No charges for man with guns at Pelosi's DNC hotel

[Testament]

Source: Associated Press

Prosecutors say no charges will be filed against a man who was arrested after causing a weapons scare during the Democratic convention.

Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., was arrested on suspicion of unlawfully carrying a weapon on Aug. 23. Police say he had two hunting rifles and two pistols in a case when he tried checking in to the Denver hotel where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was staying.

-snip-

Calanchini has said he didn't know about the convention or that Pelosi was at the hotel.

He says he's relieved the case is closed but he hasn't gotten his guns back.

Read more: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/15/no-charges-man-guns-pelosis-dnc-hotel/

---

This is a followup to a long thread posted here about 2 weeks ago.

This is the old thread for those not familiar with it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3451823&mesg_id=3451823

Please keep it civil, the original one deteriorated rather rapidly. Thank you.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Obama needs to make a public comment stating that the man's guns be returned immediately

Wins MAJOR points with NO downside.

[Testament]

2. You are correct about that. NT

[sasquatch]

3. Good idea

[geckosfeet]

4. Does Obama have this guys guns?

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. Now why, oh why would you be so obtuse?

'splain :)

[geckosfeet]

8. Cause he would be interfering in a local law enforcement issue. Obama

has no jurisdiction there.

To play a card this cheap and illegal would be beyond pandering.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. It could be framed well

And Obama has no jurisdiction anywhere. He's only a Senator, not a law enforcement officer. And with the right framing it could win over a lot of swing voters in battleground states. And, of course, it would NOT be illegal for Obama to say "I think the man ought to have his lawfully owned guns back as soon as possible."

I want us to win. Do you?

[geckosfeet]

35. I am sure that he agrees with you 100%. It's still pandering.

[Paladin]

56. As If Obama Could "Frame" Anything That Would Satisfy You Gun Nuts

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. He could promise not to sign any gun control legislation.

That would satisfy me.

David

[Cronus Protagonist]

67. Presumptive much?

I've never shot or owned a gun other than a BB gun.

[SteveM]

79. Frame this: quit volunteering for the GOP; at least accept payment.

[Paladin]

100. You Know, That Insult Might Amount To Something......

...if it weren't for that little poll down in the DU Gun Dungeon right now---the one that shows 45% of our resident gun obsessives publicly declaring their willingness to vote Republican this time around, all on the basis of the one and only issue they seem to give a shit about. When you venture up here to the Real World forums, you'll find that we have a clear idea of who's really working on behalf of the right wing. Just a word to the less-than-wise, no payment required....

[SteveM]

120. You are fighting a losing culture war. THAT is "less-than-wise." Got it?

[Paladin]

121. Like I'm Taking Any Opinions About Culture From A Gun Nut... (n/t)

[SteveM]

122. You're addicted to it, buddy. Got's to have more losing. My, my (nt)

[katandmoon]

10. Gun nuts live in their own little world where nothing else matters but the freedom to shoot

the place up if they feel at all threatened.

[fascisthunter]

16. no shit

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. You eat your crow too.

Then you go away.

[fascisthunter]

24. I See the NRA called for back-up

lol

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. I hear it's better kind of rare, if you over cook it, it gets a little tough.

[slackmaster]

46. That question has one final, definitive answer

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Soak it in Dale's seasoning for 24 hours then slather on the Tabasco.

You can make a Michelin edible doing that.

David

[SteveM]

80. Revere riding, he warns of fascism, yet demands gun control. HA!

[slackmaster]

17. That's just nonsense

This has nothing to do with shooting a place up. It's about freedom of movement, freedom from being harassed by the police when you aren't doing anything wrong.

[Testament]

18. The point of this comment is...what exactly? NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Just eat your crow and go away.

[tburnsten]

116. Thank you for your rational contribution

:crazy: :dunce: :crazy: :dunce: :freak: :dunce: :freak: :crazy: :freak:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. How would it be interfering?

The case is closed, there is nothing to interfere with.

David

[tburnsten]

69. I believe local law enforcement

got truly carried away in this case, the man was doing absolutely nothing wrong, he was traveling with his firearms in a case, and there is no reason whatsoever for law enforcement to continue to hold his property. This should have never even been a news story, because it is a total non-event, except for the police response. Staying in the same hotel as someone with bodyguards does not override state and federal laws regarding transportation of firearms, which he didn't break.

So I don't think it would be wrong for him to note in public that the man broke no laws, did nothing wrong, and the only right thing for the police to do is to give him his property and his bail money back.

[joecal]

96. Getting My Stuff Back

has been a huge problem. My truck was impounded and they took everything of value out of it. I never received any receipt of what they took from it. Now trying to get all of my property back is becoming nearly impossible. No charges being filed is a great relief to me, but the return of my personal property is the newest challenge. The financial cost incurred for this has been outrageous. $3,000.00 for the attorney, impound fee for my truck and hotel and travel expenses have been pretty big. Now I have at least one more trip to Denver to pick up my stuff whenever they release it. This has not been a fun or cheap ordeal.

[slackmaster]

109. Thanks for joining us

Please keep us posted.

[tburnsten]

113. Good luck

getting your property returned, and thank you for joining. I once had a firearm confiscated as well, but I guess my police department is just more professional than Denver PD, because once the issue was settled they returned my pistol to me with no hesitation, in exactly the same condition it was in when I last saw over a year earlier.

[joecal]

128. See post of LOST!

[LanternWaste]

90. It's only pandering if the candidate...

It's only pandering if the candidate is reaching out to a special interest group one doesn't agree with. If one supports the special interest group, then it's not pandering-- it's "reaching out to a constituency".

See, Obama "panders" to religious groups, but he "reaches out" to gun owners.


:sarcasm:

[tburnsten]

91. How exactly does he "pander" to religious groups?

Or "reach out" to gun owners for that matter? Hollow claims of "supporting the second amendment" doesn't seem like reaching out to me, it seems like a refusal to actually talk about the subject.

[LanternWaste]

92. I think you missed both the sarcasm tag and the sub-point.

I think you missed both the sarcasm tag and the sub-point.

Obama panders to special interest groups that one dislikes.
Obama reaches out to special interest groups that one does like.

It's all in the choice of words one uses to qualify a statement with, which then advertises a bias-- much like qualifying the objective word "claim" with the subjective word "hollow".

[tburnsten]

94. RE: "pander" vs "reach out"

I am following you, but as far as him actually doing any reaching out or pandering to gun owners, it isn't happening, at all. A statement that he supports the second amendment followed up by an immediate defense of the D.C. total ban on handguns and firearms in functional, working order as "reasonable" doesn't sit well with most people who enjoy shooting, which is why I called it a hollow claim. He stated he supports the second amendment but his very next sentence showed that he feels "reasonable restrictions" are perfectly fine, which everyone does, however, from his statement it appears that he has never seen a restriction he didn't think was reasonable.

[tburnsten]

123. And I don't see a response...

[slackmaster]

13. Yes, that is an excellent idea!

:toast:

[iverglas]

28. yeah, that's a FABULOUS idea!

A would-be member of the executive branch of the federal government attempting to interfere in the activities of the executive branch of another level of government.

Now, that doesn't look at all like political corruption. Nooooo ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. How would he be interfering after the case has been closed?

[iverglas]

54. "the activities of the executive branch of another level of government"

I hope that's clearer, the second time around.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Z0QJ0kO76sMC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22king+must+appear%22&source=web&ots=RmHEwh1URm&sig=f8-9GjsdsWAIbHmpRkv68_6PKsY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

The king must appear legitimate before the law.

-- Law, Rhetoric, and Irony in the Formation of Canadian Civil Culture
By Michael Dorland, Maurice Charland
Published by University of Toronto Press, 2002

It's your history and the foundation of your institutions, too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. He would be acting as a candidate he has no official standing.

Even as a Senator he has no official standing. I don't see how it would be interfering to comment after the case was closed. Sorry Iverglas, you know I'm not very bright. I read the passage can't say as I follow. Of course I have had a Vicodin and a Flexeril so no amount of explaining may help.

David

[iverglas]

60. and once elected

he would be the head of the executive branch of government who once engaged in an attempt to influence the decisions of local police, or whoever they are, in a matter between the local police and a member of the public, while seeking the office of president.

Not a really good image to be dragging along with one. Really.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. The decision is already made, how can he affect it?

Having said that I don't think he should do it. I think he should just come out and promise that he won't sign a new AWB.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. By the way....

I hope all is going better for you, your family and your friends. Thanks for being patient with those of us who are less gifted intellectually.

David

[wordpix]

75. huh? why does the guy need a gun arsenal to check into a hotel?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. He lived in Wyoming and just picked up the guns in Colorado.

Should he have left them in his car?

David

[wordpix]

103. " Should he have left them in his car?" I guess I should have looked the other way when

I worked at a boarding school and found a student had stored his rifle under his bed. :sarcasm: He was just storing it there, no harm intended.

The point is, there are appropriate places for rifles and inappropriate ones.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. A hotel isn't an inappropriate place when one is traveling with a rifle.

The student was in possession of a firearm illegally in addition to being against the rules. The man in this case was not in violation of the law or hotel rules.

David

[joecal]

112. Responsible

Is it more responsible to keep a fire arm in your possession or leave it in an unattended vehicle in downtown denver where it could possibly be stolen putting another weapon into the hands of the criminals? I believe that I did the responsible thing. They are my guns and my responsibility. I don't ever want to see any harm or crime come from any of my guns. It's not the gun that commits a crime, it's the person behind it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. I think you misread my post (double negative).

[joecal]

118. Actually I was responding to wordpix.

That and I believe that you and most rational people would agree that not leaving them in a vehicle is the responsible thing to do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. You are correct, sir.

[tburnsten]

78. Two rifles is nothing for a safari

And two handguns is nothing spectacular either. Safaris usually require the hunter to bring at least two rifles just because of the vast array of game. the animals hunted range from fairly small, smaller than our white tail deer, up to one tons and more of body mass. So the hunter needs to choose which caliber rifles he wants to bring carefully.

[wordpix]

102. I say save the wildlife

[tburnsten]

114. So do I

But rampant poaching is a huge problem for many African nations, and so far the only effective way to keep wildlife rangers staffed and equipped to prevent poaching is to have safaris, expensive, tightly controlled, safaris, which has been quite successful. The nations that allow hunting trips are without fail better off ecologically than the ones that do not.


I'd rather see a responsible, scientifically based number of animals culled by responsible hunters who donate the meat local villages and are in effect paying the salaries of multiple rangers for some time to come than have an emotionallly based "don't shoot the animals" approach that does nothing but eliminate the only effective source of income for the rangers/conservation and instead results in unemployed young men who could be out fighting poaching and for the same reason results in rampant poaching.

[olddad56]

5. This guy had to have been a republican

[Testament]

6. He said he was an independant, but I don't see why that's even important here...NT

[fascisthunter]

25. most pukes claim to be independent

especially on DU

[Testament]

30. You replied, but didn't state why his political affiliation was important...NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. I think he's registered as an independent.

[medeak]

11. "Palin in Golden today..check her bags!"

comment on link

Felt bad for the guy ...wasn't he on his way to African safari.. was that true?

[slackmaster]

14. If the safari story was true, the guy got shafted over nothing

It's probably not a big financial hit to him, but it still isn't right. If he did go he would have had a bit of a scramble to come up with one or more suitable weapons for the trip.

[tburnsten]

72. He's a salesman, of course it was a hit

I don't know much about him, but from the description of his career as selling drilling equipment, I am willing to bet he saved for some time to be able to afford that safari, and I am pretty sure many of the preparations need to be paid in advance for.

[joecal]

95. Yes it was

Yes it was quite a hit to my pocket book. I have saved for quite a while for this hunt, airfare, and the trophy fees for the animals taken. Everything had to be paid in advance. Now with the attorney fees and impound fees on my truck it has hurt the bank account big time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Nice of you to join us.

[slackmaster]

107. Hi joecal, welcome to DU

:hi:

[slackmaster]

12. He should not have been detained for more than a few minutes

As long as none of the firearms were LOADED, he committed no crime and nothing should have been taken from him. He should never have been arrested, and his property should not have been taken.

The fact that no charges are being filed pretty well proves the arrest was unwarranted. A loaded gun in that case would have been a slam-dunk misdemeanor.

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Which is why, now that it's proven the man is a law abiding citizen

Obama's support would prove he's not going to be taking anyone's guns away. I hope someone in the campaign sees the possibilities here.

[tomhayes]

19. The system worked

just because he wasn't charged doesn't mean the arrest was unwarranted.

People are arrested all the time and then files are not brought upon them

The system works like this:
1)A police officer arrest you if he thinks you have broken a law
2)A lawyer from the city/state/federal government decides if they think they have enough to prosecute you, and decide what charges to press and what charges to drop
3)The Judaical system arraigns you and decides if there is enough evidence present to take it to a trial
4)The prosecution and defense usually talk to see if their can be a plea bargain or if a trial should take place
5)If you plea bargain you enter a change of plea and the judge passes sentence
6)If you go to trail the prosecution has to be able to prove to a jury or judge (depends on type of case) that you are guilty
7)If you are found guilty you get a sentence

I think *this* case got dropped somewhere between step 2 and step 3. But that does NOT necessarily mean that legally step 1 was invalid.

Gunlovers never make it past step 1. It's *always* wrong for step 1 to occur to some people.

Now, again, there's a remedy under the law if you feel Step 1 was invalid - you sue for wrongful arrest, and if it got to step 2 you sue for wrongful procession. And probably under Civil Court for loss of Civil Rights.

But I doubt the facts in the case and arrest as we have seen presented would ever see a judgement in any action brought.

Let's review the facts: HUGE political party rally happens in a city where hundreds of thousands of people attend, in the lobby of the hotel for one of the party leaders a person is seen with firearms. The police talk to the person and determine the person has two concealed weapons in a suitcase. They briefly detain, confiscate weapons, arrest, and release the person. Later charges are dropped.

This seems like a pretty predictable and normal occurnce in our judical system.

Gunlovers (well liberal gunlovers) might want to focus on bigger/more real injustices like unequal sentencing, racial profiling, wrongful convictions of minorities, etc before the boo-hoo too much because a man with 4 guns got hassled (mind you, not beat like Rodney King) about having two concealed weapons.

-OR- go ahead and start some websites to get this guy to sue - it's really your choice.

[slackmaster]

20. The point is, he didn't have any "concealed weapons" and wasn't engaged in "unlawful carry"

Gunlovers never make it past step 1. It's *always* wrong for step 1 to occur to some people.

Not really, Tom. I understand what you are saying, but in light of what we know know it's become clear that that no cop acting in good faith would have arrested him once they had checked inside of his rifle case and found nothing illegal.

I don't have a problem with police and Secret Service taking extraordinary precautions with the convention present and people like Nancy Pelosi in the building. Detaining Calanchini to question him and see what he was carrying was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. But once it was clear there was no evidence of a crime they should simply have let him go on his way, cased firearms and all.

[tomhayes]

26. George Michael is an expert of Faith, I am not

>Tom. I understand what you are saying, but in light of what we know know it's become clear that that no cop acting in good faith >would have arrested him once they had checked inside of his rifle case and found nothing illegal.

I think *in good faith* and to *protect the public safety* that a man with two weapons visible should be at least talked to during a political convention. (If he had two political protesting signs he should not have been, but two GUNS.)

Upon initial questing they found two concealed weapons in his suitcase.

I still see no indication of whether they were loaded or not (it's not in the article you linked to), but even if they weren't i find it a reasonable stance to question, and possibly arrest, the man with four guns.

*IF* the man was completely , 100% undoubetly in no way ever could you mistake him as a threat then I think he should sue. That's the remedy.


A trial is the only way we're ever going to know which of the scenarios is true:

1)A man with four guns is rightly arrested by the police but later not charged.
2)A freedom loving, constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-(not-just-in-a-well-regulated-thank-you-Scalia)-righteous citizen is unfairly, and in bad faith, subject to arrest because the policeman is insane,on a power trip, a hippie, stupid as heel, bored, or just an Ahole.

Let's put that in front of a judge or jury. Colorado is as right-windge-jesus-loves-his-guns as any place in the contential U.S.

Personally it sounds to me as someone with a bunch of guns got hassled. (I'm assuming he wasn't strip searched, cavity searched, flown to Gitmo or Egypt, wasn't beaten with a hose, wasn't intimated or afraid for his life, wasn't forced to stand naked in a cell, wasn't forced to listen to Brtney Spears), etc.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Don't you think if it had been good faith the cops would have presented it to the prosecutors?

[tomhayes]

40. What, can't COPS be incompetent too?

They had about 500,00 extra people in town - things *CAN* and do slip through the cracks.

BUT I have *NO IDEA* what happened -just like you don't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. I have a pretty good idea.

Someone told the cop that made the arrest that he screwed up and the best thing to do was let this thing quietly go away. I'm sure though that they'll say someone dropped the ball, or the arresting officers mother had been sick or that some intern in the DA's office forgot to give him a message. Kind of like the cops in Maryland that busted down the mayors front door and shot and killed his 2 black labs a few weeks back. They actually said they didn't do anything wrong. I'll leave it to you to defend their actions.

David

[slackmaster]

48. My theory is a little different

The Secret Service, knowing full well there was no evidence on which the guy could be charged with a crime, decided they didn't want him around and told the local LEOs to put him "on ice" and disarm him so they wouldn't feel obligated to watch him.

Maybe they didn't trust him. Maybe they just didn't like him. Maybe they wanted to avoid embarrassment. Either way, I see it as more likely an abuse of power rather than incompetence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Good point.

That's pretty plausible. Let's face it cops don't admit they are wrong until they absolutely have to. If he brings suit they'll probably settle it and insist on a non-disclosure clause. The hotel will likely do the same. I'm impressed with the guy he actually said this incident wouldn't affect his vote and that he still hadn't decided who to vote for but there were bigger issues than this incident.

David

[AlphaCentauri]

88. I will speculate about this

I will say that they needed a good reason to detain the protester on the streets so they planted a person with a gun in a hotel

[tburnsten]

89. That sinister?

I don't think so, I think it was just some good old fashioned overreacting to a non-issue, in this case an apolitical guy who didn't know about the convention and was just checking into his hotel after picking up his newly worked-on rifles. If someone had actually intentionally set a guy up like this for a piece of security theater (intentional), they would have had a far easier time using someone who didn't have a good job, someone who wasn't so blatantly in the right, and someone who actually broke a law, like having their stooge actually be illegally carrying a concealed weapon, instead of claiming that having firearms in proper firearm cases is the same as unlawful concealed carry. That is ridiculous, if a gun case isn't the right way to transport a gun, then what is?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. I do give you props though.

You have had the guts to come back here and hash it out. I do respect you for that. All in all you have been pretty reasonable. Props for taking the heat.

David

[slackmaster]

44. Suing the police rarely gets you anywhere - All they have to do is claim good faith for actions

You really can't win against City Hall if cops are just "doing their job". (I know this from personal experience, having been arrested on invalid evidence myself.)

I think *in good faith* and to *protect the public safety* that a man with two weapons visible should be at least talked to during a political convention.

But the man had ZERO visible weapons. He was carrying a hard rifle case that contained four firearms. That is not at all an unusual thing to do in most places in the USA including Denver.

I still see no indication of whether they were loaded or not (it's not in the article you linked to), but even if they weren't i find it a reasonable stance to question, and possibly arrest, the man with four guns.

In the original thread, now locked, you and several other people seemed certain that he must have been doing something illegal, because he was arrested. I must admit that I now am making the same kind of assumption, taking his complete exoneration as "proof" that he wasn't doing anything illegal. I can't imagine that they would have let him walk had he been carrying one or more loaded weapons (and FWIW I wouldn't want them to let him walk), but maybe the "right-windge-jesus-loves-his-guns" system cut him some slack. Maybe.

Personally it sounds to me as someone with a bunch of guns got hassled.

I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with that assessment.

Take care.

:hi:

[downindixie]

27. It does if you can show

that the law enforcement officer had no idea what the law states.Colorado is a hunting state and advertizes as such.It is not uncommon for people to go there to hunt.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Why do you still insist on making stuff up?

You wrote, "a man with 4 guns got hassled (mind you, not beat like Rodney King) about having two concealed weapons." Why wasn't he charged with carrying a concealed weapon then? He didn't have a concealed weapons permit, that should be an open and shut case. I hope he does sue and wins big, that's the only way the government learns. You seem to think that getting arrested and having your property confiscated and not returned isn't a real injustice. Do you really feel that way?

David

[tomhayes]

38. Fire Medic Gun

I have no idea why no charges were brought.

There's a range of possibilities:

1)That he had no concealed guns and the cops made it all up
2)He was in technical violation of the law the the police for whatever reason didn't file the charges
3)He was NOT in technical violation of the law and the police are meekly hiding hoping to not be brought to *JUSTICE* for their EVIL and VICIOUS ATTACK
3)The police meant to file charges but screwed up and didn't


The real thing is that *WE DON'T KNOW* the specifics. What *we* have are a few reports from the media.

Why not get involved if this is an OUTRAGEOUS and MALICIOUS INJUSTICE? Find the guy, pay for some private eyes to investigate??

If the system didn't then use the system to right the wrong!

Don't HOPE that he's sues, why not file the case yourself? Or call the NRA and the MAKE them get involved.

Don't be lazy while this HUGE and MONUMENTAL and SYNONYM-FOR-HUGE-AND-MONUMENTAL INJUSTICE happens - get involved!

P.S. We don't know if his guns are forever confiscated, they may jut be somewhere in police custody and need to be given to him - again a good job for the judical system.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. His guns and his personal items haven't been returned as of yet.

He needs to sue, he obviously can afford the attorney. Perhaps as some stated on the other posting he was there to assassinate Obama and everyone blew it. I'm sorry you are so tolerant of injustices perpetrated on honest citizens.

David

[geckosfeet]

37. And somehow this is all Obama's fault.

The guy has a bit of bad luck.

Apparently he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why don't you just leave it at that and write the local law enforcement folks that have his guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Who blamed Obama?

[slackmaster]

50. What does Obama have to do with this?

:crazy:

[geckosfeet]

68. Please see first response to OP.

[Testament]

70. The first response said that Obama would benefit...

from saying that this man's guns be returned now that he isn't being charged. The guns aren't in an illegal configuration, they weren't being carried illegally, yet they haven't been returned. No one implied that it's Obama's fault.

[slackmaster]

81. I agree with that response, and wrote a similar one myself

It doesn't put any blame on Obama. The situation presents an OPPORTUNITY for Obama to pick up some votes.

[geckosfeet]

99. It makes him look like a panderer to the gun the lobby.

He owes them nothing - and he has no right to interfere in a law enforcement matter.

[slackmaster]

108. I'd like to see him stand up against abuses of power at all levels of government

There is no longer any "law enforcement matter". It's now a civil rights issue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. The crow is ready, get to eating you bunch of gun grabbers.

[geckosfeet]

39. Jeez. You're not inciting are you? You wouldn't do that? Would you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Just a little harmless fun aimed at those who accused him of being an assassin.

I would never incite. People take things far to seriously.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. The police never presented the case to the prosecutors.

He needs to sue the hell out of the city and the hotel. I hope he gets well compensated.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. Sorry.

I just read your last sentence. Kind of rare for things to stay civil when guns are the topic.


David

[Trillo]

52. Some people like to sleep with a gun under their pillow.

Perhaps it makes for a more restful night's sleep in a strange town. Bringing a gun into a hotel room was, I thought, a 'past' accepted practice.

In many ways, a hotel room is like a home, with the obvious difference that there are semi-public areas inside the hotel but outside of the rented room itself. In the event of a worst case scenario, then how can one use a gun for self-protection (in a hotel room, your residence for the night) if one isn't allowed to bring such a gun through the public areas of a hotel?

Do you take leave of your civil rights, as well as natural rights of self defense, before entering the hotel door? Apparently not.

Hope this guy gets his guns back.

[iverglas]

55. Do you take leave of your civil rights... before entering the hotel door?

Nope. But you might tacitly forego the exercise of them temporarily, by accepting the terms on which you enter the door.

Nobody's forcing anybody to stay in a hotel room, right?

[Trillo]

57. I don't know.

I do know that for homeless folks, they're hassled in many areas (usually by local law enforcement) if they don't 'stay in a room' (somewhere) and are discovered. So perhaps there is an argument that our system passively forces folks to stay inside somewhere when traveling.

Do we choose to travel? Hmm, we seem to have feet, must have been evolutionarily useful for something related to survival. Do we choose to "survive"?

[iverglas]

59. how high are the mountains?

How deep is the sea?

[Testament]

61. And those terms would be?

Certainly none that are written and available.

During the DNC you could posses a firearm like you could before, and after.

You can bring firearms into your hotel room. It's a lot smarter than leaving them in your car overnight.

[iverglas]

66. the terms in which the question was framed

General.

[Testament]

71. You answered this question...

Do you take leave of your civil rights, as well as natural rights of self defense, before entering the hotel door?

With...

Nope. But you might tacitly forego the exercise of them temporarily, by accepting the terms on which you enter the door.

Nobody's forcing anybody to stay in a hotel room, right?

Thus you imply that that there are some terms which the arrested man did not follow. What are those terms?

[iverglas]

76. nope

Thus you imply that ...

Didn't imply nuttin'.

Answered the question.

Thus demonstrating that it was not the question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. All kidding aside.

It seems like justice was done in this case provided he gets his stuff back and is reimbursed for his expenses. The man apparently got permission to leave the country, rented a rifle and continued on to his safari where he did quite well. Too bad the same justice wasn't done for the San Diego Chargers in last nights football game. Now I'm going to take some pain killers and go to bed.

David

[tburnsten]

73. Excellent!

[slackmaster]

82. There is no justice for the Chargers this season

:mad:

[MinM]

74. Rove appointee called off FBI investigation into Obama plot

A related story :shrug:
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/9/7/1456/09961/Diary/Rove-appointee-called-off-FBI-investigation-into-Obama-plot

[slackmaster]

83. How is the story related?

:crazy:

[tburnsten]

84. Duh Slack!

GUNS!!! DUH! This guy had GUNs, the would be assassins had GUNs, come on now, you can't tell me they weren't in cahoots?

[MinM]

85. I asked first. nt

[Jax]

93. Thanks for that

they were no where to be found when that was posted at DU.

[AlphaCentauri]

86. sorry special agent Calanchini

[tburnsten]

87. For what?

[tomhayes]

101. Does anyone have any *real* facts about this?

I keep seeing that people are asserting that Calanchini had four guns and that:

1)They were *all* being transported in a gun case
2)The guns were not loaded
3)There is no way that since 1&2 are true that he could possibly violate the law

I seem to remember the original articles saying he was seen with a "rifle type case" and that the police discovered two hand guns.

I am unclear if the handguns were in the rifle case, or if the handguns were in another bag, like a suitcase. I got the *impression* back then that the two handguns were mixed inside with other non-gun-case type bags.

Anyone know the *real facts* as presented by the police and by Calanchini? An arrest report would be nice to see. All I see is an AP story repeated in a lot of places and about 1800 people railing against the SS (Secret Service, but clearly meant to invoke the Schutzstaffel.)

Denver Post article from the day it happened:
http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_10292295

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. I got the impression that the handguns were in his luggage.

That's not illegal though. I don't think you are going to see the *real* facts. The police are probably embarrassed enough.

David

[tomhayes]

110. Geez, didn't I say I wanted to see the police's version AND the man's version?

Or is there absolutely no possibility that this is anything but an OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE and that I should change my bad attitude of asking to see both sides??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. I think it's a good idea.

I just don't think you'll get what you are looking for. I wasn't criticizing you. I don't know that it's an outrageous injustice. Seems like an injustice but not an outrageous one.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. The man in question has joined us maybe he can answer.

[joecal]

111. Facts

I had reservations at the hotel and was checking in. I was told my room was not ready and would have to wait. I asked to have my rifles, in their locked case, put somewhere safe that was locked. After going through that with hotel security and Boulder PD officer they asked to look in my bags for ammo/other things. I gave consent. I told them of the pistol in my bag. There were 2 pistols in my baggage. One was buried at the bottom of one bag, the other was more in the middle of the other. Neither were easily accessible.

[bean fidhleir]

124. Thanks for the info. So who flipped out, just the newsghouls?

Or they and some grandstanding politicians, or the cops, or what? Who was stoking the kerfuffle (if I can mix a metaphor)?

[joecal]

125. DPD was who.

The feds cleared me of everything and did not detain me any further. Denver Police are who arrested me then filed no charges. Now I am still waiting to get my property back. The reporter for my 9 news in Denver was told by a PIO for DPD that they have no record of ANY of my property, including fire arms, in their records. My attorney said they finally contacted someone who said that he has to file paperwork for ANOTHER background check to decide IF they will release my weapons back to me. Everything on this was at the local level. Nothing federal.

[bean fidhleir]

126. What a stupid bloody mess. I certainly hope your lawyer's got

red eyes and fangs.

[joecal]

127. LOST!!!

The DPD now says that my personal belongings from my truck are not found anywhere. This includes gas credit cards, 2 pairs of binoculars, my grandfathers ring and my i-pod. I can't believe where this has gone. They sent my lawyer the forms to request a court order of return of my fire arms. I then have to go through another background check and if they feel like returning my weapons I might get them back. I guess that this is professionalism at it's finest.

[CRF450]

129. Geez, that is some messed up shit they got you into.

Hope you get all of your property back, and sue the hell out of them! :hi:

[bean fidhleir]

130. I'd like to say "incredible", but unfortunately it's only TOO credible these days

I really hope you at least get your grandad's ring back since it's irreplaceable, but also that you take the DPD to the cleaners for what they did to you, and that the citizens hear about it so that they can sack the mayor and police chief asap. There is simply NO EXCUSE for what those blueshirts did to you.

[tburnsten]

131. I really hope your attorney cleans the floor with the DPD

They need it, hopefully your property will "appear" once they realize you aren't letting it "disappear" like that. Really scummy way to "protect and serve", and they need to be put in their place in ways only a judge can do.



My condolences, keep us updated on the search for your items.

[tburnsten]

132. kick

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. kicked and recommended