Official Oppression in Pennsylvania

The case I posted about here has finally hit the papers in Pennsylvania. Sheriff Wollyung of Franklin County is pretty clearly abusing his authority as a law enforcement officer, and trampling on one man’s rights:

“He was cautioned it was best to leave (the gun) outside,” Wollyung said. “Instead of taking the easy way out, he has to take the arrogant stand.”

So because he had the audacity to assert his legal right to carry a firearm in a place where he was legally permitted, he has taken the “arrogant stand”. I think it’s not Mr. Rotz who’s the arrogant on here.

The right to carry a firearm is not the right to annoy, harass, intimidate or alarm others, Wollyung said.

“I personally believe he violated the spirit of the law, if not the law itself,” Wollyung said.

That’s the worst of it. Sheriff Wollyung has declared himself to be above the law, and the sole arbiter of its “spirit”. If this isn’t Official Oppression, I don’t know what is. There is no “spirit of the law” it is quite simply not unlawful to carry a firearm openly into a polling place in this commonwealth. If the legislature wanted to outlaw this practice, or proscribe open carry for LCTF holders, it could have done so. It did not.

Tom Corbett, the Attorney General for Pennsylvania, is on the short list for a run for Governor in 2010 when Fast Eddie’s term is up. If he wants to build some more pro-gun street credentials, he’ll investigate the actions of this sheriff, and consider bringing charges under our state’s official oppression statute.

UPDATE: It would seem that Sheriff Wollyung, while highly concerned about people lawfully carrying firearms in the Commonwealth, isn’t all that concerned about one of the courthouse security guards returning to work while he stands accused of sexually assaulting a three year old boy. (NOTE: The Rotz in this case is unrelated to Greg Rotz, the man who has his license unlawfully revoked)

7 Responses to “Official Oppression in Pennsylvania”

  1. Carl in Chicago says:

    Sebastian, please keep us informed of the outcome of this case.

    If Mr. Rotz violated no state law, then Sheriff Wollyung will be eating crow. I am glad that people are less willing to be bullied around these days, and more likely to exercise their rights.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I definitely will.

  3. chris horton says:

    Corbett for Gov,huh? So he’s on the short list.He also rides the short bus! Our choices can’t get much worse in Pa than they have the last 20 years,Corbett could sink it though to an all-time low.

  4. Mopar says:

    ā€œIā€™m sure the court is going to agree with him,ā€ Wollyung said.

    Yet he is willing to go to trial and waste taxpayer’s dollars on both sides of the issue knowing he is wrong and will lose.
    Who’s the arrogant one again?

  5. Fiftycal says:

    Gee, I wish I had $10-20,000 to spare. I’d volunteer to sponsor a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS charge against the moron sheriff. This is so close to “well, dem boys should have known it’s against the spirit of the law for negroes to vote” as to be laughable.

    And sheriff tweedleDUMB had best hope SCOTUS does NOT find an “individual right” to guns. I hope the sheriff gets to find out that “club fed” AINT NO CLUB MED!

  6. Pa. Patriot says:

    The most complete and thorough conversation I know of concerning this issue is the log that the person in question started on PAFOA.

  7. Carl in Chicago says:

    Trouble is while Rotz and supporters scrape together what little money they can, that sherrif’s department is pursuing this non-sensical (and unwinnable) case using public funds.

    Talk about malfeasance of duty…

    I sure as hell that the lawyer’s smart enough to ask the county for fees (and then some). Governments cannot be allowed to abuse power!


  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Trial Day - [...] talked about this story previously here, here, and here. For the sake of all of us in Pennsylvania, we…