Pink Pistols Threatened by Club Wielding Official

[Kacer]

Hi,

A friend from OFCC suggested I try this forum out. My name is Kim Rife and I helped start the 5 chapters of the Pink Pistols in Ohio.

Here's our latest Press Release, thought some of you might find it interesting.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened by Club-Wielding “Official” and Horde of Stormtroopers at Pride Festival, Ordered to Surrender Firearms

Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. The Pink Pistols were repeatedly ordered to surrender their legally-owned and carried firearms by a steadily-growing army of guards. Knowing the law was on their side, the Pink Pistols refused to surrender their property or knuckle under to illegal threats of violence, search, and seizure by Stonewall Columbus personnel. Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken.

June 28, 2004 (PP NATIONAL) Columbus, OH: On Saturday, June 26, about five members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols (COPP) attended the Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade and Festival at Bicentennial Park in downtown Columbus. The Pink Pistols had planned upon marching behind the BRAVER contingent, but were invited to march with BRAVER, the Buckeye Region American Veterans for Equal Rights. They assisted in the carrying of the huge 20’ x 30’ American flag at the front of the group as part of the flag’s honor guard. Several of the Pink Pistols members carried unloaded firearms openly, which is legal according to the Ohio Constitution.

Exactly two days prior to the event, Kim Rife of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols had received this email from Kate Anderson of Stonewall Columbus, prompted by leaked internal communications sent to her by unknown persons. (Spelling &
syntax errors have been included.)

“Dear members of the Pink Pistols,

This is official notice and response to the email below that I received today.

NO FIREARMS, LOADED OR UNLOADED, CONCEALED OR EXPOSED WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE PARADE LINE-UP, THE PRIDE PARADE, NOR THE PRIDE FESTIVAL.

Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event. I have notified all Pride Committee members and co-chairs and I will also alert all security personnel and the police.

I appreciate your group but we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional. There will also be no solicited like you did last year, if so, you will be aske to leave. It is past the deadline for a booth but we will be happy to sell you a booth space. If you want a space to distribute your literature and to sign up members, email Michael XXXXXX at XXXXXX@XXXXXXX (Email address omitted, as he had nothing to do with the letter.)

This may seem severe to you but it is nothing more than an attempt to keep all people safe and afford them the opportunity to have the most fun they can have on Saturday. I would greatly appreciate all of your members being notified immediately, so that you can make alternative plans.

Sincerely,
Kate Anderson, Executive Director, Stonewall Columbus
[email protected]”

Ms. Rife seriously doubts the veracity of the statement that says: "I appreciate your group but..." and will be drafting a letter later in the week asking Anderson expand upon this statement. "I think this was simply an attempt to placate us; I think she appreciates our group about as much as she appreciates her belly button lint."

Ms. Rife forwarded this email to Pink Pistols National Media Spokesperson Gwen Patton, who sent it to Daniel McCaughan, Pink Pistols House Counsel. She also discussed the email with another firearm law attorney friendly with the organization. Both attorneys assured the Pink Pistols that the threats described in the email were spurious, and could not be acted upon, legally. A private citizen cannot legally confiscate the property of another, and certainly cannot refuse to return it. Such an act constitutes theft. To steal a firearm is a particularly serious offense, one with Federal consequences. The event staff could also not search persons not openly displaying firearms without their permission. To do so would constitute assault.

for the rest of the article, please see:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html#1112

It's over 2000 characters too long for this list

[Bud Helms]

Lessee ...

Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. ...

Then there is this ...

... we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional.

So ... we don't want any opportunity for violence, and we will use violence, or the threat of it, to insure that? I see ... NOT!

I especially like this part ...

There will also be no solicited (sic) like you did last year, if so, you will be aske (sic) to leave.

Typical, arrogant, my way or the highway, anti logic. Too right to be wrong.

[Fred Hansen]

You mean to say that a radical leftist group used the threats of theft and violence to intimidate people? A radical leftist group then acted out the threat of violence in an attempt to make good on its threats of thievery?


I'm simply shocked.

[MicroBalrog]

... we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional.

Under that logic, they should encourage people to carry.

[Jamie Young]

who wielded a 2-foot club

That guy isn't too bright is he?

[thumbtack]

The club wielding person is lucky that he apporached a sane group of people. I know a lot of people here in Texas that would have shot him for approaching them with a club and demanding their guns.

His jimmies must be bigger then his brain.

[Kacer]

The thug w/the club was female... "Kate Anderson" the same yahoo that wrote the threatening email. FWIW. And I think it more of a case of stoopid [sic] than it was of "guts."

[croyance]

Well, it is very presumtuous of Ms. Anderson to believe that she has powers above the law - the power to search and seize an object legally held. But what is the excuse of the private security people? They do not have the right to confiscate or disarm people who are legally carrying.

Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken.

Not true, brandishing a club and threatening people is illegal. Ms. Anderson should have been arrested.

Argueably, being confronted with a club by a person trying to incite a group of 30 people (mob) to illegal acts is both a reason to arrest and a physical threat to the PP members. So stupid on so many levels.

[Holiday]

The thing that strike me is her threat to "confiscate the firearms and NOT return them". I don't know about Ohio, but here that is called THEFT.

[Kacer]

Yeah, when the woman with her stick started getting "animated" again, and I thought she was likely to "attempt" something... I informed her that to take our firearms would be considered Grand Theft, and if she used her stick, it would be aggravated assault instead of just plain assault... she went off a few yards to "pow wow" again after that

[croyance]

Kacer/Kim: Are they always so strict about keeping the party line, or is it only guns that gets them going? Have there been previous incidents leading up to the parade?

Five chapters! You truely have the fervor of the believer!

[Apple a Day]

A tip o' the hat to Kim and the PP for showing courage, sound judgement and restraint.

[Kacer]

Kacer/Kim: Are they always so strict about keeping the party line, or is it only guns that gets them going? Have there been previous incidents leading up to the parade?

Five chapters!
You truely have the fervor of the believer!

Croyance,

I vaguely recall some "problems" (but it was back when I was young and frankly, I didn't pay THAT much attention) regarding The Log Cabin Republicans. There also MAY have been some problems with the "Right to Life" GLBT group... but I cannot say for certain, as I just wasn't paying that much attention to those things then.

Previous incidents, sort of. When a few gun activists were attempting to get a group going for GLBT's (there had been a pretty bad, fairly well publicised "bashing" that occurred in the S. end of Columbus) they had stopped at Stonewall proposing they work together to have a "Refuse To Be A Victim" seminar - from what _I_ understand, they (Stonewall) was quite receptive until they saw that the NRA had published the literature FOR the program... the activists were shown to the door.

However in THIS instance, I have to support/understand Stonewall's reaction. Why?


SUMMARY: The NRA's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator calling talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak."

The National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator referring to anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak" for her recent admission that she's a lesbian.

During a two-hour panel discussion attacking the media for distorting the views of gun-rights proponents, all but one speaker took an opportunity to slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_ridicule_gays

This doesn't exactly "endear" the NRA among the GLBT population. Frankly, IMO they (NRA) are too liberal w/my firearm rights, and too conservative about things they shouldn't even address. BUT, I don't want this to degenerate into a "NRA bad" "NRA Good" discussion, for what they are, there are areas they could (and hopefully, in the future WILL) do better. But they are the best we have at the moment AND w/o them... I'd hate to see the sorry shape we'd BE in today. They DO do many "cool" things - do NOT get me wrong. All I'm saying is that there is ALWAYS room for improvement in every PERSON and every ORGANIZATION. Nixing the homophobia would, IMO, be a good start for them.

They (Stonewall) were a bit "terse" last year... w/us when we were handing out flyers... I very much get the impression that many of the "leadership" are likely anti-firearms, thing is, as usual with almost EVERY "leadership" (including our government no matter WHO is "in charge") they are "out of touch" with the community. And what they REALLY want, as I'd have to say a solid 70-80% of the community is "for" us, and are not taking kindly to Stonewall's "bully" tactics.

As for the 5 chapters, Ohio's not a small state. We plan on more, but that likely won't occur for a bit yet. Gotta "solidify" the 5 we have first, the Cleveland and Columbus (Central Ohio) chapters are both doing VERY well.

Dayton's doing okay, but we need to find a good place to shoot!

Cincinnati and Lima are in progress.

And as I've noted before, I've made quite a hooby out of dealing w/bullies, and, IMO bashers ARE bullies, and the best way to deal w/bullies is to (figuratively or literally) give `em a bloody nose. IMO, PP is the appropriate "bloody nose" to give `em

[croyance]

I share your opinion about the NRA. Too bad it got in the way of something useful.
This is a growing trend in the country. "They are the best we have at the moment". This leads people to make wonderful decisions like Bush vs. Gore. Could either party be proud of its candidate?

Looks like you have the major population centers except Cinncinati. Good luck in your work.

[Fred Hansen]

SUMMARY: The NRA's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator calling talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak."
The National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator referring to anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak" for her recent admission that she's a lesbian.

Says who? Was the story written by a colleague of Jayson Blair perhaps? The link you provided goes to today's Yahoo headlines. I'd like to see the actual source for these allegations.

During a two-hour panel discussion attacking the media for distorting the views of gun-rights proponents, all but one speaker took an opportunity to slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_ridicule_gays

Again, says who? Rosie O'Donnell is a freak. Rosie O'Donnell is also a phony and a hypocrite i.e. she employs ARMED bodyguards for herself and her adopted children, but calls American gunowners murderers who should be "in prison". People who call law-abiding Americans murderers are freaks. Why is that hard to understand?

How does that translate in any way at all into "slamming" and/or "bashing"? How does that translate into "slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner"? Is there some rule that I am unaware of that says that if her highness Ms. O'Donnell is called a freak then ergo all GLBTs are called freaks? If so, I didn't receive the memo.

This doesn't exactly "endear" the NRA among the GLBT population. Frankly, IMO they (NRA) are too liberal w/my firearm rights, and too conservative about things they shouldn't even address.

What would you say are the issues they shouldn't address, and please cite the places where NRA has officially addressed them.

BUT, I don't want this to degenerate into a "NRA bad" "NRA Good" discussion, for what they are, there are areas they could (and hopefully, in the future WILL) do better. But they are the best we have at the moment AND w/o them... I'd hate to see the sorry shape we'd BE in today. They DO do many "cool" things - do NOT get me wrong. All I'm saying is that there is ALWAYS room for improvement in every PERSON and every ORGANIZATION. Nixing the homophobia would, IMO, be a good start for them.

Again I would like to ask for substantiation of this "homophobia". Any official NRA anything will do.


So far the only bashing that I have seen in this thread occurred within the GLBT community itself, and it came to a head in the physical manifestation of a previously written threat in the form of a club weilded by a thug. Why the thug(s) were not arrested remains a total mystery to me.

[Kacer]

First off, while I don't much CARE for Rosie O. - I think calling her a "freak" for "coming out" is a tad much. NOW if they had said she was an emotional hothead and a hypocrite, I don't think anyone could have "attacked" that, as it is largely true, from what I've witnessed, and she works from her "feelings" more than from her brain - which typically drops ANYONE's I.Q. at LEAST 50 points right off, IMO. YMMV.

As the "news" is from 2002, it's no longer on "news" oriented sites... just GLBT ones.

http://tinyurl.com/3bktw

http://tinyurl.com/2m9n7

Now frankly, hypocrites do very little "for" me, as I tend to not give much of what they say to heart, as they aren't worthy of such. Not only is Rosie a hypocrite `cause she bashes gun owners while employing armed guards, but also because she "demands" tolerance, while being intolerant towards firearms owners. IMO, you have ZERO credibility w/me if you Demand "a" but refuse to give "a" to others. You're likely an idiot if you do this, as it is a simple matter of reasoning skills. IF I am rude to someone, I figure it's a good chance I'll get "rude" in return. Conversely, if I am nice and amiable, I'm most likely (though, certainly not "guaranteed") to get nice and amiable BACK.

Just good "common sense" so I tend to begin nice, `cause that's what _I_ want, then if someone's a rude $%#@ I stay nice (to see if the "guilt" gets to them and they "turn around" their attitude. Call it giving them the benefit of the doubt ). If they STAY rude, I can be rude w/the best of `em .

Anyway, from what I understand, it wasn't an "official position" per se, but if several individuals have been asked to speak AT the organization's Annual Meeting, and SEVERAL (all but one, apparently) said intolerant things about a certain group, that group is BOUND to get a negative view, generally, about the organization. That's simply a "common sense" thing.

Also it didn't HELP anything that: "Each of these comments brought applause and laughter from a crowd composed mainly of middle-aged hunting and shooting enthusiasts, as well as from the panel moderator, former "Dallas" star Susan Howard."

So laughter and applause is seen for correctly or incorrectly as "endorsement" of an attitude" and let's face it, organizations would NOT exist, IF they didn't have members, therefore, typically, an organization is often DEFINED by it's members (and their behavior).

IMO, as gun owners, we must be mindful of this, and I was reminded earlier this year, our behavior reflects upon ALL gun owners, therefore we must at least STRIVE towards being "beyond reproach". Even (possibly ESPECIALLY) when we think we are "amongst ourselves".

Then there's the part in one article that says: NRA board member Grover Norquist said that the media ignores gun rights because "we don't have annual parades for gun owners so everyone can appreciate that gun ownership is an alternative lifestyle and look at how great we are."

Well, frankly, I don't see that as a criticism or "disparaging" remark about the GLBT Community (so much), (though I understand many see it that way) rather I see it as a disparaging comment against the gun owners. Let's face it, MANY of us are "in the closet" as far as our ownership/views on firearms - often, those of who are "out" are, IMO, about as "flamboyant" as many queens.... and tend to be taken about as seriously by "normal folks".

IMO, we (gun owners) DO need to do what the GLBT community learned to do some time ago - put a face on the "gun nut" ("queer") ... as people see that we aren't all irrational nut cases, but rather rational, reasonable (if a tad fervent lover of liberty and freedom and the "American way of life)". The public at large will begin seeing us in a different light, "Well, I know Ted, and HE's a gun-nut, but ya know, he's really okay. So they must not ALL be "bad""

Just some thoughts, anyway. And I AM NOT saying that the current bias is "reasonable" it's not, but I'm also not real "thrilled" at the behavior at an NRA Annual Meeting a bit over 2 years ago... I can "understand" why things "developed" the way they did, in BOTH the NRA Annual Meeting AND the GLBT Community towards the NRA. I agree w/neither, but one need not "agree" to "get it".

[Fred Hansen]

Thank you for your reply. I tried both of the new links that you provided, and I'm sorry to say I found no credible source for the allegations.

As a member of the Pink Pistols would you have any way of contacting Tom Boyer who is mentioned as a Pink Pistols member in San Fransisco? If the "journalist" did indeed make mention of the panel's comments to Mr. Boyer, then it should follow that he would have investigated the allegations further as he was quoted as saying he would. I would be interested to hear what he made of the comments, or lack thereof.

I follow the news very, very, very closely, and I heard no mention of these comments in any mainstream (read that leftist) press accounts of that convention. Quite frankly I do not believe that an opportunity to skewer the NRA would have been missed. But perhaps it was one of the few times that the mainstream media missed an opportunity to demonize the NRA. I suppose it could happen, it's just that if it did, I would be stunned.

[Kacer]

However, if the news wasn't at least SOMEWHAT based in truth, don't you think the NRA would have sued for the organizational equivalent of "defamation of character"? I mean, I almost hope that Stonewall (or better yet Kate Anderson) does something akin to that to COPP, as I'll OWN her if she does.

I'm not at ALL disputing that the story wasn't "embellished", I've found out the hard way that some in the "media" has a TENDENCY to do that when it suits them (or they're grossly incompetent... kinda hard to tell sometimes )

BUT the point is, the GLBT community has accepted this as "truth" whether it is or not, I can't say, BUT the perception is there. We are working on undoing SOME of that damage, but it'd help if the NRA would at LEAST make some sort of comment (though, I understand that too can/could be "used against them" ... of course, they DO have their own Radio stations now... <g>

IF they didn't compromise away my firearm rights (though I must admit, they ARE getting better) I'd be a bit more on their side... with THIS issue.

I AM, but, IMO they could do a bit more in the way of quashing this perception. YMMV.

[Fred Hansen]

However, if the news wasn't at least SOMEWHAT based in truth, don't you think the NRA would have sued for the organizational equivalent of "defamation of character"?

I doubt that they know the "news" even exists.

[Kacer]

That may be real OR it could be a "stretch" dunno these days, sad that...

[Juan Hunt Greer]

I know I've been " out of the loop" for awhile, but who ( or what) is " Stonewall Colombus???

Crankshaft the paranoid ( they really ARE out to get us )

[Dave85]

From the news article:

"NRA is a single issue organization," John Robbins, a communications manager for the group, wrote in a response to Krick. "As always, our efforts will continue to reflect our members concerns. … The panelists were expressing their own personal views."

Sounds like a tacit agreement to the validity of the claims.

I will be very happy if it turns out to be untrue, but considering the traditionally conservative nature of many in the NRA, it is not at all unbelievable.

"we've been better received in the shooting community than in the gay community," said Hepler

I used to work with a very conservative gay man. He made much the same comments; that his conservative friends were more accepting of his sexual preference than his GLBT friends were of his political views. It is probably harmful to the GLBT community that the face it's leaders and champions have given it is a leftist/socialist one. I don't personally know many conservatives in 2004 who are truly homophobic, but all of them are spooked by mainstream GLBT politics.

Remembering that the NRA experts were impaneled to discuss media coverage, we can hopefully opine that the real motive of their gay-bashing might have been animosity not toward their lifestyle choices, but toward GLBT politics.

[Fred Hansen]

Sounds like a tacit agreement to the validity of the claims.

Sounds like run of the mill boilerplate PR language to me. Please point out where Mr. Robbins "agreed" to anything. Anything at all.

I will be very happy if it turns out to be untrue, but considering the traditionally conservative nature of many in the NRA, it is not at all unbelievable.
(emphasis added)

I used to work with a very conservative gay man. He made much the same comments; that his conservative friends were more accepting of his sexual preference than his GLBT friends were of his political views.

That kind of contradiction mere seconds apart makes my head hurt.

Remembering that the NRA experts were impaneled to discuss media coverage, we can hopefully opine that the real motive of their gay-bashing might have been animosity not toward their lifestyle choices, but toward GLBT politics.

I'd still like to see some evidence of this "gay-bashing". Your own contradictory statements notwithstanding of course.

[Dave85]

1) He did tacitly agree, accurately or not. I do not forgive "run of the mill boilerplate PR language." That is a coward's way out, and I expect more of the NRA, of which I am a Life Member. If they didn't say what they are accused of saying, he should stand up for them and truthfully deny the claims. Instead, accurately or not, he tacitly agreed.

2) There is no contradiction. Many conservatives do not believe homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, and, surrounded by like minded heterosexuals might concievably vocalize those opinions. While it does not serve as proof, it makes it believable. At the same time, as humans pick and choose their values to suit, a man can be gay and agree with enough other tenets of conservatism to properly be labeled conservative.

3) Since Mr. Robbins did not deny the gay-bashing took place, indeed tacitly agreed that it did, I must take his word as a gentleman, and operate under the assumption that the event, although quite possibly mischaracterized to some extent by a hostile reporter, did take place.

4)

I'd still like to see some evidence of this "gay-bashing". Your own contradictory statements notwithstanding of course.

Not me! I want to see evidence that it didn't happen!

5) I find Excedrin to be quite effective for stress headaches. Shop around, though because most major drug store chains have a generic equivalent that will save you some cash.

[Fred Hansen]

1) I asked you to cite the place where Mr. Robbins agreed. Obviously you refuse to do so.

2) So it's both ways then.

3) See #1

4) You want NRA to prove a negative. Good one.

5)