Author Joel Rosenberg Arrested

Recommended Videos
Aug 25, 2009
4,609
0
0
Interesting. I wouldn't expect that someone so well versed in firearms and the laws surrounding them would be caught out like that. But then I don't know the whole story, so I'll reserve judgement, there could be any number of reasons for his arrest, including something as simple as forgetting to have an appropriate piece of documentation or something.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
I love how law now adays is what they say it is regardless of whats in the books...or constitution.... or reality...

Also at first glance I thought this story would be about swords and stuff not carrying a gun. LOL
 

geldonyetich

New member
Aug 2, 2006
3,715
0
0
I can't see possession of a handgun as being all that expensive. His getting arrested and noticed by news agencies will probably get him more sales of his book than the whole ordeal comes to.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,876
0
0
Russ Pitts said:
Russ Pitts is the Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist, a long-time fan of Joel Rosengberg's work and a member of the NRA.
I seriously would never have guessed that.
HankMan said:
Glad I don't live in Minneapolis, or any city for that matter.
Somehow this makes me think of that Iron Man meme.
 

Tom Phoenix

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,161
0
0
Russ Pitts said:
But it's hard to believe that with so much at stake his mind will be occupied with little else but the fight for his freedom.
You would be suprised how many works were written by authors when they were going through a challenging period of their life. Infact, he might decide to write precisely to take his mind off of his current situation.

But anyway, it seems like the author knows the laws inside-out, yet the police still managed to somehow screw things up. I hope justice wins in the end.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
psrdirector said:
what does this have to do with video games? oh right nothing. im sorry but this is jsut the editor trying to force his own political views down the throats of the fans of this site. im opposed to the nra, and if i get so much as a warning for disagreeing with this article i know the escapist cares for the first amendment as much as the nra cares about reducing gun violance, none.
Seriously? When's the last time you looked over this site's features? This site hasn't been solely about video games in quite a while, even if that is still the primary focus.

As for disagreeing... well, the way I see it, this isn't about the NRA or even the 2nd amendment. It's about the abuse of authority (and arguably about a guy that seems to be looking for trouble). Is it only on The Escapist because the guy is an at least reasonably well known author? Yep. If that sort of thing doesn't pique your interest, then so be it. No reason to tweak the (article) author's nose over it.

I guess I just don't see the point of being combative just so you can cry "oppression" when you get slapped down.
 

Ensiferum

New member
Apr 24, 2010
586
0
0
psrdirector said:
what does this have to do with video games? oh right nothing. im sorry but this is jsut the editor trying to force his own political views down the throats of the fans of this site. im opposed to the nra, and if i get so much as a warning for disagreeing with this article i know the escapist cares for the first amendment as much as the nra cares about reducing gun violance, none.
The Escapist covers all sorts of "geek-related" news, not just news pertaining to video-games. The editor isn't trying to "force his own political views" down anyone's throat. You want to cry first-amendment? Then the editor is also entitled to share his own opinions via the first amendment, or more specifically in this case, the site's guideline's for contributors which must allow them to include their political views in the material they submit to the site (because many of them do include said views, albeit subtly). On top of that, if contributors who hold to more left-wing views such as Yahzee and contributors who hold to more central views such as Bob Chipman (that's simply based on my observations of their submissions mind you) are allowed to contribute to the site, why not in all fairness shouldn't those with right-wing views be allowed to contribute? You're being hypocritical by slamming the editor of this article for his views yet attempting to hide behind the first amendment to avoid criticism yourself.
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
I hope he sues the hell out of the city after the charges get dismissed. Cops really do think they get to harass and harm anyone who embarrasses them.

And for you kiddies reading this please take 30 minutes of time and watch this video, it could save you YEARS of hardship later in life.

That's a bit frightening, but informative. Thank you.
 

brunothepig

New member
May 18, 2009
2,163
0
0
psrdirector said:
what does this have to do with video games? oh right nothing. im sorry but this is jsut the editor trying to force his own political views down the throats of the fans of this site. im opposed to the nra, and if i get so much as a warning for disagreeing with this article i know the escapist cares for the first amendment as much as the nra cares about reducing gun violance, none.
What? Do you not see all the things on this website that aren't gaming related? Hell, Moviebob's three weekly features are tangentially related to games at best. On the front page right now is an article about the Heavy Metal band GWAR, another about the British Government considering black listing porn, like the Australian government wanted to do... The mods just publish stuff that interested them, and they think may interest others.
Yeah, it's likely Pitts himself wrote up the story because it interested him, but it wasn't him "trying to force his... views" on us. At least, I didn't feel that way.
OT: If it is true that he wasn't breaking the law (and it certainly sounds that way, what with both him and his attorney's track records) then he'll get off. Pretty annoying he's going through all this though.
 

sibrenfetter

New member
Oct 26, 2009
105
0
0
He might be a famous writer and all, but walking around with your guns in a public place makes you a retard in my opinion. I see no reason why he should not be sued.
 

PlasticTree

New member
May 17, 2009
523
0
0
I don't totally get it. Carrying a firearm is legal in the US, but carrying a firearm in City Hall can get you in jail for multiple years? Regardless of whether Rosenberg was allowed to, what is the reasoning behind all this? Why is carrying a firearm in a public place just as harmful as, say, robbing some banks or doing something else that actually involves aggression? Or am I missing something? Could someone please enlighten me?

Also Russ, I'd love to hear your arguments about your opinion on guns. I'm not condemning anything, nor am I planning to start a discussion about this, but I'd just like to hear what makes you (or other members of the NRA, for that matter) tick. As someone living outside the US I've always found it a mystery why Europe differs so drastically from the US when it comes to firearms.
 

twm1709

New member
Nov 19, 2009
477
0
0
And he should know; in addition to being a fiction author, he's also the author of a number of non-fiction books, one of which is entitled Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota.
I lol'd
 

Ishpeck

New member
Sep 15, 2010
5
0
0
Weapons charges are BS anyway. Mere possession of a weapon does not hurt anybody. It's as lame as drug charges and "disturbing the peace" -- all just blanket excuses that law enforcement can use to punish someone who doesn't worship them.
 

alfrodul

New member
Mar 19, 2009
19
0
0
PlasticTree said:
I don't totally get it. Carrying a firearm is legal in the US, but carrying a firearm in City Hall can get you in jail for multiple years?...

...As someone living outside the US I've always found it a mystery why Europe differs so drastically from the US when it comes to firearms.
I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota but I live mostly in Europe (currently Russia but I've been all over). I spent the nine years I lived in Minneapolis working for one of the local police departments (as a civilian security supervisor, I'm not entirely comfortable with the modern police's focus on law enforcement rather than safety and the move from "protect and serve" to "arrest and convict." Also, since I refused to cut my hair, I had little chance of getting hired as an officer). The MPD have a rep for being worse than LAPD, even among other departments, so this episode doesn't surprise me. As an earlier poster said, it's not because he broke the law (he didn't), he made MPD look bad and now they're going after him.

When it comes to guns, I am a supporter of a citizen's right to arm themselves in self-defense. There is no country in the world where it is the duty of the police to defend you and your family, they're there to respond to crime and to catch and prosecute the criminals once they've done something. I've never owned a gun myself but I think the right to ownership is a fundamental western value (not just American). In the history of western culture the distinction between a serf/slave and a citizen was the right to own weapons for both hunting and self-defense. For most of western history, even slaves were legally allowed to arm themselves (and were often given weapons by their owners) even though they had no guaranteed right to do so. Just because we live in safer, more civilized times doesn't mean we should accept legal restrictions which move us closer to feudalism and further from democracy.

All that said, I'm not a member of the NRA, however. I view the matter more as a historian than a politician. Originally the NRA was a solid organization but it seems like they've gone over the brink into irrationality in recent years even if they still do a lot of good on a local level. There are many good members who are not far-right extremists (Russ Pitts and Michael Moore are both NRA members).

In my experience following weapons-related news, most western countries have very similar per-capita weapons ownership (I've seen reports over the years from Gemany, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Canada, the US, etc). The only difference is the ratio of legal vs. illegal. The US has relatively lax restrictions and high legal ownership. Germany has tight restrictions and high illegal ownership. The US doesn't actually have a significant problem with gun violence itself, our driving habits, eating habits, and medical practices are actually more dangerous than our guns. What we do have is a deeper social problem related to issues of wage disparity and a lack of social welfare infrastructure. Our politicians love debating guns and other "hot button" issues because it lets them ignore important issues like education, healthcare, and jobs.

(My internet connection is so slow today that I can barely use my RSS reader and even Google is timing out so I can't provide much in terms of links. So feel free to distrust everything I say and hit Google to read things for yourself.)
 

MrScandinavia

New member
Jul 20, 2009
6
0
0
Ensiferum said:
psrdirector said:
what does this have to do with video games? oh right nothing. im sorry but this is jsut the editor trying to force his own political views down the throats of the fans of this site. im opposed to the nra, and if i get so much as a warning for disagreeing with this article i know the escapist cares for the first amendment as much as the nra cares about reducing gun violance, none.
The Escapist covers all sorts of "geek-related" news, not just news pertaining to video-games. The editor isn't trying to "force his own political views" down anyone's throat. You want to cry first-amendment? Then the editor is also entitled to share his own opinions via the first amendment, or more specifically in this case, the site's guideline's for contributors which must allow them to include their political views in the material they submit to the site (because many of them do include said views, albeit subtly). On top of that, if contributors who hold to more left-wing views such as Yahzee and contributors who hold to more central views such as Bob Chipman (that's simply based on my observations of their submissions mind you) are allowed to contribute to the site, why not in all fairness shouldn't those with right-wing views be allowed to contribute? You're being hypocritical by slamming the editor of this article for his views yet attempting to hide behind the first amendment to avoid criticism yourself.
Well, I do agree with you on this. And as much as I don't like reading anything about those maniacs actually defending giving everyone and their mother a gun, I believe they are entitled to that opinion. What gave me the shudders in this article though, was the fact that it was so very one-sided. If I were present in that city hall that day, and the police were arresting someone who had entered the building with a concealed weapon, I would be glad they took it from him and pressed charges.

As for the author of the article here on escapist, its only stupid going around "bragging" about being a member of the NRA, or that this man is simply protecting his rights. He is not. He's actually just being a **** in my opinion. Listen to this:

He knows he can be in trouble for carrying it, but does it anyway. Then, when he gets arrested, he complains and confronts them, even though he knew they probably would do this. Afterwards, he claims its making him suffer some sort of emotionel distress (or some bullcrap like that). In my opinion, if I met the guy, I'd say something like: "Welcome to selfish-ville, population: you."
 

Ishpeck

New member
Sep 15, 2010
5
0
0
PlasticTree said:
I don't totally get it. Carrying a firearm is legal in the US, but carrying a firearm in City Hall can get you in jail for multiple years? Regardless of whether Rosenberg was allowed to, what is the reasoning behind all this? Why is carrying a firearm in a public place just as harmful as, say, robbing some banks or doing something else that actually involves aggression? Or am I missing something? Could someone please enlighten me?
Many states maintain lists of "restricted areas" where carrying firearms is prohibited. Among them are commonly schools, court houses, mental institution and detainment facilities such as jails and prisons.

The rationale (which I'm inclined to disagree with in some cases) is that there are some places where there is already proficient security staff (thereby obviating the need for self defense) and there are people who are, by their nature, more at risk (because someone may want to shoot a judge, city council member, or a mentally ill person just plain shouldn't have access to a gun).

In the particular case of city hall, I'd imagine Minnesota simply wants to prevent small-scale assassination attempts. In the case of my home state, City Hall may be a restricted area simply because in many cities, it also serves as a court house and we have had a situation where someone shot at the judge and prosecutor at his own trials -- and even killed a bailiff (long time ago, though... and that guy had a hard time convincing a jury he didn't do it after that).

It's also worth noting that while many states do issue permits to carry weapons, such laws are not uniform throughout the US. Some states do not issue permits to carry while others make it incredibly difficult to obtain one.