Thursday, August 4, 2011

Trouble in Gun Paradise Vermont

The Bennington Banner reports on the most convoluted story you've erver read. Here are a couple of excerpts, but I'll let you try to sort it out.

Bolivar A. Roura, 31, of Cedar Rock Road, was charged with a misdemeanor count of reckless endangerment and released on the condition that he not have contact with Joseph Thompson.

According to an affidavit by Trooper Travis Hess of the Vermont State Police, on July 27 at 7 p.m., he responded to East Arlington Road to a report of a male pointing a gun at someone. Hess wrote that the male with the gun was seen heading east on East Arlington Road in a white car.

Griffis also pleaded not guilty Monday to violating conditions of release. Griffis has an aggravated domestic assault charge pending against him. One of his conditions is that he not consume alcohol. According to another police affidavit, Griffis told Manchester police that he'd consumed between four and five beers that day.
I'm not entirely sure who's who, but the raw elements are interesting. You've got a guy allegedly pointing a gun at another during an argument. You've got drinking and carrying guns in the permit-free gun paradise of Vermont. You've got domestic violence guys who, I suppose, are allowed to continue carrying as long as they don't drink. And, of course, you've got plenty of people saying it was all a big misunderstanding and there was really nothing to it.

What's your opinion? Is Vermont really the gun paradise it's cracked up to be?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Well, they do have a Socialist Senator (Bernie Sanders).

    Maybe gun control ISN'T Socialist!

    Or maybe the real idea is to get everyone so sick of idiots walking around with guns that people are begging for a gun ban.

    Those crafty Socialists!

  2. A gun ban? U live in the U.K. am I correct? Let me enlighten you a little bit. Out country has this little thing called the Bill Of Rights and in that BoR is a little thing called the 2nd Amend. to the Constitution which guarantees an individual RUGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS which has been confirmed by the SCOTUS in the Heller V. DC decision. Guess how many Justices said that the 2nd amend. was an individual right? Here, I'll help you, all 9 Justices agreed that the 2nd was an individual right, the dissent was about the level of restriction DC could impose. I know you Brits don't like the 2nd amend. but who the fuck cares whether people from other countries care or not, if you are so concerned about our RKBA, then get some of your US friends to start a movement to repeal the 2nd.Amend. Good luck with that
    While we're at it, lets compare Vermont crime rates to, oh say, NY or DC which have some of the most strigent gun laws in the country.
    I'd rather live in Vermont where I can have the means to defend myself as opposed to the garden spots of NY or DC. If concealed carry laws are such a big problem, why hasn't one state that have CCW laws on the books moved to repeal them? I keep asking that ? but I can't seem to get an answer which is very telling

  3. Let me enlighten YOU a little bit Cowman.

    Laci has law degrees from both the U.S. and the UK, and is licensed to practice in our federal courts.

    He is an extremely competent criminal defense attorney, and has written some exceptional pieces on the 2nd Amendment - far more articulate and fact based, and well researched than anything you have said here.

    In fact it was how impressed I was by his writing on those topics that led to my acquaintance with Laci.

    So, unless you can claim the same, you have no basis on which to lecture Laci on gun laws.

    Not ours, not the UKs.

    And since you were the one to volunteer your military credentials in support of your opinions........what was your seebee class number? You keep coming up with answers, but they don't respond to the question with factual information.

  4. And as I told u last night, none of your fucking business because I don't have to prove shit to u or anyone else about my military record. How come u wont answer my ? about states repealing CCW? I am just a dumb ole retired FF/para but I do read extensively and am well versed on the 2nd Amend. So on that note, fuck off and have a good life.

  5. And according to Laci, whom I don't give a fuck if he is licensed or not to practice in our Fed. court system, because I am a CHL holder in NV, who had to go through an FBI background check, go through a class on the do's and don'ts of self defense, qualify with my weapon, I'm an idiot. Like I said, I could care less what a Brit thinks of our RKBA which is gaining ground day to day.

  6. cowman wrote (still NOT answering a simple, polite and straightforward question about his Seebee class)

    "And according to Laci, whom I don't give a fuck if he is licensed or not to practice in our Fed. court system, because I am a CHL holder in NV, who had to go through an FBI background check, go through a class on the do's and don'ts of self defense, qualify with my weapon, I'm an idiot."

    No, you're an idiot in spite of all that, not because of it. It does not indemnify you or give you immunity from stupidity or being uniformed.

    You are unqualified to lecture Laci on federal gun law because, unlike YOU, he has actually, successfully, appeared in federal court on gun law cases, and is better educated in the law, including 2nd Amendment law, than YOU are. THAT is what gives HIM credibility that YOU don't have.

    Lets cut to the chase here, Moopoo; I have a lot of the same qualities as a good coursing hound. I don't give up pursuit of something easily. I'm also not intimidated by strong language, or by much of anything else, so save your energy if you were contemplating expending effort in that direction.

    When I last spoke with Laci, from his 'mobile', he was on a train to some family event, over an extended weekend, so it is quite possible he won't get back here to reply himself until next week.

    But I'll do my best to hold up this end of the discussion in his absence.

  7. Once again, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF YOU BELIVE ME OR NOT ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE, and I could give a shit what a obviously well educated Brit thinks about our gun laws. Gun rights are expanding in this country which I happen to think is a good thing while you and Laci think is a bad thing and it just eats at you doesn't it?
    And, as for my qualifications, you don't know anything about me or my qualifications to argue with Laci on the 2nd Amend.
    So right back atcha.
    You want to get into a pissing match, well bring it on sonny boy, I've bested people much better than you or if you want to stop right here and now thats all fine and dandy with me too.

  8. On second thought I'm done with you and I mean this sincerely, have a very good and prosperous life and I wish you no ill will. I just refuse to debate with anyone who questions my military creds., I served honorably in combat and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
    Peace and Goodwill

  9. re "sonny boy"
    Wrong gender; Laci is male; I'm female.
    "And, as for my qualifications, you don't know anything about me or my qualifications to argue with Laci on the 2nd Amend."

    I have verified for myself what Laci's credentials are; yours are still in question. They merit question ONLY because YOU bring them up in support, directly or indirectly, for your assertions; that makes them fair game since you put them on the table, as it were. If you have credentials, produce them for verification, or don't expect them to be accepted on faith.

    Particularly since you have been unable to produce independent support for your positions, outside of what is apparently limited to YOUR VERSION of doughnut shop conversations.

    You have posited untenable opposition to documentation that I provided on broad opposition by MN LEOs to both conceal carry and expansion of castle doctrine laws. You're in Nevada; I'm here in MN. You know NOTHING whatsoever about either the politics, or street experience, of MN law enforcement. Your dismissal of them on claims of politics is stupid, and ill informed, not factual.

    If there is so overwhelmingly clear cut support by LEOs - produce it. It shouldn't be that difficult to document if it is out there in the quantity you want us to believe. I'm betting you can't. Won't. Same difference.

    I wouldn't go there, either, using nationality as a qualification for your argument either. You'd lose that one too.

    When I present a position, I back it up with verifiable sources. YOU don't.

    BooHooMoo ends with:"You want to get into a pissing match, well bring it on sonny boy, I've bested people much better than you or if you want to stop right here and now thats all fine and dandy with me too."

    YOU are engaging in a pissing match; I'm challenging you to a discussion with reasoned positions supported by verifiable documentation. I'd be happy to explain the difference at greater length if that is necessary for you.

    And NO, I'm not going to stop challenging you here. Deal with it.

    Put up verifiable documentation for what you say..........or stand down. Your choice, one or the other.

  10. Cowman, you were asked a simple question, your SeaBee class.

    No one said you were or were not a combat veteran. No one has questioned your honor.

    Believe me, IF and when I intend any such thing, I will say it overtly not indirectly. There will be no ambiguity about my intent.

    YOU brought up your military background, in direct support for your opinion; that makes it a fair question as a result.

    LOL, on my home-blog of, I'm occassionally referred to as the Penigma pit bull. In point of fact, while I'm fond of the bully breeds, and work with them on occasion, I'm much more like the giant breed sighthounds. I have the stamina for distance, the courage to take on large prey including predators, and way too much prey drive to leave a pursuit of something once I'm focused on it.

  11. And if you had read my comment at the other post I apologized as I thought we were talking about WI. my bad, as far as MN your right I don't know much about MN and I will stand down on that but you are insulting me by using different takes on my screen name of which I have not insulted your screen name, and I will change the sonny boy comment to sonny girl, better? At this point there is no point in furthering this pissing match and I sincerely hope you have a good and prosperous life and may all your dreams and wishes come true
    Peace and Goodwill

  12. Thats where you and I disagree, when you ask for my class number that indicates that you don't believe me and I take great exception to that, you can believe me or not, thats your choice, my wife knows I served, my brothers in arms know I served, my friends know I served and Vietnam was not the only theater I served in. I too am a bulldog when I passionatelly (not sure if thats how its spelled) believe like I believe in the RKBA and a law abiding citizens right to self defense with the best tool available whether at home or out in public.
    As I said, I truly do wish you no ill will and I hope you have a good and prosperous life
    Peace and Goodwill

  13. Cowman wrote:
    ", my wife knows I served, my brothers in arms know I served, my friends know I served and Vietnam was not the only theater I served in."

    While I appreciate that you are feeling I have attacked your service Cowman, it is not your wife, your friends, or your brothers in arms who know you that you and your service that you are asking to accept your service as a basis for what you advance as an argument.

    If a police officer stops you while driving for some reason, and asks to see your license, that is not an accusation that you don't have one; it is a simple act of verification as a premise for any further interaction.

    You are choosing to take my question in the most offensive possible way, even after clarification to the contrary. If you bring up something in support of a position, I will check it, and possibly challenge it including links documenting facts.

    Now I will confess to getting a little more curious than less when someone gets unreasonably defensive, but that is still well short of anything remotely resembling an accusation.

    As to your assrertion about law enforcement support for Wisconisin concealed carry - despite my being very clear in what I said and what I quoted being in reference to MN legslation - that doesn't hold up either.
    continued below

  14. “Wisconsin Law Enforcemen­t Officials Oppose Concealed Carry

    In Wisconsin, law enforcemen­t officials in Rock and Walworth counties are worried about pending legislatio­n that would legalize the carrying of concealed weapons.

    Rock County Sheriff Bob Spoden and Janesville Police Chief Dave Moore said concealed carry could risk public safety.

    “I think it escalates every conflict that individual­s are going to be involved in to a very dangerous level,” Spoden said. “I don’t think it will decrease the level of violence in Wisconsin. To the contrary, I think it will increase the level of violence in the state.”

    Spoden said allowing concealed carry creates too many unknown risks.

    “It is going to put a certain level of stress on every interactio­n a police officer has with the public,” Spoden said. “It is going to put a certain degree of uncertaint­y in every call that officer takes. We’ll have to assume that everyone we come in contact with is carrying a firearm.”

    The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Associatio­n stated in a letter that violent criminals and people convicted of misdemeano­r battery, stalking or sexual assault would be allowed to carry under the bill.

    “This bill allows just about anyone to carry a loaded gun just about anywhere in public, even though research shows that allowing more people to carry guns in more places will lead to one thing—more tragedies,­” said Stoughton Police Chief Greg Leck, president of the associatio­n.

    “There is a reason Wisconsin'­s violent crime rate and firearm death rate is much lower than the national averages. It makes no sense to adopt the policies of states that have more crime, more violence and more gun deaths.”

    Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesvil­le:

    Cullen said he will vote against concealed-­carry legislatio­n and what he calls the more aggressive version, constituti­onal carry.

    “I think people who carry guns have rights, but people who do not carry guns have rights, too,” Cullen said. “I don’t see this legislatio­n as intended to balance those two. I also think we need to listen to law enforcemen­t, and I just don’t think that people in our society should be walking down streets or going into buildings and not knowing whether the people they come upon are armed or not.”

    “This is one of those classic clashes of rights,” Cullen said. “The general rule in our society, I think, has been that I have a right to do what I want do until it comes to the point that it interferes with your right.”

    Society should try to balance those rights, and these bills make little attempt to do that, Cullen said.


  15. Every other state that has passed CCW laws had said the same thing and none of it came to pass. It is a non issue in the states that have had CCW laws for awhile now, there is no blood flowing in the streets, there are no shootouts over parking spaces, fact is, criminals are going to carry guns whether legal or not legal and CHL holders are far and large law abiding citizens who are not just waiting to pull their weapon and blast someone, yes there are exceptions to the rule and there will always be people who slip through the cracks but eventually they will screw up and pay the penalty.
    Personally, I really don't care if your more curious because I become defensive, like I said before, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else on this board.

  16. You asserted cowman that there was support for concealed carry by LEOs. You did not back that up.

    It is the same political factions supporting virtually unlimited concealed carry as support other single issue conservative legislation.

    You are under reporting some of the problems, which were identified by specific documented instances, in the reporting I listed showing the MN LEO opposition. It was removed in MN once, during the TPaw era; probably will be again at some point.

    So, do you concede that there is NOT the support for it from law enforcement that you claim? Or do you have something to document that support to put into the discussion, something more than lame claims?

    As to credentials - good for you JerryVA; you don't seem nearly as.....squirmy, not at all. You gave very much the correct answers in support of fair questions, demonstrating you are the real deal.

    No no no, you don't get to duck the question cowman. YOU volunteered your credentials, AND YOU represented your experience as giving substance and support to your position. Therefore YOU DO have something to verify if not prove, very much so. You are either unable or unwilling to do so; the difference between unwilling and unable being negligable in this context. So either answer the simple, straightforward question about what you claim, or stand down from all of your assertions about firearms.

    You have made unfounded and unsupported / unsupportable statements about law enforcement now for TWO states, MN and WI. Neither were accurate.

    Your claims for military experience to support your views is equally unsubstantiated, if not invalidated.

    Your claims about the 2nd Amendment knowledge also fail, in comparison to Laci.

    That puts you at what so far, 4 fails out of 4 tries?

    Very simple rule for this: you say it, you back it up. Doesn't matter who you are, fair challenges have merit.

    "Because I said so" didn't work with me very well when I was a child, to the sometimes amusement, only occasional frustration of my parents and others in authority.

    It sure as hell doesn't work with me as an adult, from someone I don't know. Nor should it for any one who reads these comments, or makes them hear.

    I challenge you again Cowman; what was your Seabee class number?

    Or do you wish to retract all of your previous assertions? It is put up or take it back / stand down time.

  17. dog gone said...

    You asserted cowman that there was support for concealed carry by LEOs. You did not back that up.

  18. You know, I'm done with you, For the last time, I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on this board. You can choose to believe me or not on my service, because frankly I don't give a damn what you do or don't believe.

  19. Hey cow--why don't you just shut up? I mean quit pretending and just man up?

    Man, wannabes piss me off.

  20. I agree Jade; Cowman should back it up, or back down.

    My experience is hardly exhaustive, but those who have served, demonstrably, in the military have not quibbled at answering similar questions. In fact usually such answers are offered with pride, and comaraderie with others who have served.

    In my experience when someone bullies and blusters, swears and whines, tries to change the subject, or tries to change their answers, by turns, there is a problem with their credibility. Not just their credibility on that specific issue, but rather it is a broader problem with their credibility. Another indicator is unjustified criticism of others, while trying to dodge fair challenges to themselves. Eventually, rather than cooperate more gracefully, they get sullen and leave rather than rise to a fair challenge. It is a pattern which has little variation from one to the next, although it continues to surprise me that people expect to get away with it.

    That's what I'm picking up from this; and I take it you feel the same. I know Laci feels similarly, and that my blogging partner Penigma does as well.

    Mikeb can speak to this if he wants to join in.

  21. I didn't bother keeping track of how many times the Cowmaroon commented but about the end of this:

    "A gun ban? U live in the U.K. am I correct? Let me enlighten you a little bit. Out country has this little thing called the Bill Of Rights and in that BoR is a little thing called the 2nd Amend. to the Constitution which guarantees an individual RUGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS which has been confirmed by the SCOTUS in the Heller V. DC decision."

    I stopped reading for comprehension; continuing to do so would be like eating garbage for its nutritive value.

    What a poseur.

  22. I pity the man who tries to bully Dog Gone.

  23. I don't blame cowman for not posting any identifiable information. Jadegold has proven time and time again that information like that will only be used for him to stalk, bully, and harass you.

  24. ole 127 just ain't getting it....August 5, 2011 at 4:53 PM

    I agree Jade; Cowman should back it up, or back down.

    Right after LtCC posts his distinguished legal background......

    He has successfully, appeared in federal court on gun law cases, after all.....

    Otherwise he can't speak on gun law can he?

  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  26. Awwww, poor Cowpooman. He's afraid of being stalked. Fear. He feels fear. The antidote to FEAR is GUNZ. Yepper.

  27. No one is tracking anyone; Cowman couldn't be tracked by simply providing his SeaBee class.

    Cowman is a fake,a fraud, a farce more than that he is a fake who misrepresents himself as a combat vet to support his positions here, attacking others. That is an insult to those who really DID serve their country,regardless of what side of the arguments a person is on here.

    He can't back that up, and clearly his other positions aren't supported either.

    I'll be happy to see him comment, if he cares to back up his statements. He can't.

    Laci doesn't have to validate himself to anyone else; I validated his credentials.

    I not only validated his credentials, he's been helpful to me in answering legal questions for a 2 year long series on a white collar affinity scam I have been writing on Penigma, so I'm appreciative for his help, and I know the quality of that background. So, NO, HE doesn't have to prove anything beyond that.

    But it IS fair to ask any of us to support our STATEMENTS. So, if Laci makes a specific claim, go ahead and ask him to back it up with documentation. He can.

    I'm hoping Laci might join this blog as the 4th admin / author. He's been invited; it was a unanimous invitation.

  28. Looks like this thread may be long dead, BUT, lol, I think you all are missing the big picture. Let's say you live in a rural State, like Vermont, and of course MN and WI also have many rural places. Our State Police do an awesome job in my experience, but, they can only cover so much ground and response times are the crux of the issue. Let's say that you wake up at 3 am to the sounds of what may be someone breaking into your house. Let's say you are female, and single. Do you think that the Police will be able to respond in time to save your ass, assuming you wake up fast enough to actually make the call? And that the intruder hasn't had the foresight to cut your phone line? Does your Cell work at your location? Wouldn't it be smarter to have a loaded handgun available within reach of your sleeping place, since you may have less than sixty seconds to protect yourself from rape or murder? What of you have kids in the house? Are you going to wait for help?

    Not me!!

  29. Anyone breaking in here will be met by a half dozen or so very territorial giant breed dogs which know how to hunt, including killing what they hunt.

    The technical term for that kind of a pack of hounds is a mute of hounds, because they hunt silently, not baying like beagles and fox hounds and coon hounds (or other scent hounds).

    Unlike scent hounds, they spread out to encircle, and then attack.

    They are generally what is known as passive defenders. That means they place themselves between danger and their human or vulnerable pack mate.

    In my sole experience as a single woman facing a very aggressive male, who turned out to have a long police record of violence and 'anger issues', the number 2 pack in the hound, a younger stronger dog, came at the intruder from behind, going for the hamstring, taking down the intruder, while the alpha, still quite fast and strong, but older, and more experienced at hunting and killing went for the intruder's throat.

    They - the dogs - had themselves determined that it was necessary to bypass the passive defender stage.

    The only problems I anticipate with your scenario are, will we need to count body parts to determine number of intruders? and how much clean up will that entail?

    Laci, would you care to post the link to the photo you have of the mascot dog, standing up with his paws on the shoulder of the soldier?

    While I was attending dog shows in Winnipeg one December, with three of these, I had to take them out in the -pardon the pun - wee hours of the morning, in the dark and cold, relieve themselves. Two armed police in a squad car were making the rounds, checking the adjoining parking ramp to the hotel. They backed DOWN the ramp they were going up, to look at the dogs. Apparently an area a few blocks over was high crime. They told me that their original intent was to warn me to be careful, until it became clear I wasn't going for an extended walk. They made the observation that I was probably safer with the three shetland poiny sized dogs, who have canine teeth the size of your little finger, than they were with their guns.

    I don't need a gun to be safe. I don't even need dogs if it comes to that. I use my brain, and my senses. I think faster than most people, and more creatively. I am resourceful in my ability to use what is around me, and in my awareness of what is around me.

  30. Hawkeye, Thanks for the comment and for reviving this thread.

    I hear ya, man. But my idea is that the chances of using a gun to save the day are much less likely than that it would be misused one day.