Cops called on me at Boise Public Library!

[Saint]

imported post

Patriot wrote:

IdahoCorsair and I will OC there soon (separately). Probably today for me.

I think we need to create a phone directory we all keep in our phones of all the local OC guys, so when this stuff happens, we get as many people there to help as possible.

BTW, the librarian was visibly furious. He even went back into the library, got the books Saint was looking at, checked them out, and gave them to Saint, so that he would have no reason to re-enter the library.

He was indeed furious. It was quite ammusing. The books were already checked out (I had done so myself while he was calling the cops so that if I ended up taking them outside there would be no way they could try to get me for attempted robbery) but I did find it ammusing the he brought them out and held onto the books so I wouldn't go back in. If I had not had to go to class right at the time the confrontation ended I would have re-entered immediately

 

[Saint]

imported post

Possibly... how about later? I get out of class at 3:30 and don't have to be at work until 5:15. So does 3:40 work?

 

[Patriot]

imported post

Probably, I'll keep in touch.

 

[Mike]

imported post

So, is Tom up to speed now?

 

[ironshields]

imported post

saint, you are truly the man. way to protect OC

 

[Saint]

imported post

Mike wrote:

So, is Tom up to speed now?

I know that as I walking away Officer Orton and the Lieutenant went over and began speaking with him and that Tom appeared to visibily upset by what they told him. I was also told by officer Orton that if I had any further problems from library personel I was to tell them to call him directly and he would make sure they understood the law. So my guess is that yes, Tom now understands that he has far less authority than he oridginally thought.

 

[IdahoCorsair]

imported post

Saint, yet another 'incident.' I heard you handled yourself in an exemplary manner and while not perfect by the LE, at least they were moderately reasonable... they were willing to learn and it seems they did!
Keep this up and the whole state might even one day be truly pro-gun!

 

[swillden]

imported post

Patriot wrote:

Saint sure pulls more than his own weight arround here. It's really encouraging, but I guess the rest of us need to step it up

With a support system like the one evident here, it should be easy to get people to step up. Very impressive all around. Kudos to Saint for handling himself perfectly, and to Patriot and the others that stepped up.

I also think the BPD is very deserving of applause. I've read about a lot of encounters here on OCDO, but I don't think I've read another example of such professional behavior. The responding officers had a legitimate basis to believe that Saint was breaking the law (it's perfectly reasonable for city cops to assume that the municipal code is valid), yet they handled the issue with politeness and restraint, and not only apologized but thanked Saint for the education when their error was made clear. And now they're going to ensure that the whole department is properly educated on the issue. What more can we ask?

Edit: Fixed grammar.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Saint, that was not only textbook, it wasinspiring! I just hope it sticks and there is something of real value gained here other than the police mumbling about a bunch of "damn OC activists..."

There is a real difference between understanding and acknowledgement through education and begrudgingly following the rules.

Patriot wrote:

I want to do something to say thanks to Sen. Mackenzie.... I'm thinking along the lines of sending flowers to his office, but there has to be a manly version of that......
Any ideas?

Absolutely! I've never heard of any guy refusing a nice 12-15 year old bottle of scotch!

 

[swillden]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Absolutely! I've never heard of any guy refusing a nice 12-15 year old bottle of scotch!

Well, if he's not LDS, or for some other reason a non-drinker. He'd probably appreciate the gesture anyway, but it might create a little discomfort.

 

[IdahoCorsair]

imported post

Well, ideally we could ask for more, but pragmatically we can't ask for more. They have thousands of laws to enforce and can't be experts on all of them. If they are willing to consider the possibility that they're wrong (which they did in this case), and call the right people to discuss the matter (and take calls :lol: ), then that means they aren't acting as self-important tyrants necessarily, but more toward being servants willing to learn. LEOs still have a long way to go, but it gives me a brief respite of hope in an otherwise dark arena.

 

[IdahoCorsair]

imported post


swillden wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Absolutely! I've never heard of any guy refusing a nice 12-15 year old bottle of scotch!

Well, if he's not LDS, or for some other reason a non-drinker. He'd probably appreciate the gesture anyway, but it might create a little discomfort.

It might also violate some rule about 'political gifts' or some such nonsense. :banghead: So we best look into it first.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Politicians accept gifts all the time and the National Archive is full of gifts to the Presidents. IIRC if it's an itemit remains with the office not the person and is passed on to the next. Something consumable like that is merely shared with others.

USFederal law prohibits giving gifts to superiors. IIRC, he can accept a gift of no more than $49.99 in any single instance or $99.99 from any source in a calendar year. Lemme dig up the US Code.

EDIT: $49.95 as long as you're not a registered lobbyist. Found it here:

http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/new%20ethics%20rules_gifts%20and%20events.pdf

 

[IdahoCorsair]

imported post

Nice work Bob, thanks!

 

[Patriot]

imported post

How much is a good bottle of scotch, and where do I get one......common liquer stores?

Flowers for his wife would be great too. When she didn't answer the phone I didn't leave a mesage. She just saw the missed call and called me right back, and was very pleasant (gave me her husband's law firm #).

 

[Alphamike]

imported post


I feel that I have to weigh in on this. I wrote the Senate bill (sponsored by Curt McKenzie) that became 18-3302J (state preemption of firearms regulation) this year. The intent of this bill was to clarify that local ordinances prohibiting firearms possession in various public places were unenforceable as well as to explicitly extend state preemption to government subdivisions besides cities and counties. The original draft of the bill would have tested the Universities’ anti-gun policies but that had to be deleted in order to get a bill through at all. We have established the principle of complete preemption in the code and we will go back next year and work on campus carry and other issues.

I applaud you for forcing the City of Boise to admit that their ordinance prohibiting firearms possession in public buildings is void (as it was by the terms of the previous premption statutes). Boise City opposed the preemption bill using the arguments that they couldn’t prohibit their employees from CCW etc. Curt McKenzie presented the bill in the House committee and he was grilled for over an hour. I now expect the City of Boise (and others) to introduce a bill abrogating preemption to some degree in the next session. I was hoping that we could work toward advancing firearms rights rather than defending them against attack.

Let me be perfectly clear: you have a right to OC in Idaho. I testified to the State Affairs committee that the language of Art 1 Sec 9 of the Idaho Constitution probably prevents even the legislature from regulating OC. Just because you have a right, though, does not mean that it is a good idea, in practical terms, to exercise it indiscriminately.

To those who OC in public places I would ask that you consider the effect of your actions on ordinary citizens. Justifiably or not, OC scares people. Scared citizens are not going to "get used to it", they are going to demand action from their public officials (who may be anti-gun to begin with). Despite the reputation of Idaho as being a gun free paradise, I can tell you from personal experience that the true believers in the legislature (such as Sen. McKenzie) are in the decided minority. Most are not idealogical about gun issues and can be turned if their constituents (backed by interest groups) demands "reasonable" regulation of behavior that is seen as "unreasonable".

Besides making my job as an advocate for firearms freedoms more difficult, public OC "because I can" carries the very real risk that we could lose hard won ground in the form of more restrictions on CCW. The legislature apparently cannot regulate OC but they definitely CAN regulate CCW, which I would submit is a lot more important to the personal security of the vast majority of gun owners.

I don’t have time to engage in public debate or flame wars over this. If anyone has any reasonable questions you may PM me.

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

Alphamike wrote:

I feel that I have to weigh in on this. I wrote the Senate bill (sponsored by Curt McKenzie) that became 18-3302J (state preemption of firearms regulation) this year. The intent of this bill was to clarify that local ordinances prohibiting firearms possession in various public places were unenforceable as well as to explicitly extend state preemption to government subdivisions besides cities and counties. The original draft of the bill would have tested the Universities’ anti-gun policies but that had to be deleted in order to get a bill through at all. We have established the principle of complete preemption in the code and we will go back next year and work on campus carry and other issues.

I applaud you for forcing the City of Boise to admit that their ordinance prohibiting firearms possession in public buildings is void (as it was by the terms of the previous premption statutes). Boise City opposed the preemption bill using the arguments that they couldn’t prohibit their employees from CCW etc. Curt McKenzie presented the bill in the House committee and he was grilled for over an hour. I now expect the City of Boise (and others) to introduce a bill abrogating preemption to some degree in the next session. I was hoping that we could work toward advancing firearms rights rather than defending them against attack.

Let me be perfectly clear: you have a right to OC in Idaho. I testified to the State Affairs committee that the language of Art 1 Sec 9 of the Idaho Constitution probably prevents even the legislature from regulating OC. Just because you have a right, though, does not mean that it is a good idea, in practical terms, to exercise it indiscriminately.

To those who OC in public places I would ask that you consider the effect of your actions on ordinary citizens. Justifiably or not, OC scares people. Scared citizens are not going to "get used to it", they are going to demand action from their public officials (who may be anti-gun to begin with). Despite the reputation of Idaho as being a gun free paradise, I can tell you from personal experience that the true believers in the legislature (such as Sen. McKenzie) are in the decided minority. Most are not idealogical about gun issues and can be turned if their constituents (backed by interest groups) demands "reasonable" regulation of behavior that is seen as "unreasonable".

Besides making my job as an advocate for firearms freedoms more difficult, public OC "because I can" carries the very real risk that we could lose hard won ground in the form of more restrictions on CCW. The legislature apparently cannot regulate OC but they definitely CAN regulate CCW, which I would submit is a lot more important to the personal security of the vast majority of gun owners.

I don’t have time to engage in public debate or flame wars over this. If anyone has any reasonable questions you may PM me.

In view of the above statement, I want to say something.

There is a difference between exercising your rights in an honest and respectful manner, which is what the Saint did yesterday, and in going forth with an "In you Face" attitude.

I learned many years ago this very sad lesson. I had an encounter where I was a wide eyed youth standing up for what was right, and I prevailed against seasoned veterans that were left confounded.

My humility turned with time and reflection to a haughty air and I again sought a similar confrontation. The second time I met a sweet little old lady that chewed me up and spit me out.

Moral of this story; Enjoy your well earned favors, but do it with humility and you will continue in good grace.

I amend my call for an "In you Face" visit to the library and now urge that you be a gracious winner.

 

[Patriot]

imported post

Thanks for your hard work, and for posting,

I agree that there are many issues to consider before OCing, and that is why I sometimes do and sometimes don't.

I hope everyone will read what you wrote, and make appropriate situation based descisions accordingly.

Let's all keep the long term goal if focus!

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

Patriot wrote:

Thanks for your hard work, and for posting,

I agree that there are many issues to consider before OCing, and that is why I sometimes do and sometimes don't.

I hope everyone will read what you wrote, and make appropriate situation based descisions accordingly.

Let's all keep the long term goal if focus!

Patriot.....You have just been added to my list of Heroes.



Well said.

 

[lockman]

imported post

So what did the senator just say? Exercise your rights, but if confronted about it back down for the common good?

What was that motto again? A right not exercised is a right _____?