Here's a local 2A activist who got arrested.

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FoghornLeghorn

New member
It's Broken Arrow, OK, and we've just passed Constitutional Carry and this guy follows the terms of the law to see how law enforcement reacts. He had an AR "style" rifle and a holstered handgun, and refused orders by police. They used pepperballs (?) to subdue him after someone complained that he had pointed the rifle at them. He was doing this at a popular park.

He's also got a youtube channel called "picture perfect" where he goes around doing "'audits' of various locations testing officials’ compliance with their understanding of their First and Second Amendment rights."

Interesting. I'd never heard of him, but it seems like he's asking for trouble with an AR at a public park.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_9d808f8e-e374-5015-ae4c-0cf8642ed5d4.html

I thought this was interesting: "Under the conditions of his release, Hubbard was mandated to relinquish all firearms and ammunition to law enforcement until the conclusion of the case."

I picture the guy with some pricey collectibles, the police coming in and throwing everything into a burlap bag, and throwing all of it into an evidence locker.
 
Last edited:
According to the story, he may or may not have pointed a pistol geared up to be a rifle. However, he may have manipulated it to muzzle someone.

This can become another rant fest of how stupid it is to open carry, how particularly stupid it is to carry a long arm vs. it is your God Given, Shall Not Be Infringed right.

Another path is whether you should disarm for the police if asked to and should they ask you. It may seem reasonable or unreasonable depending on your flexible, pragmatic world view or rigid ideology.

We have done this so many times before. I would like this to be civil.

Personally, marching around with a long arm is not something I support even if legal. In today's world the risk from such a person with evil intention makes it very impolite.
 
This started off as a complaint from a woman that he took the rifle off his shoulder, leveled it at his hip, and muzzled several people. I'd take great offense at that myself. It's irresponsible and dangerous. Full stop.

Hubbard has been doing this for a while, including jaunts to Tulsa fire stations and major libraries to "audit" their 2nd Amendment "purity." I really thought those shenanigans went out of style a few years back, but apparently I'm wrong.

This doesn't help us at all.
 
It might be legit if some takes a long arm and muzzles you from even a hip position to regard this as an assault that could be met with lethal force. If this guy did this in church, the movies, at the school yard, etc. - how you are as a reasonable person to discern his intent is an RKBA statement vs. a rampage to begin?

The police seem polite in the level of force they could have used.
 
He's like the nut job "Sovereign Citizens" the cops run into all the time. They seem to think they can do anything they want and don't have to operate within the bounds of common sense and living in a society with laws that govern personal responsibility. Yes, the government and other citizens can control some of your actions. I believe in 2A, but it still doens't allow you to point a gun at someone because you think you have a "right" to do it under the 2A. He's lucky he didn't get shot.
 
Based on what I read we shouldn't crucify him for reportedly muzzling, its possible there is no truth to it. We have seen anti gun people get really irrational before over something as simple as a pro 2a t-shirt.

But then muzzling anybody, if he did it, of course is completely irresponsible.. athough perfectly legal, carrying around a chain saw in the wrong public place proves nothing and certainly would be moronic and would result in calls to the police too..

I support open carry - in a holster, and maybe in some state of things id want to legally have a rifle slung on me in public, but doing it to freak people out is ignorant and hopefully others are discouraged from this path as its not helpful.
 
The police seem polite in the level of force they could have used.
Click to expand...

I have had some interaction with the BA police. They are an unusually professional, and polite, group. I say, unusual, because it's a still a small town.
 
But then muzzling anybody, if he did it, of course is completely irresponsible.. athough perfectly legal
Click to expand...
That's BS. It is not "perfectly legal" to point a loaded gun at someone in a public place. It's called menacing. Most places have laws on the books where getting a knife out in certain places can land you in jail. In today's climate you'd have to be a nut job to walk around in most public places carrying a loaded rifle. You'd look like every other whacko who's ready to go on a shooting spree. There's a definite line between being at a sportsmans club carrying around a rifle and being at a political rally and carrying one. If you're out to prove a point, that is not the way to go about it. If you want to make this a gun free society, things like proving how far you can go aren't doing gun owners any good at all. You're just putting more and more people into the anti-gun group. Pretty soon there's going to be a lot more of them than us. They vote, we vote. Guess who's going to win?
 
It’s pretty dumb what this guy did in My opinion.

But I see police muzzling people on the news all the time getting ARs out of their cars. I’ve seen them carrying long guns one handed parallel to the ground.

I’ve also called the police and had them visit over a menacing person. Only to have them tell me that looking or acting a certain way is not a crime.

Again I am totally against what this guy did. I also wish that police and criminals had less guns too. I don’t see an officer carrying around a loaded AR any differently than a law abiding citizen carrying around an AR.
Police are not military, they have no more right to a specific type of weapon than I do; however reality, and my personal opinions are two different things.
Carrying around an AR in public these days is dumb, and doesn’t help our cause. Open carry rallies where people are dressed like cheap mercenaries and carrying assault weapons doesn’t help either, whether right ore wrong.
 
In Florida, waving a firearm at another person is a crime. Carrying is okay; brandishing is not. Depending on the circumstances, it can rise to the level of assault.

When the pepper-ball gun comes out, it is definitely time to put the gun down and fall back on reason and conversation. I saw a video of some drunk in Vegas getting shot with rubber bullets or beanbags. Cops nailed him twice in a very sensitive area, and shortly thereafter, he began cooperating enthusiastically, to the best of his limited ability. Even if you are vindicated in the end, you may have to change your name to Caitlyn.
 
NoSecondBest said:
That's BS. It is not "perfectly legal" to point a loaded gun at someone in a public place. It's called menacing. Most places have laws on the books where getting a knife out in certain places can land you in jail. In today's climate you'd have to be a nut job to walk around in most public places carrying a loaded rifle. You'd look like every other whacko who's ready to go on a shooting spree. There's a definite line between being at a sportsmans club carrying around a rifle and being at a political rally and carrying one. If you're out to prove a point, that is not the way to go about it. If you want to make this a gun free society, things like proving how far you can go aren't doing gun owners any good at all. You're just putting more and more people into the anti-gun group. Pretty soon there's going to be a lot more of them than us. They vote, we vote. Guess who's going to win?
Click to expand...
Haha read the whole sentence. ..although perfectly legal was reffering to carrying a chainsaw around :)
 
This started off as a complaint from a woman that he took the rifle off his shoulder, leveled it at his hip, and muzzled several people. I'd take great offense at that myself. It's irresponsible and dangerous. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Some years ago, I was getting my family in the car in my driveway when a teenager next door emerged from the back door of his house, showing off for a couple of friends with a rifle at his hip, jumping around and swinging it back and forth. In the short time it took me to recognize what I was seeing, I had shouted a warning to my family and cleared leather. They thought it was funny until they saw the revolver in my hand. All remaining humor was gone later that day when I had a word with this dad. That situation is one that could produce a justified self-defense shooting under the laws of this jurisdiction, and probably in most. Stupid stupid stupid.
 
He's like the nut job "Sovereign Citizens" the cops run into all the time.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. He may not be full sovereign citizen but he leans that way heavily. Police can't convict based on hearsay, but they certainly can approach a man armed with an AR rifle at a crowded public park near a playground and disarm him to investigate after hearsay that he pointed the rifle at people. Play stupid games... now his "Audit" will cost him his 2A rights
 
While we have a right to carry, we don't have a right to threaten other people. Point a gun at anyone it IS a threat. If some police officer or CCW citizen shot and killed a man pointing a gun at them, someone else, perhaps their children in a public park, would they be morally wrong?

I wouldn't think so.

You don't get to disobey police instructions just because you have a right to something. You don't have a right to disobey police orders. No matter how wrong you think they are, You obey, then, later, you can go to court and seek restitution for any harm suffered. THAT's the system.

That moron is lucky no one shot him, as far as I can see..
 
At one time, police were carrying .38 specials and they were being outgunned by magnums, .45s, shotguns, Thompsons, rifles and BARs. Since then, police have been trying to arm themselves with better weapons in an effort to better the odds of their staying alive, yet even some pro-gun people, much less anti-gun people, think that this is wrong. Really??

Even with their best efforts, they are still being killed in the performance of their duties because they are giving their murderers every chance to shoot them. They know that they are going to be put under a microscope for drawing and/or firing their weapon as well as probably being sued by the family of the person that they shoot. It even seems that they have fewer rights than the criminal in the courts.

Case in point---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XALMg_089Ag

I really can't see why anyone would want to be in law enforcement these days. Unless they are riding a desk, they are in a no-win job IMHO. My hat is off to those who are though, and I thank them for their attempts to keep my life and those of my family as safe as they are allowed.
 
Last edited:
At one time, police were carrying .38 specials and they were being outgunned by magnums, .45s, shotguns, Thompsons, rifles and BARs.
Click to expand...

And in those terrible years the police had access to the same levels of weaponry. They often chose not to use them, were ordered not to use them, or simply didn't have them at the right place and the right time, because criminals nearly always have the initiative, and quite often the advantage of surprise.

I remember hearing many times over the years that statistically, the gun that kills the most police officers was their own. Don't know if its still true today, but there was a time when more officers were killed, disarmed and shot with their own gun, than were killed by all the other means, combined.
 
44 AMP said:
And in those terrible years the police had access to the same levels of weaponry. They often chose not to use them, were ordered not to use them, or simply didn't have them at the right place and the right time, because criminals nearly always have the initiative, and quite often the advantage of surprise.

I remember hearing many times over the years that statistically, the gun that kills the most police officers was their own. Don't know if its still true today, but there was a time when more officers were killed, disarmed and shot with their own gun, than were killed by all the other means, combined.
Click to expand...
with the level I holsters it was true. criminals would size up old, fat, small, skinny cops et cetera and resist arrest. weapon retention training was non existent and the suicide strap holsters didn't help either.
 
To begin with, the man was not pepperballed because he had reportedly muzzled people in the park. The police were properly investigating that Hubbard had leveled or pointed a firearm towards people in the park. We don't know just what commands Hubbard failed to comply with, but whether or not those commands were lawful was not for him but for a court to decide. Even should it turn out that the woman reporting the pointing incident was wrong, the investigation officers had a perfect right to issue commands for their safety while investigating. We don't know what the command was that was not followed, but if the investigators reasonably believed that the failure to obey their command indicated that Hubbard was about to assault or even resist arrest, the pepper balling may have been warranted. Pepperballing can be lethal depending on its application, but usually is considered "less lethal" force which should not be confused with "less than lethal" or "non-lethal" force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top