Arrest In Illinois
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
6K
Autolycus
A
T
  • Locked
Sunrise, Florida, Law Enforcement Attempts to Violate 1st Amendment Rights
Replies
5
Views
611
Texpatriate
T
C
  • Locked
2nd Amendment with 1st Amendment Trampled
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
D
  • Locked
Gun-rights advocate arrested at rally of 30
Replies
6
Views
999
Jeff White
J
Back
Top