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

[reteach]

Here's a story from Texas:

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190405/advocates-actions-kill-bill-allowing-no-permit-gun-carry

In this case a gun rights advocate went to the homes of several Texas legislators while the legislators were away, in Austin, to confront ... somebody about the lack of action on a constitutional carry bill. The gun rights guy says he wasn't there to intimidate anyone, but he's an Austin insider and he had to know that the legislature was in session and there would only be wives and children at the homes. His actions are now used as justification for dropping the bill without any further discussion. Even the author of the bill decided to drop the matter for now.

As the House Speaker says in another article about the same incident, it's our right to confront our representatives about the law, but this guy did it all wrong.

 

[Pathfinder45]

Whether they realize it or not, people that pull stunts like this are actually enemies of the 2nd Amendment. The behavior exhibited in this case would cause any reasonably competent person to seriously doubt this person has a sound enough mind to be allowed to have a firearm at all. I don't care much that he is losing his guns because maybe he really shouldn't have any. But it should concern us all that people that do this are jeopardizing our rights and misrepresenting firearm ownership to the rest of the world.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Whether they realize it or not, people that pull stunts like this are actually enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

In general, I think they don't realize that they aren't helping. It's possible that a few such idiots are false flag operations, but I think most are well-intended people who simply cannot comprehend that their actions are hurting the cause rather than advancing 2A rights.

 

[44 AMP]

I think most are well-intended people who simply cannot comprehend that their actions are hurting the cause rather than advancing 2A rights.

I'd agree with this, in general. It's a matter of perception, and what OTHER people think. They know they aren't going to shoot or deliberately threaten anyone, but no one else does.

A lot of us "real gun guys" will see an (apparently) harmless person carrying a gun, and think..."what is that?, I need to get a better look"

Lots of other people see the exact same thing, and think the next mass shooting is just seconds away.

When someone does something within the law, and within their rights, but does it knowing it scares "the sheeple", it doesn't help the cause of responsible gun ownership.

So, while they aren't enemies is the usual sense, they certainly aren't helping. There are idiots on all sides of the issue, and in the middle, as well.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I occasionally wonder how we have arrived at the current situation. A hundred and fifty years ago (or so), open carry was the rule of the day and people who concealed a firearm on their person were considered to be low-life, scum of the earth, disreputable type individuals. This explains (I think) why in some states open carry has always been legal without a permit, but carrying concealed was either prohibited entirely, or regulated.

Fast forward to the late 20th century and the early part of the 21st century, and today a very large percentage of the populace becomes totally unhinged at the sight -- or even the thought -- of someone other than a uniformed police officer walking around with a handgun hanging on their belt.

What happened to have caused this complete reversal of public attitude and opinion? I don't know. I wish I understood it, because I think understanding how this happened is important in trying to undo it. If anyone has any insights, please feel free to share.

 

[44 AMP]

to list and comb through all the major and some minor social changes in the past century and a half would be well outside the scope of this thread.

However, here are a couple points where life then is quite different from life today... there was no insurance back then. No one replaced your property or your money if someone took it, and defending it was socially acceptable.

Another point is the change that suspects and criminals have rights, other than the right to a speedy trial and a fair hanging...

or was that a fair trial and a speedy hanging??

anyway, I think that the near certainty of the harshest punishment, IF you got caught, might have had something to do with a lot of people not taking up a life of crime.

Tons and tons of other things as well. All have had some kind of effect.

Our "2nd Amendment rights" was a recognition by the Founders that we have a natural right to arms, for our own personal defense, whether from evil men as individuals, or evil men banded together as a government. They wrote restrictions on the Government to ensure this.

That held up pretty well for a long time, but in the last century, not so well....

 

[JohnKSa]

IF you feel that this type of "activism" is constructive, here is how to do it:

1. Follow the rules of gun safety. If you make people fear for their lives, you have likely committed a crime in addition to being unsafe.

2. Do not be obnoxious. Your goal is to get GOOD press for the 2A, not to represent gun owners as unpleasant and obnoxious people.

3. Use common sense. Your goal is to be a good representative, not to get press coverage at any cost. For example, showing up at the recent scene of a mass shooting with a rifle and wearing camo is not good common sense. And no, I'm not making that up, it's actually been done.

4. IF the police arrive, follow their orders. Remember, you're representing gun owners as law abiding, well-informed and non-obnoxious. If they disarm you, comply. It will make a much bigger impression and a much more positive impression if the police do the wrong things and you are calm and compliant than if you are a jerk and try to get the police to tase you or wrestle you to the ground.

5. Remember the difference between a trial and a police interaction. A police officer can NOT give you a trial so arguing your case is a waste of everyone's time. STATE your case POLITELY and with BREVITY , but if the officer disagrees, then comply and have your day in court. Screaming endless repetitions of your mantra and resisting at the scene will make you look like an uninformed and obnoxious person. Being polite and calm and prevailing in court will make you look informed, law-abiding and in control.

6 Keep your goal in mind while you plan your actions and as you carry them out. POSITIVE publicity for, and education about the Second Amendment. Don't do or say things that make it more difficult or even impossible to achieve your goal. If you get everything right but screw up in one area, the screwup will get the press coverage and you will have done worse than just waste your time, you will have done the opposite of what you wanted to.

7. Did you notice the word 'plan' in #6? Yeah, you need to have a plan beyond--I'm going to walk around the park with my gun out and see what happens. Think about what might happen and how you want to react. If people approach you, what do you want to say? Maybe you want to have some material to give them that explains your goals. Real activism is work and doing it right requires planning.

8. For pity's sake, make sure you know the applicable laws. You can't educate people if you don't bother to educate yourself first. I'm not just talking about the 2nd amendment, I'm talking about laws having to do with responding to lawful commands from a peace officer, carrying firearms in public areas, brandishing firearms, demonstrating in public, etc.

A hundred and fifty years ago (or so), open carry was the rule of the day and people who concealed a firearm on their person were considered to be low-life, scum of the earth, disreputable type individuals.

I don't think it's ever been common for people to carry in cities, openly or otherwise, and it's been illegal in many places for well over a century. TX, for example, made carrying handguns (openly or concealed) in public illegal in the entire state in the 1870s and it wasn't uncommon for cities to have ordinances against carry long before that. But in any event, even if it were, pointing guns at people and disobeying lawful commands from a peace officer have always been problematic.

 

[unclejack37]

Based on what I read in the first post I believe that Richard Hubbard did nothing wrong except exercise his right to open carry. Some silly little busy body suggested he pointed a gun at her and then when questioned she said he hip pointed it at a different group. Based on the article the Police overreacted and so did a lot of people on this post. Try to remember, INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY. What they accomplished was that they took Hubbard's guns away. The way things are going, YOU, may be next to relinquish your guns.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Apparently, he travels around the state and goes to parks and other places for the express purpose of "conducting 2nd amendment audits" to verify how the 2nd amendment is being maintained.

https://youtu.be/oiPQbEny_Bc

So his goal is to have the police called on him. Hmmmm.

 

[44 AMP]

Based on what I read in the first post I believe that Richard Hubbard did nothing wrong except exercise his right to open carry...…. Based on the article the Police overreacted and so did a lot of people on this post. Try to remember, INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY.

I think you are missing a couple of key points, also mentioned in the first post.

Let's assume for a moment that the accusation of him pointing his weapon at other people was false. That he wasn't doing anything wrong, just exercising his rights. Fine. UNTIL he disobeys police commands.

You say the police overreacted. That's your opinion. Perhaps they did. But that matter will be decided in court. Try to remember that INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY only applies IN COURT.

While it is something police need to keep in mind, innocent until proven guilty does not prevent the police from doing what they deem necessary, nor, should it. We can debate whether or not exactly what the police did was reasonable, or excessive, but you cannot debate the fact that the police have both the authority and the duty to act.

No one the police arrest is ever "proven guilty" at the time. Not even those taken in the act, caught literally, red handed, are technically innocent until a court pronounces them guilty.

As mentioned before, when the police order you to do something, you have a legal responsibility to comply. If you don't, the police have the legal ability to force you to comply, and that includes up to deadly force.

So, one complies, even if one thinks the police commands are unreasonable, one obeys at the time. Afterwards, one can go to court and make your case the police acted incorrectly. AFTERWARDS. Not during the event.

Let's look at a possible situation...guy has slung rifle, in the city park, someone calls the cops, says he's threatening people...cops get there, he's not pointing the gun at anyone when the cops get there...they order him to put the weapon on the ground, he doesn't. He stands there with it, saying "it's not loaded.. I have a 2nd Amendment right...."etc.

At this point, the cops don't know anything but that a complaint was made, and this guy is refusing to comply with police authority. They also know that anything that comes out of his mouth COULD be a LIE...
oh, and that he has a gun...

He may have the right he claims, he certainly believes so. He may have the right, and be in the right, but he also may have the right, and be in the wrong. The police don't get to make that judgement. It's not their job.

You may be in the right, doing what you are doing, but disobeying police commands puts you in the wrong, until a court says otherwise.

 

[JERRYS.]

IF you feel that this type of "activism" is constructive, here is how to do it:

1. Follow the rules of gun safety. If you make people fear for their lives, you have likely committed a crime in addition to being unsafe.

2. Do not be obnoxious. Your goal is to get GOOD press for the 2A, not to represent gun owners as unpleasant and obnoxious people.

3. Use common sense. Your goal is to be a good representative, not to get press coverage at any cost. For example, showing up at the recent scene of a mass shooting with a rifle and wearing camo is not good common sense. And no, I'm not making that up, it's actually been done.

4. IF the police arrive, follow their orders. Remember, you're representing gun owners as law abiding, well-informed and non-obnoxious. If they disarm you, comply. It will make a much bigger impression and a much more positive impression if the police do the wrong things and you are calm and compliant than if you are a jerk and try to get the police to tase you or wrestle you to the ground.

5. Remember the difference between a trial and a police interaction. A police officer can NOT give you a trial so arguing your case is a waste of everyone's time. STATE your case POLITELY and with BREVITY , but if the officer disagrees, then comply and have your day in court. Screaming endless repetitions of your mantra and resisting at the scene will make you look like an uninformed and obnoxious person. Being polite and calm and prevailing in court will make you look informed, law-abiding and in control.

6 Keep your goal in mind while you plan your actions and as you carry them out. POSITIVE publicity for and education about the Second Amendment. Don't do or say things that make it more difficult or even impossible to achieve your goal. If you get everything right but screw up in one area, the screwup will get the press coverage and you will have done worse than just waste your time, you will have done the opposite of what you wanted to.

7. Did you notice the word 'plan' in #6? Yeah, you need to have a plan beyond--I'm going to walk around the park with my gun out and see what happens. Think about what might happen and how you want to react. If people approach you, what do you want to say? Maybe you want to have some material to give them that explains your goals. Real activism is work and doing it right requires planning.

8. For pity's sake, make sure you know the applicable laws. You can't educate people if you don't bother to educate yourself first. I'm not just talking about the 2nd amendment, I'm talking about laws having to do with responding to lawful commands from a peace officer, carrying firearms in public areas, brandishing firearms, demonstrating in public, etc. I don't think it's ever been common for people to carry in cities, openly or otherwise, and it's been illegal in many places for well over a century. TX, for example, made carrying handguns (openly or concealed) in public illegal in the entire state in the 1870s and it wasn't uncommon for cities to have ordinances against carry long before that. But in any event, even if it were, pointing guns at people and disobeying lawful commands from a peace officer have always been problematic.

you're asking an awful lot from an activist.

 

[unclejack37]

Once again Hubbard did nothing wrong. Walking in the park with a gun on your shoulder or hip is not against the law in that particular state. I'll say it again, because some silly little busy body said Hubbard pointed a gun at her, Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, questioned why police acted upon “hearsay of hearsay” from the reported witness that Hubbard pointed the weapon. That was in the news paper.


So, if you're walking down the street minding your own business and a Police officer exits his police car and starts screaming orders at you while pointing his weapon at you telling you to shut up, do what I say or I'm going to pepper ball you. Do mean mean for me to believe that you would not say 1 single word, like "officer I didn't do anything", or "what did I do officer"or say something to the officer. Any other human being would. The only thing the article says is that
Hubbard “never would comply with what the officers were telling him to do and ultimately was pepperballed and arrested,” Koch said. Maybe Hubbard said what did I do or why are you stopping me, and that was enough to get pepper balled. I don't know what was said or not said so the conclusion I'll jump to is that the Police overreacted just like Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said they did.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'll make it simple. If you are armed and the police give you an order, if you don't comply you are an idiot. Why you don't ask stupid questions while holding the gun and comply?

Why - because if you have any FOF training, you would know how quickly someone can bring a gun to bear.

The officer has a complaint of a threat. They are not omniscient to know if it is true. The threatening and armed person doesn't comply. Have you ever heard of suicide by cop? They do not have a crystal ball to see if the complaint is a busy body or the gun carrier is a nut.

I've done a FOF where the BG had a shotgun and was facing away. He was told to drop it. He didn't and turned around. Some folks kept yelling commands until he shot them. Some folks won't drop their gun, they say. They will say that they will slowly put it down. In class, we saw how quickly you can shoot from the position as you are 'putting it down'.

If this 'activist' was walking into the Aurora movie theater and folks were nervous and called the cops before the massacre, would they have been busy bodies.

Actions like this are most likely to lead to gun bans than not. You ain't Rosa Parks when you act like an idiot.

Campus carry almost went down the drain due to open carry exhibitionists in TX. Constitutional carry just went down the drain for the same reason.

 

[JohnKSa]

Walking in the park with a gun on your shoulder or hip is not against the law in that particular state.

That's not why the police were called nor is it why he was pepperballed and arrested.

...because some silly little busy body said Hubbard pointed a gun at her...

People make false allegations against others all the time. If that's what happened, and had Hubbard reacted properly to the presence of the officers instead of refusing to comply, things would have been resolved without the need for pepperballing, arrest and gun confiscation.

Of course we don't know that the allegation was false. But either way, the police did right to respond to the call and, upon arrival, it's common sense to expect that they would start by disarming the person who was alleged to be pointing guns at people in public.

I don't know what was said or not said so the conclusion I'll jump to...

I'd say that pretty much sums your position up.

What they accomplished was that they took Hubbard's guns away.

The focus should be on what Hubbard accomplished. What he accomplished was not what he wanted to accomplish unless bad publicity for the 2nd was his goal.

Once again Hubbard did nothing wrong.

He didn't achieve his apparent goal. That's not illegal, but it is "wrong" in the sense that he spent a lot of time and will have to spend a lot more and yet he actually appears to have achieved just the opposite of his apparent goal.

But yes, he did something wrong in the sense of illegality. Perhaps not initially (if we can ignore the reports that he pointed the gun at someone which was the reason police were called), but certainly failing to respond to police commands to the point that they had to use less-lethal means to accomplish his arrest was illegal. Remember, just because you think you are in the right--or even if you are, you still have to comply with lawful orders from a police officer.

You don't get to try to demand or conduct a trial on the scene. Investigation happens at the scene and if the officers determine that an arrest is warranted for some reason, they have the legal power to accomplish it. If that decision turns out to be incorrect, the arrestee has legal recourse. But even if it does, if the arrestee breaks the law trying to resist the arrest, they can be charged for that crime.

Do mean mean for me to believe that you would not say 1 single word, like "officer I didn't do anything", or "what did I do officer"or say something to the officer.

Nope. You can state your case, but you would be wise to do so AFTER immediately complying with the officer with the gun pointed at you.

Interaction with LEOs in the field is NOT a trial. When an officer instructs you to comply, comply. It is the SMART thing to do, for one thing, and it is also the legal thing to do. Once things have calmed down, then is the time to talk. Refusing to comply escalates the situation and that's not good for anyone.

you're asking an awful lot from an activist.

It's a lot to ask from an idiot without common sense and without forethought. But if someone really wants to be an activist it's not a recipe that requires tremendous mental ability. Anyone of average intelligence with normal interpersonal skills who is willing to do some planning and preparation should be able to pull it off. A big part of it is just following Wheaton's Law which is about as simple as things get.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Once again Hubbard did nothing wrong.

How do you kow this? Is there video of the entire incident, from when he entered the park until the time he was cuffed and stuffed?

At the moment, all I'm seeing is a "he said / she said" situation.

 

[JERRYS.]

It's a lot to ask from an idiot without common sense and without forethought. But if someone really wants to be an activist it's not a recipe that requires tremendous mental ability. Anyone of average intelligence with normal interpersonal skills who is willing to do some planning and preparation should be able to pull it off. A big part of it is just following Wheaton's Law which is about as simple as things get.

my statement was tongue in cheek. today's "activists" lack much of the common sense we'd like them to have. they instead set out with the intent of provoking a confrontation of some sort instead of just going about their daily routine.

 

[Pathfinder45]

Well, it seems to me that there is such a thing as legal vs illegal, which is often substituted for having a functioning conscience, and then there is right vs wrong, which is something else again. Just because something isn't illegal to do doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do. The fellow in question would have done far more to support the 2nd Amendment by spending the day shooting Skeet in some junior league where there might be opportunities for mentoring. Getting in the public's face and behaving less than praiseworthy with a gun is exactly what the anti-2nd amendment folks feed upon. It's bad for our cause that this happened; but it can also be turned to our benefit if we learn something from this and can stop paving the road to hell with, "good intentions".

 

[unclejack37]

Wow, Let's try this: Let's Say
I'm Hubbard legally walking in the park with a gun on my shoulder and a gun on my hip. Suddenly I hear a voice behind me say, "sir, you with the gun on your shoulder and on your hip drop the guns and get on the ground, NOW", "get on the ground now"
Usually there's a few expletives added so I know the officer means business. I stop walking put my hands up, I do not turn around or move in any way I respond by saying "why sir? I didn't do anything" THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE I'm not saying this happen to Hubbard

Now at this point nothing illegal was said or done. The Officer had to investigate a reported incident and he could have told that but he didn't and the article made no mention of it. The officer is required to tell me why he stopped me. I don't know how it went with Hubbard but I bet I'm closer than you think. Now as a law abiding citizen I have every right to question that officer as to why I'm being detained. I'm protected by the 4th amendment against illegal stops, searches and seizures. The officer is required to tell me why he stopped, if he doesn't it is an illegal stop and the officer should know that. I can also choose to not say anything. Maybe we'll find out what happen after the lawyers sit down and talk.
Ok, Now after I exercise my rights, I get pepper balled

Glen, Where in the article did it say Hubbard was holding a gun? He was legally carrying the guns. There are hundreds of videos of people legally open carrying guns and being stopped by Police officers because of complaints of a man with a gun and Some of the people open carrying were plain nasty to the Officer but no one got shot or peppered balled. I might be wrong but on each occasion when the officer was asked why they sopped them the officer told them. So I have to ask What was different this time. There's more to this story, than what was published in the article and I choose not to be naive and blame Hubbard for exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. I do believe Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association when he says in the article "the Broken Arrow Police Department has completely overreacted to a peaceful act.” And you should believe Mr Spencer also since I'm sure you're a 2nd amendment supporter, Right Mr Glenn?

JohnKSa, The article said he was walking in the park. Nobody, not me or anyone else said he was walking in the park and that's why he got pepper balled. Quit making stuff up. I don't know what happen in Hubbards case and neither do you but you sure sound like you know.

Kind of like how you took some of my words out of context. Why didn't you quote all of it? I don't know what was said or not said so the conclusion I'll jump to is that the Police overreacted just like Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said they did. I'd say that pretty much sums your position up. It does sum it up John, when you put the entire quote in print.

The focus should be on what Hubbard accomplished. What he accomplished was not what he wanted to accomplish unless bad publicity for the 2nd was his goal

Are you kidding me man. I read a lot of your post. You've always gave me the impression that you were smarter than that.
THE MAN'S 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS and maybe his 4th and 5th amendment rights WERE VIOLATED AND THEY ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED HIS GUNS. He's allowed to open carry his guns, but because some silly little snowflake had a little pissy fit and I'm sure Hubbard was no angel either now he's a felon and you know what JohnKSA; you, me, and Glenn are 1 step closer to having our guns confiscated. We all need to start exercising our 1st, 2nd, 4th, and the 5th amendment Right. If you want to quote something quote that.

The article said: Hubbard’s refusal to comply with officers and answer questions in their initial investigation led to the complaint of obstruction, Koch said. It’s unclear whether Hubbard entirely ignored officers or talked to them during the encounter, Koch said.

Ever hear of the 4th and 5th Amendments

1. If You're Stopped On the Street

The right to remain silent -- your most popular Fifth Amendment-based Miranda right against self-incrimination -- isn't required to be read or spoken to you until you are in police custody and are being questioned.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that police could make brief investigatory stops without probable cause and without violating the Fourth Amendment, assuming they have specific and articulable facts to justify the stop.

The little snowflake said Hubbard pointed the gun at her then she recanted that statement, not exactly specific and articulate facts.

When stopped by the police on the street, you can always refuse to answer any of their questions, and you may ask if you are being detained. If officers respond that you are not being detained, you may stop conversation altogether and walk away -- though running away in a "high risk neighborhood" can potentially give officers reasonable suspicion to detain you.


Broken Arrow police are defending the arrest of a Second Amendment activist in the face of accusations that officers overreacted and violated the man’s rights.

Another thing I saw on a video search was Hubbard was taking a video of the incident with his cell phone and the Police confiscated his cell phone. see it here
http://www.newson6.com/story/40288350/second-amendment-activist-arrested-in-broken-arrow-park

Richard Hubbard is not an idiot, He's a hero just like our founding fathers who stood up to those who tried to suppress them and tried to take their guns away. Anybody who is willing to defend our constitutional rights should be considered a hero. If we don't support them, then we need to ask ourselves "who is the real idiot, them or us"

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm Hubbard legally walking in the park with a gun on my shoulder and a gun on my hip. Suddenly I hear a voice behind me say, "sir, you with the gun on your shoulder and on your hip drop the guns and get on the ground, NOW", "get on the ground now"
Usually there's a few expletives added so I know the officer means business. I stop walking put my hands up, I do not turn around or move in any way I respond by saying "why sir? I didn't do anything" THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE I'm not saying this happen to Hubbard

What do you hope to accomplish by asking: "Why?"

If the officer has decided that it's time to disarm you, it's highly unlikely that anything you say will be of interest to him until you are disarmed. It may surprise you to know that even most of the guilty people they stop claim to be innocent. You're not going to make any headway with your interrogation. You should comply and then work things out after the officer feels that things are under control.

Now as a law abiding citizen I have every right to question that officer as to why I'm being detained.

Sure, you can question all you want, but it's best to do it WHILE you are complying with his commands.

Your right to question the LEO does NOT eliminate your legal obligation to comply with lawful commands from an LEO.

Remember, what happens when you encounter an LEO is NOT a trial.

Are you kidding me man.

Not at all. He claims to be a 2A activist and yet the only thing he's accomplished in this incident is negative publicity for the 2A.

I don't know what was said or not said so the conclusion I'll jump to is that the Police overreacted just like Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said they did.

You weren't there and don't know what happened so you're willing to jump to a conclusion based on what someone else who also wasn't there and doesn't know what happened says happened. Ok.

Maybe the police over-reacted. Even if they did, by failing to comply, he's now made them look justified and made himself look guilty. The point is that we already know enough about what he did AFTER the police arrived to make a basic evaluation of what he did wrong from that point on--and more to the point, if you look at public reaction, they are making the same evaluation and that is NOT good publicity for the 2A.

He's allowed to open carry his guns, but because some silly little snowflake had a little pissy fit and I'm sure Hubbard was no angel either now he's a felon and you know what JohnKSA; you, me, and Glenn are 1 step closer to having our guns confiscated.

1. Yes, he's allowed to open carry.

2. NO, absolutely not. IF he is a felon, it is absolutely NOT because someone had a fit. It's because he chose to resist arrest instead of complying with legal commands from an LEO.

3. To the extent that it's true that the 2A is weaker now than it was before Hubbard screwed up, it's not because of someone's fit, it's because his own very poor choices have given his stated cause negative publicity.

Ever hear of the 4th and 5th Amendments...

I've heard of all the amendments. None of them will keep you out of jail if you choose to resist arrest. Comply and then deal with it later--if you are in the right you may actually be able to recover a judgement against the LEOs who acted improperly. But if you choose to resist, even if you were actually right to begin with, you have probably committed a serious crime.

The little snowflake said Hubbard pointed the gun at her then she recanted that statement, not exactly specific and articulate facts.

Even if that's true, and the story changed later, the LEOs will first control the scene and THEN go about investigating. Resisting efforts to control the scene is likely a serious crime in addition to preventing/slowing the progress of the investigation that will bring the true facts to light.

There's more to this story, than what was published in the article and I choose not to be naive and blame Hubbard for exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

I don't blame him for exercising his 2A rights. Not at all!

I blame him for resisting arrest rather than complying with LEO instructions.

Anybody who is willing to defend our constitutional rights should be considered a hero. If we don't support them, then we need to ask ourselves "who is the real idiot, them or us"

That's ridiculous. If a person is hurting the cause, even if their motives are pure, they are still hurting the cause. I'm not going to defend people who do things that cast gun owners in a bad light merely because they WANT to do the right thing.

It's not that hard to get it right. Hubbard failed and he failed miserably--and that's even assuming that he didn't actually point his gun at someone.

 

[44 AMP]

THE MAN'S 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS and maybe his 4th and 5th amendment rights WERE VIOLATED AND THEY ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED HIS GUNS.

Possibly. This will be determined in court. Until the court rules, its just opinion.

I'm sure Hubbard was no angel either now he's a felon...

Has he been convicted already? Until he is convicted of a felony, he's not a felon.