Chambersburg Public Opinion - New sheriff prepares for gun acti...

"I don't anticipate any problems," Anthony said. "I think these people will be professional about it and will understand that they can't enter the courthouse with a weapon."

Kudos to Dane Anthony for recognizing the we who choose to carry are aware of the legal limitations and have no intention of staging an "armed protest" in the courtroom. Unbiased, level-headed thinking is a welcome change.

Here's the link to the original thread.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-car...

I know where I'd want to be today, it would be nice if more of us carried...

The deputy that originally asked him to disarm was exceeding his authority. Rotz stood up for his rights and politely declined. He required no permit to do what he did, the fact that it was pulled later was a simple act of retaliation.

We have much more to lose by the police abusing their power than we do by citizens abusing their freedom. I hope he gets his permit back. I hope he sues. That seems to be the only way to them a lesson.

If the deputy didn't want him to wear a gun into the polling place when it was legal for him to do so, he should do what the rest of us have to do. Write his senator or representative.

Arrogance and intimidation seem to be the reasons why the permit was revoked. Mr. Rotz's Second Amendment rights were violated, and I hope he wins this case.

Bryan wrote:

The deputy that originally asked him to disarm was exceeding his authority. Rotz stood up for his rights and politely declined. He required no permit to do what he did, the fact that it was pulled later was a simple act of retaliation.
We have much more to lose by the police abusing their power than we do by citizens abusing their freedom. I hope he gets his permit back. I hope he sues. That seems to be the only way to them a lesson.
If the deputy didn't want him to wear a gun into the polling place when it was legal for him to do so, he should do what the rest of us have to do. Write his senator or representative.

Drama Queens!!!

I disagree. Mr. Rotz could have done as requested by a law officer. It wasn't a difficult thing. But he questioned this guy's authority. The next time a cop wants to pull me over & I was not doing anything wrong, I guess I should just either ignore the officer or perhaps argue with him.

It was confrontational by Rotz which makes one wonder whether he should be carrying at all.

I hope they suspend his permit for at least a year. We should listen to our law enforcement people - right or wrong over silly things like this.

If you read the thread mentioned above, about what actually happened, it is a sad day when an elected official oversteps their bounds. This is obviously a Federal Civil Rights violation, the county is going to be liable and the Constable and Sheriff most likely will be found personally liable and possibly criminal. If the country commissioners gave 'orders' for this, then they too may be charged. This has become very big with a national following on forums and boards. Mr Rotz already has gone thru an FBI background check, his fingerprints are on file in the National Database and has had a background check done by Federal Alcohol, Tobaccao and Firearms as he was a valid concealed weapons permit holder. If he is ever stopped by law enforcement and provides his drivers license it shows he is a valid concealed weapons permit holder. The first question will be 'are you armed". He has proven he is a resonspible individual. He has proven he is serious enough to educate himself about his rights and the law. The county needs to get out of this as quickly and easily as they can. If this goes to Federal Court the county (taxpayers) will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. The county officials have a habit of not backing down and admitting they were wrong. Instead they spend untold amounts of money trying to get the other person to back down. Water tower, land buys, zoning appeals (go to the one tonight to see the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars being wasted and the borough was in the wrong), county home, county prison, etc. I recommend throwing enough money at Rotz and a public apology from all the officials in the hope that the NRA does not file a Federal Lawsuit on his behalf to make an example of a small uninformed law enforcement department. The last thing we need is having it closed and the State Police trying to stretch coverage. Mr Rotz was wronged, admit it and put it behind. We don't need a media spotlight for something like this. We have enough circus performers now.

Dave wrote:

The next time a cop wants to pull me over & I was not doing anything wrong, I guess I should just either ignore the officer or perhaps argue with him.
It was confrontational by Rotz which makes one wonder whether he should be carrying at all.
I hope they suspend his permit for at least a year. We should listen to our law enforcement people - right or wrong over silly things like this.

That's what the case will hinge on. I see it as being less about guns and more about "what do you do when a police officer asks you to do something? " Clearly they are going to try to use Rotz' response to the Peace officer as testimony to his character.

Would there be all this rancor if Mr Rotz had approached the polls wearing a "Dane Anthony For Sherrif" shirt?- and the constable asked him to remove it before he entered the polls. Mr Rotz could refuse citing his 1st amendment rights to free speech.(There is a law against wearing such garb at the polls) Why do we so easily accept this minor restriction of our Constitutional rights? yet go ballistic when another right faces a potentially minor restriction?

Dave wrote:

I disagree. Mr. Rotz could have done as requested by a law officer. It wasn't a difficult thing. But he questioned this guy's authority. The next time a cop wants to pull me over & I was not doing anything wrong, I guess I should just either ignore the officer or perhaps argue with him.
It was confrontational by Rotz which makes one wonder whether he should be carrying at all.
I hope they suspend his permit for at least a year. We should listen to our law enforcement people - right or wrong over silly things like this.

BS !!!!

The Constable, heck any LEO lacked ANY authority to do as was done !!!! NO-ONE has the authority to violate ANYONES civil rights and that's what this is all about.

What would you do if an LEO asked or ordered you to do something of a religious nature??????

And one more item Dave. Yes, it was confrontational, on the Constable's part that is !!!

He wasn't sure about the law, so he called the Sheriff, verified it was OK for Greg ot open carry and then HE confronted Greg!!!

Oh ME2 wrote:

And one more item Dave. Yes, it was confrontational, on the Constable's part that is !!!
He wasn't sure about the law, so he called the Sheriff, verified it was OK for Greg ot open carry and then HE confronted Greg!!!

Which is why I still willing to believe there is more to this story...

Make sure they take Dave's guns first!

"Mr Rotz already has gone thru an FBI background check, his fingerprints are on file in the National Database and has had a background check done by Federal Alcohol, Tobaccao and Firearms as he was a valid concealed weapons permit holder. If he is ever stopped by law enforcement and provides his drivers license it shows he is a valid concealed weapons permit holder. The first question will be 'are you armed'. "
Which state do you live in where the drivers license shows he has a permit to carry? PA sure doesn't: I have both. Try to get your facts straight: it makes your position that much stronger.

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue! What's disturbing is that the posters here see nothing wrong with him carrying his firearm, permit or not, into a polling station! It seems that was the reason his license was revoked not the mere fact that he was carrying his gun! Why he felt he had the right to carry it into a polling station defies logic! It could and would certainly be considered voter intimidation which is, at least on the books, still illegal in this country! I really don't think any of us want to see some yahoo with a gun at our polling stations whether he has a permit or not!!!! The 2nd Amendment does not trump our right to intimidation-free voting stations.

Well if i were him i'd do the same. if he has a permit let him cARRY it. leave the guy alone its not like its hurting anyone

Im thinking that Dave up there is law enforcement and therefore would make this a Biased opinion that we should listen to law enforcement. I have a permit to carry and id do the same thing. Police go on power trips thinking they can do as they please. the thing is they can't its about time someone stands up to them. You go Mr. Rotz and the best of luck to you. im hoping to make this hearing. if not good luck

Am I the only one glad Mr. Rotz was asked to remove his gun before entering the polling place? I would hate to be voting in the presence of armed citizens. I don't really trust the laws to keep unstable persons from being able to carry. I'm very nervous about living in a community where hot heads are able to carry. Mr. Rotz has not impressed me with his calm, rational response to what seems to me to be a rational request to not have weapons at the polls.

In a perfect world, persons who carry would be sensitive to the responses of others. As we are far from a perfect world, my preference would be fewer armed citizens.

Ome2, now toting is a religion? Please.

When an officer asks you to do something, you are supposed to do it. You arn't supposed to argue. It is not like he was asked to cut off his finger or jump off a bridge. He was asked not to carry a gun into a poling place. Big freakin' deal.

This is not a issue about the right to carry. It is an issue of at what point do you not listen to a law enforcement officer. Do we all have the right of a US citizen to just figure out on our own whether the officer is correct or not, what if there were circumstances?

Concerned wrote:

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue! What's disturbing is that the posters here see nothing wrong with him carrying his firearm, permit or not, into a polling station! It seems that was the reason his license was revoked not the mere fact that he was carrying his gun! Why he felt he had the right to carry it into a polling station defies logic! It could and would certainly be considered voter intimidation which is, at least on the books, still illegal in this country! I really don't think any of us want to see some yahoo with a gun at our polling stations whether he has a permit or not!!!! The 2nd Amendment does not trump our right to intimidation-free voting stations.

Where are the elements of your alleged crime?
Who 'felt' intimidated? What person's ability to vote was influenced by a holstered firearm? The problem was not that someone complained or was intimidated, but that the Sheriff overstepped their authority.

And while there is a Constitutional protection for the right keep and bear arms, just when did we aquire the right to not be offended or the right to disarm others because we have an irrational fear of lawfully carried, holstered firearms? I tell you, there is no such right. Any man asserting that there is, needs to reclaim their gonads from the government lock box.