Mark Kessler has been suspended.

As I suggested might happen, the town of Gilberton, Pennsylvania suddenly realized that having an over the top crazy gun nut as chief of police use town weapons to make his own YouTube video threatening a large percentage of the citizens of the United States was not a good idea. When Kessler finally goes over the top and opens fire on a bunch of people he disagrees with, the town probably does not want to be involved as his employer or as the entity that owns the weapons (though as I understand it, Kessler bought the weapons with his own money and gave them to the police force, probably as a way of getting around the fact that his favorite toys are banned except for official use).

Unfortunately, the suspension is temporary ...

In a closed meeting, the council voted 5-1 to suspended Kessler for 30 days, “for use of borough property for non-borough purposes without prior borough permission.” In one of the videos, the tiny town’s sole police officer used automatic weapons, which he was only legally authorized to do in his official capacity.

After the vote, there was what PennLive’s John Luciew described as an “impromptu gun rights rally,” with supporters with “all manner of firearms strapped to their belts and hanging from their shoulders.”

... but I'm guessing this is only a first step.

The image above, from here, shows some of the other gun nuts from Gilberton who formed a heavily armed mob to protest the town's decision.

More like this

OK, watch this and answer a question for me. The question is, does our American love for free speech translate into ignoring this man's behavior, or does our (seemingly less important) American love for freedom for all require that a person who behaves this way NOT be the chief of police of any…
Given that Matt and I are both gun enthusiasts, scientists, and bloggers, and we're both interested in something being done to prevent mass shootings such as in Newtown, Aurora, and almost one dozen other locations in just the last few years, we decided to host a more formal debate on the issue. I'…
As ScienceBlogs' resident firearms enthusiast (I might own more guns than the rest of the SB writers combined - and I don't own very many), I've occasionally written about gun rights and related issues. One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of people aren't very familiar with what gun laws…
Matt Springer has written a post Against the gun control that won't work, and he correctly points out that previous gun control efforts have been little more than shameless demagoguery, including the totally-worthless assault weapons ban. People must understand that the previous major legislation…

Of course this just feeds into his psychosis, since now he gets to claim to be a victim of librul oppression.

By Albatross (not verified) on 01 Aug 2013 #permalink

Albatross, he was doing that already, because as we all know, criticism for being a violent douchebag is the same thing as oppression.

You write, "The image above, from here, shows some of the other gun nuts from Gilberton who formed a heavily armed mob to protest the town’s decision."
You call them "gun nuts" and a "heavily armed mob"? Really?
I think the truth goes a little more like this.. The image above shows some supporters exercising their second amendment wrights in support of Mark Kessler.

"Reality" ... Yes, really. We know they are gun nuts by virtue of the fact that they are rallying in support of the heat gun nut.

I'll start off by fixing my typo in the last post." *rights"...not "wrights". -My bad

A large crowd of people, esp. one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

Those two standing there, fingers off the trigger, do not appear disorderly at all. They actually seem quite civil.
You also said they were from Gilberton. Says who? People showed from multiple states. Most if not all of the supporters who were carrying rifles kept quiet the entire day, and wouldn't answer to media, so to say they are from the small town is pure speculation.
If anyone yesterday formed any kind of mob, it was the group of people calling for Kessler's termination.
Your view of the event is so misconstrued, I can only assume you weren't even there.

Wow, I had no idea. Only two people showed up to support him and they were indifferent. Who knew?

Also, this photograph was taken at an unknown location and time. I just randomly found it on the internet. Right?

You don't have to assume that I was there or not, you could just ask.

Meanwhile, I have to ask: What is your stake in this? You say your name is "Reality" and you come from the "Valley of Truth" ... but really we have no idea who you are, where you come from, or why anyone should listen to you. We can guess you are a gun nut, and we know you are a coward. Care to fill us in on any other details, "Reality?"

If I were the insurance company that insures this town, I would cancel that policy ASAP.

By daedalus2u (not verified) on 01 Aug 2013 #permalink

That is probably what the town council suddenly realized. They've got him suspended, now they can work with their lawyers.

Problem is, it would not be a big surprise to find out that a majority of the gun and bible clinging voters that are left in that town after the good people were driven away want him back as chief and will vote their current reps out of office. This town may end up being put into state receivership. Or federal.

I'm sure the gun nut mob will love that!

The greater percentage of those "gun nuts" if not all of them are not residents of Gilberton. They claim they were there to provide security but I seriously doubt the Mayor or any Council Members requested their presence. What they were there for was to intimidate the residents of this smalll hamlet which they were successful in doing. Quite ironic and hypocritical I might add since part of their "mission" is to protect our right to free speech and here they are supressing that same right of the actual Gilberton residents by instilling fear in them.

I heard yesterday (Saturday 03) that he town's insurance company was talking to them about their concerns. I'd bet that if they keep him on then their insurance premiums are going to skyrocket right out of sight.

@banditi - c'mon you should know by know that only 2nd amendment gun nuts have 1rst amendment rights :(

By Doug Alder (not verified) on 04 Aug 2013 #permalink

"Meanwhile, I have to ask: What is your stake in this? You say your name is “Reality” and you come from the “Valley of Truth” … but really we have no idea who you are, where you come from, or why anyone should listen to you. We can guess you are a gun nut, and we know you are a coward. Care to fill us in on any other details, “Reality?”"

What relevance does his 'stake' or identity have on his argument? Why does it matter? Planning to do an ad-hominem, Greg? Of course, you've already stooped to the level of lobbing personal attacks against someone because they pointed out a mistake you made in your post. Amusing how you masquerade yourself as promoting 'rationality' with responses like these.

It is a good thing that this Troglodyte was hooked & pulled off stage.

Because the Second Amendment has been so grievously abused, it will eventually have to be more strictly defined or repealed altogether. Without a prolonged grace period, that change would probably take an armed police action to enforce. It would be a horrible ordeal for all of us.

By David Benn Crawford (not verified) on 14 Oct 2013 #permalink

what does the second amendment have to do with what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the world?Absolutely nothing. Guns have been, and always will be a very efficient way of killing anything that is in their crosshairs. All the political posturing, and macho attitude are just that.The current right wing aunchloss in this country has nothing to recommend itself to solve the real problems coming down the road for our culture.The Reagan era was a 29 year vacation from finding realistic solutions to our problems.(none of them are real conservatives-they are fanatical radicals)

By richard benton (not verified) on 17 Jan 2014 #permalink

Forgive me --- In case you are reading this post for a comment on the Pennsylvania town, you can stop now, since I know nothing about this issue and cannot comment on it. My reason for posting: I invite you all to read about the debates in Congress over the Fourteenth Amendment. One issue at stake was concerning the rights of the Freedmen in many states, who were being deprived of their firearms---by State law---, and, lacking the means to defend themselves and their families, being intimidated and even murdered by armed gangs. The 14th Amendment, and judicial rulings since it's adoption, settled the issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights applied to the States. It does indeed apply, and the "privileges and immunities" accorded to citizens, by the Constitution, apply to all inhabitants of the United States. Furthermore, it was thoroughly established, both before and after the 14th Amendment, that the 2nd Amendment did not grant or bestow a privilege; rather, it affirmed the "natural right of all men" to keep and bear arms, and had as its basis the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, with which the Founders were very familiar. The various anti-gun statutes aimed at the former slaves were thus struck down and invalidated. Depriving Freedmen of the means to defend themselves was deemed unconstitutional. Any student of the Revolutionary era is aware that our Founders knew first-hand that despotic monarchs always disarmed the populace. The Second Amendment was preceded by similar statements, in most of the State constitutions, enacted prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It was not invented out of whole cloth. Also, it is well established that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right. Finally, the right to keep and bear arms (i.e., own them and carry them) was considered a natural right belonging to all free humans. The natural right, as described by John Locke, to “life, liberty, and property,” was protected by the right to have arms. If free humans are not accorded the right to self defense, using the best means available, i.e., the right to keep and bear arms, then any armed aggressor can deprive that free person of his or her property, liberty, or even life. At that time, it was so well understood as a natural right that many people wondered why it was even needed in the Bill of Rights. For a judicial review and commentary regarding the 2nd Amendment, read: It is a long and thorough scholarly law review that should satisfy anyone who will take the time to read it with an open mind. Why am I going into such a long, and I’m sure, to many, a dry discourse on ancient history? Well, the flippant comment in a previous post about abolishing the 2nd Amendment altogether made me realize that many people do not take the time to educate themselves on the background of the issues of the day, and so they make their judgments based on incorrect information or incorrect analysis of that information. As Barbara Drescher has noted, “The difference between ‘getting it’ and not, I think, is in how deeply one is willing to think about the issues as well as and how much one is willing to be educated. Most importantly, how willing they are to listen to the views of those with more knowledge and experience than they have themselves. It is not dissimilar to the problem of expertise and, unfortunately, I see this as a symptom of a cultural shift away from both respect for others and the willingness to work for knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more. Just about everyone has an opinion, on one side or the other, about the 2nd Amendment, but almost no one knows the broad and deep historicity of the 2nd Amendment, and why it has not only survived judicial review, but is all the stronger for it. I would pose a question to the readers who have made it this far, but first I want to point out that it has been well established that the police cannot be held liable for an individual citizen being a victim of a particular crime. So, ultimately, each citizen must make a decision about his or her own safety, and whether or not they want to be able to defend themselves. I do not demand that everyone must be armed; I only say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to be armed – if I so choose. To those of you who are repulsed by the notion of armed citizens, please set aside your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance for a while. Firstly, you are surrounded by armed citizens every day, and don’t even know it---because they are practicing due diligence. More importantly, here is the question that I pose to the reader: Would you deprive a woman, or an elderly person, or a disabled person, with the means to defend themselves from a violent criminal? I have often heard remarks along the lines of, “Well, just run away! Call a cop! Give them what they want!” Poor advice. Statistically, you are better off if you are armed. Most defensive gun use – by a wide margin – does not involve even firing the gun. The mere presence of the firearm usually deters the criminal. Defensive gun use, depending on the study, is from 500,000 to more than 2 million times per year. One final point: this wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t for the active, well-funded, and vocal lobbying, (some of it using extreme prevarication and scare tactics) by anti-gun individuals and organizations. Remember, we are not trying to get a new law passed, or get new Federal money, or anything. Gun owners just want to be left alone. The mountains of money spent on trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment would be better spent on improving mental health care and building more facilities.

By Double Helix (not verified) on 19 Apr 2014 #permalink