Posted on 10/08/2008 10:34:02 PM PDT by Maelstorm
BEAVER — An Industry man arrested after openly carrying a handgun to an August presidential rally in Beaver wore an empty holster to court on Monday and defended his right to bear arms, but the judge wasn’t buying his argument.
District Judge Douglas Loughner ruled in Beaver County Court Monday that John Noble, 50, of 1063 Willowbrook Drive should stand trial on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and disrupting a public meeting, stemming from the Sept. 29 rally for Democratic presidential running mates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
According to hearing testimony, the incident was at least partially triggered by comments Obama made in April about rural Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion. And the defense argued that Noble had a constitutional right to attend armed.
Noble said in an interview before the hearing that he never intended to cause a ruckus, and he wasn’t there to make a statement. He was there, he said, to distribute gun-rights literature and “mirror” Obama’s comments.
However, prosecutors presented evidence that he had planned the appearance in advance “to test what would happen.”
Noble was accompanied by his wife, Janet, who was carrying a Bible, and at least nine other supporters, at least four of whom wore empty holsters at their sides.
Pennsylvania law permits residents to carry handguns so long as they are not concealed.
“I would have my firearm today with me if I was allowed and if it wasn’t taken away,” Noble said.
The others said they arrived at the courthouse armed, but checked their guns at the door. The county provides locked storage containers at each of the two courthouse entrances for police officers and residents to store guns.
Prosecutors called John Atkinson Sr. of Vanport Township, the first person to spot Noble in a crowd of about 300 people standing in Beaver’s McIntosh Square. Obama, Biden and other Democratic leaders were speaking less than 100 yards away in Quay Square. The parks are at the center of town.
Atkinson said Noble had a semiautomatic 9mm handgun holstered on his right hip and was carrying a Bible. Noble crossed under a police tape cordoning off the park and began distributing literature.
Atkinson, who has a license to carry a concealed weapon and has been a gun owner most of his life, said he immediately hailed a sheriff’s deputy and pointed out Noble, who was arrested on the spot.
“He had every right to (have the gun), but in my opinion, this was a presidential rally, and that isn’t the right time or place to carry a firearm,” Atkinson said.
State Police Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre, the arresting officer, testified that Noble’s gun was loaded with 14 rounds, including one in the chamber ready for firing. He described Noble as a “pleasant gentleman” and “not hostile in any way.” Noble cooperated with his questioning, he said. The first question was about the gun.
“He looked me right in the eye and said, ‘I’m here to show Mr. Obama that Pennsylvanians still cling to their guns and religion,’ ” the officer said.
Schexnaildre said Internet postings on two Web sites indicated that Noble planned the incident.
Several days before the rally, Noble posted a message on one site saying he would attend the rally armed “to test what would happen,” Schexnaildre said. A subsequent post on the day of the rally urged readers to bring their guns and Bibles to Beaver that night.
Assistant District Attorney Frank Martucci said the police didn’t arrest Noble because he had a gun, but because he caused a public disturbance by wearing it to the rally.
Noble’s attorney, Steve Colafella, said that his client had every right to carry a gun, even to the rally, and that he believed Noble had a good chance of acquittal at trial. Prosecutors, he said, were sending a public message by charging him.
“I think they’re sending a message that they want to discourage the practice of openly carrying a firearm to a political rally,” he said.
Bob Bauder can be reached online at bbauder@timesonline.com.
So what if he planned this to test the law? The left does this all the time.
The classic case is Rosa Parks, she worked for the NAA(L)CP and set up her confrontation on purpose to test the law. It is not widely discussed as she has attained an unassailable status. Additionally, she was not the first to try to test the segregation laws of Montgomery, others did as well, including a young (17?) pregnant black woman. However her case was dropped by the NAACP/ACLU because she was not the right poster child for the cause.
So if he'd been waving it around in his hand, he would have not been charged?!!
The guy wasn’t doing anything he doesn’t normally do. They could have had officers check guns at the gate. I’ve always thought how great it would be for 10 thousands gun owners to show up on the lawn in DC with their guns. Wouldn’t even have to be loaded.
God bless 'em.
My only question is would this guy get arrested doing the same thing at a McCain rally? I would be very interested in knowing this. That would decide the outcome in my opinion. Do we have any evidence that someone was arrested carrying a gun to see McCain?
There is an extensive discussion of this incident at the OpenCarry.org web forum, in the Pennsylvania section. The person in question goes by "MTN Jack" on the forum.
This article is factually incorrect - he was not "at the rally," he was in a park across the street from the rally and completely outside of the security perimeter, holding a McCain sign and handing out information on Obama's anti-gun record.
In other words, exercising both his First and Second Amendment rights.
From the Post-Gazette article on the incident:
Jim Gehr, agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service field office in Pittsburgh, said the federal agency did not file any charges against Mr. Noble."Our people did talk to him. He never entered the event area," Agent Gehr said.
If the Secret Service doesn't have a problem with you, then there is NO problem with you when it comes to the protectee.
And from the local Times:
Atkinson said that when the deputies asked why he had a gun, Noble replied, “Because I’m an American,” and one of the deputies responded, “Well, you’re under arrest.”
How do you like that?
In Pennsylvania, the right to bear defensive arms "shall not be questioned" according to the Constitution.
Why carry one then?
“...So what if he planned this to test the law? The left does this all the time...”
ROSA PARKS
It is legal to open carry or it is not. If legal, there was nothing wrong for the man to carry. It is a political statement near a political rally. He can even claim it is a 1st amendment question if this goes farther as a civil right violation.
Now was it smart, maybe not. But he had the right and he exercised it now he has to back that up with an attorney and a court hearing. Hope he wins, the case law is on his side.
There comes a time that people have to stand behind their rights, For Mr. Noble this is his time. I do see the similarities for Rosa Parks. A civil right is just that. It does not matter if it a seat on the bus or a walk in a park.
However we as gun rights supporters should support him since he was exercising a right we all hold dear.
I do believe that political rallies with the inherent dangers of assassination have implications to carry rights.
This may have been as good as any time to challenge the assumption that open carry and rallies do not mix. After Obama wins it may be too late to try this attempt successfully. Lets consolidate our rights as much as possible.
My guess is that the reason they arrested him was because someone pointed him out (creating a public disturbance). If no one had said anything and the cops saw him, they probably would not have arrested him. Maybe questioned him. The problem is, if a citizen gets freaked out and points the situation out to a cop and the cop does nothing. Then if the person with the gun commits a crime with said gun, the cop is in big trouble. The whole problem is educating the public so that they don’t get freaked out and seeing a gun on the hip is as normal as seeing a cell phone on a hip.
Check this out; don’t miss #8.
The police did speak with Mr. Noble and though aware that PA is an open carry state allowed in parks and Mr Noble was acting lawfully they decided to charge him with disorderly conduct and disarm Mr. Noble.
PA law is quite specific that being armed can not be considered disorderly conduct. That is why the prosecutor is setting the narrative that Mr. Noble had planned to attend while armed with Bibles. The prosecutor wants to say that Mr. Noble intended to disrupt the rally and therefore be disorderly. The problem is that no disruption occurred other than by the police arresting Mr. Noble. The prosecution has brought up a first amendment issue of free speech that they may be violating with the arrest. So this case may have more interesting implications beyond a improper arrest.
I remember a situation years ago (maybe upwards of 10 years ago) where “Quannel X” (his ‘stage’ name) held a protest outside of Huntsville prison (for the Gary Graham execution?) where his cohorts marched outside of the prison with rifles. They were not arrested.
Long story short, too many police see a citizen with a gun (in his car or on his person) as a personal threat (to their lives and their profession, they need the public disarmed and dependent). They'd rather scratch that right altogether.
look up “Quanell X”, huntsville, rifles (not ak-47s as Gary Graham wanted)
The cops are not a monolithic group. There are some cops that feel what you are expressing, but there are many cops who do not feel that way. I’m just looking at this particular situation and it sounds like the cops weren’t even bothering with this guy until someone pointed him out to them. At that point, they have to investigate. Most cops are fine people and are not interested in infringing on our civil liberties. I really think that a lot of the gun grabbers on the police force are the upper echelons like police chiefs. Nothing scientific, just my two cents.
Here’s the statute at bar:
(a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
1. engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2. makes unreasonable noise;
3. uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.—An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.—As used in this section the word “public” means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.
Note that regardless of the intent of the accused, the ONLY actions which constitute disorderly conduct are four specific things. Noble’s actions did not include fighting or other violent behavior, nor unreasonable noise, nor obscene language or gestures.
So the prosecution is hanging their case on #4, creating “a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
So they have to argue that #1 - openly carrying is a hazardous or physically offensive condition, and #2 - openly carrying serves no legitimate purpose.
Fat, fat, faaat chance unless the fix is already in.
Open carry is required by law in Pennsylvania unless you have a concealed carry license, so to call it a “hazardous or physically offensive” condition would be patently absurd.
And Noble’s sidearm served two legitimate purposes - First Amendment, as a rebuke to Obama’s “Guns & Bibles” San Francisco snobbery, and Second Amendment, for lawful self-defense.
Bull.
Concerned Citizen: "There's a black man wearing a red backpack over there, officer."
Do they "have to investigate" at that point?
How does a report of prima facie legal activity, with nothing further to suggest that any law is being broken, oblige the police to investigate?
Crossing a police line unbidden while armed is just asking for it.
Remember: the police are not there to apply the law perfectly, they're to cage likely offenders and let a judge work out the details later. When a cop says "stay out of this area" (in this case, via hanging a "POLICE LINE - DO NOT CROSS" tape), and an unknown person fails to cooperate by entering a high-stress high-police-activity area while armed with no discernable reason for doing so, the cops aren't going to stand there and argue fine points of law, they're going to immediately secure what they perceive to be an immediate threat.
Given this under-discussed point - an unknown armed individual crossing a police line - I'm inclined to side with the cops, even though I'm an extremely hardcore pro-RKBA type with little sympathies for BHO. I'd have no problem with him carrying an M4 an inch outside that line, but crossing that line (even unarmed) reasonably opens him up for immediate detainment.
If they stepped one foot inside that prison, there's no question they'd be immediately incarcerated for a very long time.
Methinks that's the problem here: police marked a "keep out" zone, which they are legally empowered to do, and this guy crossed that clear bright line anyway. Entering a clearly-marked police-defined "keep out" zone unbidden is plainly disruptive behavior (now the cops have to drop what they're doing and deal with this guy); being armed understandably ratchets the disruption up an order of magnitude.
If he had stayed outside the line, he'd have been left alone (or had a justifiable case if detained) - but he didn't.
My point was to draw out two descriptions of completely legal behavior - an adult openly carrying a sidearm in Pennsylvania in public, and a man wearing a red backpack in public. Neither situation, lacking any other information, constitutes articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
That doesn't pass muster for a detention, let alone an arrest.
Note that when the cop says Noble "went under a police tape," he also says that there were 300 other people in the group to whom he was handing out literature.
If there were 300 people on the other side of the tape, what the heck was the tape there for in the first place? Maybe...
I suspect the cop's mention of the tape is just a ploy to make something completely innocent, like crossing a crowd-control tape strung at the border between a deserted sidewalk and a deserted street, sound sinister, because he knows he's got no, ZERO, ZIP, NADA case except for deceitful partial truths.
If it was a "POLICE LINE - DO NOT CROSS" tape, don't you think the cop would have mentioned that?
The Secret Service said never entered the rally area. They also said that he posed no threat, and that means precisely that he posed no threat.
So instead we've got a Secret Service wannabe, violating constitutional rights in his zeal to "protect."
But the article says "Noble crossed under a police tape cordoning off the park". Which is it? Makes a huge difference, and we're not getting the straight story from someone.
Read more carefully:
Prosecutors called John Atkinson Sr. of Vanport Township, the first person to spot Noble in a crowd of about 300 people standing in Beaver’s McIntosh Square.
[Atkinson said] Noble crossed under a police tape cordoning off the park and began distributing literature.
So if the park was a "keep out" zone, then why were there 300 people in it?
Atkinson contradicts his own deceptive insinuation that he designed to make you jump to exactly the conclusion you just jumped to right here.
It sounds to me like the tape was there to cordon off the rally from the rest of the park. The cops were there to be security for the rally.
See what they're doing here? They're deliberately muddying the waters trying to make Noble look bad.
The Secret Service division chief is on record that he did not enter the event area, and that his agents had no problem with Noble, and that should be good enough for anyone.
The Obama event was being held in Quay Park. Noble was accosted in McIntosh Square, across Route 68 (aka 3rd Street) from Quay Park: Google Maps Link
The cops and the DA have arrested and are prosecuting someone for no other reason than exercising his unquestionable Pennsylvania Article 1 Section 21 right to bear defensive arms, and his Section 7 right to free communication of thoughts and opinions.
So why would you think that anyone other than said cops and DA would not be providing the straight story? Who has the most to gain by twisting the truth if not the cops and the DA who made the false arrest and filed the false charges?
Here's an image from New York City:
There’s plenty of confusion, perhaps deliberate as you note, surrounding the issue.
For now I’ll hold that the key is whether or not he crossed a police line while armed. Whether others (unarmed) had done the same matters little: while the others may have been ignored out of tolerance or expediency, someone crossing a police line unbidden while armed understandably WILL attract attention unto incarceration.
Any evidence that he did _not_ cross a police line?
Actually, they presented perjury tarted up as "evidence."
The cops claimed that they couldn't print out the posts made by Noble to enter into evidence because they weren't members of the site - anyone care to go to MTN Jack's post at OpenCarry.org made on Friday August 29th, inviting others to the Obama rally, and see whether you can view and print the thread?
For those who don't want to, here's a hint: you can.
Here's the full text of his post:
Come to beaver tonite and show Obama what a Bible toten gun owner really looks like. My women and i will be there with both in the open. This is Obamas first stop after being picked in Co. Wow arnt we lucky. On a better note Pres elect McCain has picked a gun toten women from Ak to run as his vp. I wish they were here in stead of dayton Oh. Oh well be safe Mtn Jack
He also posted a thread on Pennsyvania Firearm Owners Association's web forum inviting others to join him, also on August 29. Can you print it without being a member? I knew you could! Full text:
Bring your gun and Bible to Beaver tonite, lets show Obama how we hug our Bibles and guns. On a different note Pres McCain picked a gun toten women from Ak as his running mate. This is going to be good. Stay safe Mtn Jack
"Test what would happen?" Where? ... Bueller? ... Bueller?
I just can't figure out why they'd be so anxious to perjure themselves. They just keep digging deeper and deeper.
I realize that my pespective in Houston may be different but the shamed RINO DA who got run out of office over “racist” emails and an adulterous affair made it absolutely clear that he was rejecting legislation passed by the State to permit people to carry a gun in their car. He made it clear that he would prosecute such drivers as felons and let them challenge it (on their own dime) up to the state supreme court. He spelled it out with exactly the reason I gave “it put the officers in jeopardy” having people on the streets with guns (legal or not).
Thanks for your hard work, Michael. I do believe you have the right of it!
They didn't arrest him for crossing a tape, they arrested him for "disorderly conduct."
Here's a map drawn up based on Noble's statements about the event. You'll note in the comments that I inquired about the tape mentioned by the officer, but I suspect the reason it's not shown, assuming the testimony is true, is because it was something so insignificant Noble thought it to be irrelevant to the story - "sidewalk repair?" as one PAFOA poster put it - i.e., unmarked tape to keep pedestrians out of the street. People were entering McIntosh park unhindered by any of the nearby cops.
I found this photo from the event, showing the gazebo in Quay Park:
And here's a Getty Images batch of photos from the event, in Quay Park. Again, NOT the park in which Noble was arrested about an hour before Obama ever arrived.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; makes unreasonable noise; uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.
This is one of the phony victimless "crimes" that can be used to silence political opposition. It's so vague it can be used to justify any arrest, but I doubt that it would pass muster with a jury in the situation described because he had legitimate purposess for both carrying the gun and attending the meeting (even if it was just to "see what happens").
He would be in a better position legally, however, if he had he gone to the gathering with the stated intent of exercising his right of expression to show Obama that holding a Bible and lawfully carrying a sidearm does not make someone dangerous.
§ 5508. Disrupting meetings and processions. A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he disturbs or interrupts it.
This is another vague crime that can be used to stifle free speech. I doubt they'd get a conviction in this case, though, because the man was arrested before he disturbed or interupted the gathering.
Map work is nicely done. Explains a lot. Good job.
Guess this turns into an ideal case then: citizen apparently abiding by the law vs. police reasonably (in general public’s mind) securing area around high-profile high-risk individual & gathering. I can understand why the cops acted as they did: unusual behavior commonly associated (right or wrong) with extremely nasty consequences, so detain & remove individual from area. I also hope the guy wins: lawful behavior, absent malicious intent, which should be protected instead of prosecuted.
Should be fun to follow this case.
BTW, it’s not my map, but you can pass along your compliments to Greg, I think it is, at the link.
I’m just doing a bit of an information dump here on this thread as I’ve been following this case on OpenCarry.org since it happened, whereas this is the first real thread I’ve noticed about it on FR. Wanted to get my fellow Freepers up to speed quickly.
I think what the Beaver County deputies who confronted Noble didn’t quite grasp is that they were there for crowd control, not for security - the Secret Service was there for security, and they had established their own perimeter to their own satisfaction.
nice posts.
It seems that the police can define “causing a public disturbance” in any way they want. That would be an unconstitutional law because it is overly broad.
Noblevania?
Works for me.
“Wanted to see what happens?”
Here’s an idea, stick a screwdriver in a light socket and see what happens. Stop playing with my rights. IMHO there wasn’t a problem until the opencarry.org girls started to jam this issue in the face of MR. and MRS. America and now it’s a national issue. Nice going ladies. Have you thought about stamp collecting as a hobby? Attention seeking behavior will get you noticed by LEO’s and bad guys, can a snatch and grab be far behind? I hope you carry lots of insurance.
Me? CCW’er for 16 years in PA.
The Disorderly Conduct statute must not be used as a catch-all or dragnet for the prosecution of conduct that is uncivil, annoying or irritating. It is the policy of the Philadelphia Police Department to make Disorderly Conduct arrests only when the above elements of the statue in Section 1 have been met.
Too bad the cops don't read their own paperwork, eh?
Stimpy - we're not "playing with" rights, we're WINNING our rights in court.
Danladi Moore just won $10,000 from the Norfolk, Virginia police who falsely arrested him for open carry, and Mark Marchiafava just won an undisclosed sum from the Gonzales Louisiana police over an open carry false arrest, among other notable court victories. In New Hampshire the legislature CRUSHED a bill to ban guns in the State House, and the woman who proposed it lost her primary by about 80% to 20%. Why are you so worried?
We got to the dismal state of gun laws in America by failing to stand up for our rights, by going along to get along, by hiding away and pretending we don't exist. Our rights have been whittled away due to neglect and disuse, and politicians who therefore think there's no consequence for banning guns.
And besides, according to the US Supreme Court it's open carry, not concealed carry, that is the right protected by the Second Amendment.
I don't expect to convince you, of course, but it is likely that the only reason you're able to get a concealed carry license in the first place without "campaign contributions" for the police chief is because of people who stood up and exercised their rights, and demanded respect for their rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.