I first met Rick in 2000, I think. Rick was a businessman in Denver, and he was angry. The IRS, he said, had nearly put him out of business. I won't retell all the details of episode, but the gist of it was bureaucratic bungling on the agency's part had given him a six figure tax bill when he owed no money. It took months of wrangling to get off the hook, and he wound up paying a considerable sum of money anyway. So Rick was going to do something about it. He wanted to help the Libertarian Party.
I had a few years of activism with the Party, and I and others recognized that Rick was exactly what we needed. He was passionate, articulate, conservative in appearance, and a great salesman. I mean that last part in the best way - his enthusiasm was contagious, and he could convince you that he was right. Usually, he was right. Soon, he announced himself as candidate for U.S. Senate in the 2002 election.
The LP has a hard time finding good candidates. Even the best minor party candidates have a hard time making any headway at the polls. The best potential candidates know this, so they don't run. After all, they are already successful people, with careers and families. Why waste all that time in a futile attempt to run for office? So when Rick said he wanted to run, and seemed excited about it, it created a lot of enthusiasm in the party. It also helped that he had a little bit of money to pay for a campaign. Campaign finance restrictions make it very difficult for minor party candidates to raise money.
Rick was a firebrand. I also mean that in the best way - he seemed fearless and was willing to try anything to help the Party or his campaign. The defining act of his campaign would be to openly wear a sidearm while making a speech in a park in front of the State Capitol. He announced his intention to do so ahead of time, and the police obligingly arrested him. Rick's demonstration was a questionable tactic as I saw it. But it promised to be a great publicity stunt, and it would force the Denver courts to uphold a clearly unconstitutional law. I don't think anyone doubted the courts would uphold the law. Rick was doing a brave thing.
The down side was the negative public perception of the event. Too many people see Libertarians as gun nuts, and not many care to see others openly carrying guns in crowded downtown parks. The value of the event to a political campaign was questionable, at best.
Around the same time, Rick started showing signs that he wasn't really a going to be a stable character. His campaign included, and then lost, many of the best Libertarian activists in the state. He managed to personally insult a number of influential Libertarians, usually over petty matters. By the time the state convention rolled around, where Libertarians in Colorado nominate candidates to appear on the statewide ballots, Rick had a lot of opposition and another candidate challenged him for the nomination. The vote at the convention was close, but Rick got it. A lot of people admired him for the risks he took in challenging the Denver gun ordinance.
After Rick had secured the nomination, things got hairy. He had a regular e-mail newsletter, the 'Stanley Scoop.' He sent it out to not only activists but members of the news media. Some of the media people requested to be taken off the e-mail list, but Rick flat refused. Then Rick dropped a bombshell, calling incumbent senator Wayne Allard a traitor to be "tried, and hung [sic] when found guilty." Libertarian Party members than introduced an official motion to have the Board of Directors remove Rick from the ballot. I was on the Board at the time, and had the unpleasant job of hearing the complaint. The whole affair had gotten quite a bit of press coverage, and every move the board made was closely watched. During the hearing, Rick backed off from the statement and the board, in a split vote, censured him instead of withdrawing his nomination. I, along with two others on the nine-member board, abstained from the vote to remove him.
Instead of being chastened, Rick was emboldened. He became more abrasive and in November even many Libertarian Party members, perhaps a majority of them, refused to vote for Rick. His vote totals were poor even by LP standards.
Meanwhile, Rick's gun case went to trial in Denver Municipal Court. He was represented by Paul Grant, one of the most accomplished libertarian lawyers in the nation. Paul was arguing the case on constitutional grounds, saying the city ordinance violated the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. The case had great promise to force the courts to take a hard look at the constitutionality of local laws that prohibit fire arm possesion in the face of constitutions which clearly allow for such a thing. As expected, the Denver municipal court convicted Rick. The judge didn't allow the constitutional argument at all, saying it didn't apply. (No really! You can read about it in this piece from the Las Vegas Review-Journal)
The case was headed to appeal, but in a bizarre twist, Rick switched gears. He chose to argue that the court is illigitimate, and his lawyer was an agent of the court, so he fired Paul Grant, and chose to represent himself.
Rick then repeated the exercise in civil disobedience in the Denver suburb of Thornton. He was once again arrested, and convicted, in Thornton. Of all the issues facing the country in terms of denial of freedoms, such as the drug war, increased law enforcement surveillance, and draconian tax collections, Rick chose to make his stand over the right to carry a gun in public parks.
I'll fast forward a bit. Rick left the Libertarian Party right after the election. He kept his activist list alive and used it to recruit a militia, something the Libertarian Party would never do. The purpose of the militia was to engage law enforcement in armed standoffs if any of their members were confronted with arrest by what they see as illigitimate governmnental agencies. This militia claims over 700 members nationwide. After the Thornton judge convicted him and was within days of sentencing him, Rick sent out a message to the militia, declaring an arrest warrant would be issued for two Adams county judges, and that any militia member should, by force of arms, arrest the judges. He sent the court that same message. On paper.
I should note that this is very much against anything the Libertarian Party stands for. The LP's core principle is non initiation of force. I think Rick, during those first months, told people in the Libertarian Party what they wanted to hear. That seems to be part of his personality. We never would have considered him as a candidate if he had advocated this sort of thing before.
Anyway, threatening judges is a felony. Rick Stanley was arrested Saturday night. He faces up to 24 years in prison.
Posted by Walter at October 23, 2003 12:18 AMWalter,
"Of all the issues facing the country in terms of denial of freedoms, such as the drug war, increased law enforcement surveillance, and draconian tax collections, Rick chose to make his stand over the right to carry a gun in public parks."
From the tone you take I assume you dissapprove of Stanley's choice of issues to deal with. While I agree that the drug war, LEO issues, & government theft (i.e. taxes) are important issues I would put the Right to Arms as at least equal with them.
Whether it's open carry, concealed carry, or merely possession in one's home, the importance of fighting government denials of the exercise of these Rights cannot be overstated.
When I first arrived in Colordo I went up to Rocky Mountain National Park. I read a sign that warned of all the dangerous animals (bears, mountain lions, etc...) then right underneath it was a sign that said No Weapons Allowed!
Denver denying open carry was a big deal. For those who couldn't afford, or like me wouldn't grovel to get a concealed carry permit, open carry was the only way to avoid violating a very questionable state law. Rick & the others who challenged this law were correct in doing so.
Here's the way I see it: all the other Rights & freedoms we have are important, & they are to varying degrees under attack so their defence is important. But no Right is under as much direct threat as our Right to Arms. & whether one likes to hear it or not our Right to Arms is the last chance we'll have at freedom should the government try anything really stupid. The odds of the U.S. pulling a Stalin or Mao are slim, but it is still possible, & with the uncertainty of the future we cannot say that in ten years we'll need those arms, or in 50 years our grandchildren will need those arms.
So I would ask you reconsider the importance of defending our Right to Arms.
But I have heard similar takes on Mr. Stanely & after reading some of his papers I admit he seems like one whose hat has a bit much tin foil in it for my taste. However I don't disagree with the basic idea that he was correct in his actions that led to hsi conviction, & that the judges in question betrayed the public's trust in them to interpret the law. I'm not crazy about the way Rick went about handling things, but then again I can understand his frustration & see how he arrived at his decisions.
One last thing, since Rick threatened to arrest judges only after he was arrested &/or sentenced, would that really constitute an initiation of force? Unless I'm missing something his threats seemed to be retalitory.
I agree, the RKBA is vital. Thankfully, it looks like public opinion is leaning our way on this issue, one of the only positive things to come out of 9-11. Our right to own (some) guns is safe, at least for a while.
Open carry, however, is not a subject we're likely to win. Stanley staging this protest once might have been a good publicity stunt, but repeating it, and the actions he took later, were counterproductive. He's in jail now, and he won't be an effective activist from there.
Even if he had won his court case, and the court recognized that municipalities can't regulate open carry, we'd still lose. Colorado has fairly easy ballot access for constitutional amendments. The anti-gun people would quickly put together an amendment to give municipalities that authority, and it would pass by a 2-1 or 3-1 margin. Remember, the public in this state approved gun registration at gun shows by an overwhelming vote. While supporting gun ownership, they still want regulation.
I always think of Sun Tzu when I hear about things such as this. Did Stanley choose his battles wisely? I don't think so. The first one, yes. But the rest, no. It would have been good to see Stanley's original Denver open-carry charge proceed up the court system, under qualified legal representation, and without the distractions of the rest of the story. So, while I applaud Stanley for his willingness to be the sacrificial goat here, I have to ask whether, on the whole, his efforts are beneficial. Perhaps in the end they will be.
Regarding the constitutional amendment route: I hadn't considered that, although it's obvious now that you mention it. The odds of any such amendment being overturned at the federal level, under the extension of the 2nd via the 14th amendment would be vanishingly slim, I think.
Posted by: jed at October 25, 2003 09:37 AMI could be mistaken but I thought that the second incident where Mr. Stanely got arrested wasn't so much of a staged protest as he simply went someplace armed & got arrested. I could be wrong but I thought he just showed up & when a cop saw his piece arrested him.
As far as the open carry thing goes, it's guaranteed by 2 Constitutions. he should have won that court case & subsequently shouldn't have gone through the rest of the legal mess he's mixed up in.
That being said I disagree that a ballot initiative would have been the outcome of a successful victory. First of all the state passed a pre-emption law that prohibits municipalities from restricting possession or ownership more severely than state law. we have Denver engagaed in a half hearted court challenge to that law, but no calls for a ballot initiative to change it.
Second of all I did a little research last year into getting such an initiative through (though my intent was to remove the language from the constitution concerning concealed carry, thus making all forms of carry constitutionally protected & immune to licensing & registration schemes). W/o delving into specifics, you'd have to have a lot of cash & a lot of support to even get it on the ballot. Multiply that by 3 or 4 if you want it to be passed. Now in the urban areas such as Denver you might have a majority supporting such a measure to allow restrictions on open carry at the municipal level, but statewide you wouldn't, & it would fail.
Now gun registration at gun shows did pass, but that issue was a little different. The PR for the measure was relyig heavily on the idea that it would prevent another columbine (yeah, right)& most gun owners either didn't see the danger of it or thought it was a good idea. You'd be surprised how many gun owners fall for various registration BS thinking it's either a good idea by itself or it'll appease those who want to ban everything.
But city level regulation of open carry would be different, simply because it's a bit more drastic & it directly affects them. Where they might not be worried about passing a background check at a gun show they would worry about being busted for having a piece on the seat as they drive through Denver on their way to some other town. Add to that the outright bans on certain types of weapons, such as the one Denver had, & casually metnion that it could be broadened to include their 'wabbit guns' & I don't believe the gun owners would fall for it.
& we're still in every bit as much danger as before. A bill to renew & strengthen the 'assault weapons' ban has 100+ co-sponsors in the house & the anti's are really heating up their campaign on that. There's a bill that looks like a done deal to force states to make all records, including medical records, available to the feds for the background check system, which means aside from the constitutional issues of federal extortion of the states, this bill will be a nice step towards making sure even more people are disqualified from buying a weapon. Bad part is, our 'friends' at the NRA are once again in bed with Schumer & his ilk on this. They support the bill, just like all the other constitutionally questionable gun control laws on the books.
So while public opinion may be leaning towards our way, what really matters is legislative & judicial opinion, which is iffy at best.
Th eonly bright spot is Silveira v. Lockyer, which may be heard by SCOTUS. It involves a direct 2nd amendment question & could go either way, but Silveira looks like a strong case & we're hoping the justicies are more capable of reading the Constitution than the ones in Denver.
Since I have heard of the Thornton arrest only in this article, I can't speak to that. But Stanley hasn't helped himself out by threatening to have his own private militia arrest a couple of judges.
The initiative process is a barrier, as you say. Whether the people of CO would buy Walter's hypothetical measure, I don't know. I'm not quite so ready to dismiss both the ongoing "Columbine effect" (regardless of logic), and the power of the Denver voting bloc, which I admit I'm assuming would be mostly in favor of such.
Thanks for mentioning the pre-emption law. If it is finally ajudicated in the State's favor, would that mean that Stanley's conviction would automatically be thrown out?
Posted by: jed at October 25, 2003 05:42 PMIf you're going to "test" the law through civil disobedience (rather than by an action for declaratory judgment)--even an unconstitutional law--you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Stanley should have planned his strategy out a little better than he did and he should have planned to spend some time in jail if he couldn't get the sentence stayed pending an appeal. He doesn't need to threaten shoot-outs or to engage in shoot-outs with the police in order to prevail. Death isn't the necessary consequence for fighting for freedom.
I don't agree that the "note" that Stanley sent to the judge was a "veiled threat." He has a first amendment right to petition the government (including the court via the judge) for redress of grievances. He is entitled to ask that his conviction be overturned (to request judgment notwithstanding the verdict). He is entitled to express his opinion that he was convicted pursuant to an unconstitutional law. He is entitled to argue that it is the judge's sworn duty to uphold the constitution. He is entitled to engage in political hyperbole. We all know his militia group cannot issue warrants for the judge's arrest anymore than jail4judges can place judges behind bars. If a "warrant" was issued, it would be a symbolic gesture at most and would not constitute a true threat. A person cannot be arrested for speech crimes in the absence of clear and present danger--in the absence of a true threat of imminent harm.
Posted by: Debra at October 27, 2003 01:44 AMThe people of Denver had better step back and take a good look at what is really going on with the Rick Stanely situation. The local government is getting away with stomping all over the state constitution. The stormtroooer police are breaking the law and flaunting it in the face of the citizenry. Whether it was a stunt or not, the police were sending a message out to all of us-talk about it all you want, but don't try to exercise your rights for real or we'll come down on you whether it's legal or not. Now to put this in perspective, the police in the Denver area have a problem with shooting and killing disabled teenagers. So we have two situations. One with a citizen simply trying to exercise his constitutional right to openly carry a side arm, and he is illegally made an example of. The other with an officer of the law who shot and killed two disabled teens within the span of eighteen months, not to mention threatening to kill his ex mother-in-law, and he did not, and probably will not be convicted of any crime. Are you people getting the picture now! We as citizens have no rights as far as the police and the courts are concerned, but their henchmen are being given free reign to openly murder children and get away with it! Mark my words, this will only get more and more pronounced if we continue in this direction. We are one step away from outright tyranny!
Posted by: Tim at March 16, 2004 07:32 PM