Dickson City Incident Update

Four of the people involved in the incident in Dickson City have filed a lawsuit under 42 USC Section 1983 in US District Court.  You can see the document filed here.  Police departments in the Commonwealth need to start training their officers that open carry is a lawful practice except in a city of the first class (where you need a LTCF), and that a gun not having a record of sale is no evidence to seize it.  Dickson City is about to be made an example of why this needs to happen forthwith.

11 Responses to “Dickson City Incident Update”

  1. Danno says:

    In count 37, it seems odd to mention 1st, 4th 5th & 15th amendments to the constitution, the go on to specify “free speech, keep and bear arms, unreasonable search and seizure etc…”

    Why wasn’t the 2nd amendment mentioned in the count when the others were specifically mentioned. Inquiring minds want to know!

    Seems the two likely possibilities are a) error (oops, we forgot). I seriously doubt this which leads to b) tactical/strategic calculation. How does this work?

  2. Rick says:

    It’s about getting the “common man” on their side – Joe Blow understands the fact that he has a right to his property, and respects that everyone does as well, but may not completely understand or agree with the second amendment.

  3. Sebastian says:

    The second is not yet been ruled an individual right, nor has it been incorporated against the state. Though it is a recognized state right in state court.

  4. Stuart says:

    Invoking the 2nd amendment would not gain anything, and it has never been used successfully in this kind of lawsuit.

    In this case, it was clear that the plaintiffs had done nothing illegal, so the second amendment was not needed and was not a direct issue. It would have become an issue if the parties had been prosecuted for bearing arms.

    The parties were illegally searched and detained and suffered monetary loss and emotional damage as a result of police denying them speech, due process, and freedom from unreasonable search and arrest. The section of law used (42 USC 1983) is about damages resulting from government officials denying “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.”

  5. ParatrooperJJ says:

    Finally a suit!

  6. Robert says:

    I wish they had asked for the surrender and revocation of all state commissions held by the offending parties.

    Nice suit. I hope they don’t settle for some “apology and some form letters stuck in a personnel file.

  7. Joe Arp says:

    Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms; David B. Young

    Recently read the above. “Bill of Rights” added as individuals’ protection against government. States would not ratify the US Constitution without the addition of the first 10 amendments as individuals’ protection. The states already had in their own contitutions individual rights protection against the state government and insisted the Federal document must have it also because Federal legislation could take away individual rights. So it would rationally follow that ratification of the US Constitution was also acceptance of the amendments as individuals’ protection against both state and federal government.

    I can not condone the idea that someone has to proclaim that the 2nd amendment is or is not incorporated against a state. About as lame an arguement as a well regulated militia is a government controlled entity.

  8. RobertG in Arizona says:

    Good. When I first read this story I thought the Dickson City Police were lying about knowing the law. I do believe they were using the bullying tactics of the BATF thugs. I am convinced they went to shake the tree and see what fell out. Seems American Citizens fell out and were not impressed.

    “Dickson City is about to be made an example of ” Again, Good.

  9. Sebastian says:

    I don’t condone it either, but until the Supreme Court has something to say about it, it’s an academic exercise.

  10. The 2nd is not mentioned by name, but “right to keep and bear arms” is in paragraph 37.

  11. Robert says:

    This is a patriotic action by these folks. This suit is important to all who love the Republic and the BOR, even if they have already sworn to uphold it.

    Wonder why Patricia Kronie in New Orleans hasn’t filed much the same suit? Seems like with the videotape it would be a slam-dunk, and bring some much needed order to the current chaos.