open carry black powder pistol detention legal or not ?
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
- Status
comn-cents
New member
Tom Servo "Perhaps if you'd painted it orange, like you did the AK-47, you wouldn't have had this problem. Sorry you didn't make the evening news this time. By all means, keep trying"
He may make the evening news "MAN SHOT DEAD" carrying an orange AK47 & a black powder revolver "legally" in public...
He may make the evening news "MAN SHOT DEAD" carrying an orange AK47 & a black powder revolver "legally" in public...
kwikrnu, of course legally you are right... but the problem
is .... is it worth the couple of hours it is going to cost you in court to prove your point... and keep in mind the cops and judge are all going to be getting paid while you argue this point... are you?
Do you think if you win and the cops are proved that they were wrong in detaining and searching you that they will be punished for this?
is .... is it worth the couple of hours it is going to cost you in court to prove your point... and keep in mind the cops and judge are all going to be getting paid while you argue this point... are you?
Do you think if you win and the cops are proved that they were wrong in detaining and searching you that they will be punished for this?
m.p.driver
New member
Its fine to push the envelope and demand your rights,but dont be pis*ed
off when it goes bad.Walking through town with a weapon in your
hand?My reaction as an M.P. would have been to draw down on you with my M16 ,
praying that you do something stupid.After i had you on your belly spread
eagled,and made sure you didnt have any more weapons on you,i would
probably accidentally kick you in the bal*s during my search.Thats how
we used to display our displeasure at a troops unwise actions.
Hiking in the desert,out in the woods ,or camping, go ahead and strap it
on your side,strutting proudly down mainstreet with a 1858 in each
hand,just dont be surprised Mr.Josie Wales.This day and age LEO better safe than sorry.
off when it goes bad.Walking through town with a weapon in your
hand?My reaction as an M.P. would have been to draw down on you with my M16 ,
praying that you do something stupid.After i had you on your belly spread
eagled,and made sure you didnt have any more weapons on you,i would
probably accidentally kick you in the bal*s during my search.Thats how
we used to display our displeasure at a troops unwise actions.
Hiking in the desert,out in the woods ,or camping, go ahead and strap it
on your side,strutting proudly down mainstreet with a 1858 in each
hand,just dont be surprised Mr.Josie Wales.This day and age LEO better safe than sorry.
m.p. driver said:
"praying that you do something stupid" So, you can kill me?
"i would probably accidentally kick you in the bal*s during my search" More violent unprovoked behavior?
Carrying an old army or navy black powder pistol open in the hand is the only legal way to carry. You would trample my rights because I choose to obey the law?
Uncle Buck
New member
Gutting a deer on main street is legal. But it does not help to further the cause of hunting.
There are somethings people just do not want to see. Pushing the limits, just because it is legal, does not always mean it is smart.
I bet one of two things happen:
1) They either try to ignore you, in which case you will be forced to push the limits again.
or
2) They pass a law prohibiting the open carry of any type of firearm.
Either Way, you will continue to paint all gun carriers as nut cases (because that is how the media will portray you). I just do not see how this will benefit anybody, other than the criminals who will feel safer going to work knowing that people will not be allowed to carry guns.
All it will take is one person to call the police because they feel threatened (reguardless of your actions) and you lose the argument and we, the gun owners, lose more ground.
There has to be a more productive way to change the gun laws in your state. How about an open carry picnic. Kinda hard for the media to paint everyone as a nut case, unless the spokes person is in fact a nutcase.
There are somethings people just do not want to see. Pushing the limits, just because it is legal, does not always mean it is smart.
I bet one of two things happen:
1) They either try to ignore you, in which case you will be forced to push the limits again.
or
2) They pass a law prohibiting the open carry of any type of firearm.
Either Way, you will continue to paint all gun carriers as nut cases (because that is how the media will portray you). I just do not see how this will benefit anybody, other than the criminals who will feel safer going to work knowing that people will not be allowed to carry guns.
All it will take is one person to call the police because they feel threatened (reguardless of your actions) and you lose the argument and we, the gun owners, lose more ground.
There has to be a more productive way to change the gun laws in your state. How about an open carry picnic. Kinda hard for the media to paint everyone as a nut case, unless the spokes person is in fact a nutcase.
Signs worded significantly similar to TCA 39-17-1359 and some posted before July 1, 2000 are legally binding. Cities and municipalities can ban guns by ordinance and not not post too.
I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.
I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.
Colorado has open carry protected by the state. I am not sure how they did it but Denver managed to receive an exception and prohibit open carry. My understanding is that they way the state law is written it should not have been possible. It seams like you might gust be laying the groundwork for the same kind of thing. Especially when you are doing it in what seams to be a politically powerful place.
I am all for people asserting there rights, but something about the way you are talking about this just seams a bit off.
I am all for people asserting there rights, but something about the way you are talking about this just seams a bit off.
Uncle Buck
New member
If you read the links provided by other members and then follow the links within those post, you will see the OP is like a kid looking for approval.
There is nothing responsible in what he is doing. He goes out looking for confrontation and thinks he is doing gun owners a favor by pushing the issue.
He does not see the possible ramifications of what he is doing. There are other and much better ways to get laws changed.
Remember, perception is in the eyes of the beholder and when he pulls a stunt like this, the beholder is usually the public who does not know the laws. They see some nut case walking around with a pistol, or an AK pistol with an orange tip (OK, he did take the orange tip off the pistol, but it was after the fact).
The majority of people here on TFL are responsible gun owners. But like many of them have posted before, it only takes one nut case to ruin it for everyone.
Now I expect the OP to whine about how I have hi-jacked his thread (like he does in the other threads when-ever someone wants to go deeper into the possible effects of his actions) and will refuse to address any other questions asked about his activities. His replies leave me thinking he does not give a darn about what others think and he just wants us to pat him on the back and say good job.
If you received a phone call from your significant other, or a child, and they said "Mom/Dad, there is a guy carrying a pistol, wearing a reflective vest, walking up and down the street!" What would your reaction be?
It is not hunting season, if you saw a guy walking in a state park carrying an AK, wearing a camouflage jacket, what would you think?
There is nothing responsible in what he is doing. He goes out looking for confrontation and thinks he is doing gun owners a favor by pushing the issue.
He does not see the possible ramifications of what he is doing. There are other and much better ways to get laws changed.
Remember, perception is in the eyes of the beholder and when he pulls a stunt like this, the beholder is usually the public who does not know the laws. They see some nut case walking around with a pistol, or an AK pistol with an orange tip (OK, he did take the orange tip off the pistol, but it was after the fact).
The majority of people here on TFL are responsible gun owners. But like many of them have posted before, it only takes one nut case to ruin it for everyone.
Now I expect the OP to whine about how I have hi-jacked his thread (like he does in the other threads when-ever someone wants to go deeper into the possible effects of his actions) and will refuse to address any other questions asked about his activities. His replies leave me thinking he does not give a darn about what others think and he just wants us to pat him on the back and say good job.
If you received a phone call from your significant other, or a child, and they said "Mom/Dad, there is a guy carrying a pistol, wearing a reflective vest, walking up and down the street!" What would your reaction be?
It is not hunting season, if you saw a guy walking in a state park carrying an AK, wearing a camouflage jacket, what would you think?
I shouldn't have to explain obeying the law. The effects of legally carrying a firearm are something I have no control over. The perception of others is not my concern. Since I am not a "nut case" you don't need to worry about me ruining it for everyone. When I carry I have a purpose. I do not loiter about or pace up and down the street in fr ont of someone's house.
NEWS FLASH ----- ORANGE PAINTED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES ----- ORANGE TIPPED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES -----
NEWS FLASH ----- ORANGE PAINTED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES ----- ORANGE TIPPED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES -----
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
And therein lies the problem. The perception of others is all of our concern in the gun rights community.
But kwikrnu's actions have brought one thing to our attention. Passing a ridiculous law like this one was one city's way of getting around court decisions striking gun laws on 2nd Amendment grounds. What if the city of Chicago post McDonald passes such a law? :barf:
Food for thought....
The Belle Meade law has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not apply to the States now and it has never applied. In 1871 when the State came out with their "army navy law" cities copied the law. The State changed theirs in the 1980's, but many cities have not. These laws were held to be constitutional in the 1870's by many court cases. Hell, Tennessee banned the sale of all pistols which were not army navy in the late 1800's. The Tennessee State constitution allows the legislature to regulate arms. The legislature has granted authority to cities to regulate arms if their laws were made before April 8, 1986.
Gary L. Griffiths said:
However, Gary L. Griffiths, just exactly whose perceptions do we concern ourselves with enough to change our behaviors?
Some of the anti-gun crowd has a perception that firearms, by themselves, absent everything else, are dangerous and will magically shoot people. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?
Some of the anti-gun crowd has a perception that anyone with a firearm within reach is dangerous and crazy. Regardless of who that person is, except for police. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?
Some of the anti-gun has a perception than anyone other than a select, elite few who can pay for outrageous lengths of background checks and training courses are not worthy to possess a gun. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?
Some people have a perception that it is magazine capacity, or semi-auto capability, or black plastic attachments that make a gun evil. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?
At what point do we have any right to judge a LAWFUL behavior as being "bad for our cause", "over the top," or "grandstanding?" When we make judgments like that of others, are we not guilty of the same actions that we accuse those "more anti" than us of?
There are many situations where one can be within the law, but still be irresponsible, socially, and even sometimes morally wrong.
Behaving within the written letter of the law, but well outside societal norms is allowed, but don't whine when you get hassled for it.
Perhaps the police went beyond their legal authority when they searched the inside of the OP's pockets, but that is for a court to decide. It seems reasonable to me, given the situation, simply because anything in the pocket could be a weapon, until the police know otherwise, they do not have control of the situation, and public safety is not assured.
Police do have a degree of latitude beyond what is codified in law, to deal with situations in (hopefully) the best fashion possible. They are allowed to do things they deem needful and prudent at the time, and if later judical review determines that their actions were excessive, the system awards compensation, if it is deemed warrented. No, that doesn't help your sense of personal dignity at the percieved affront to your rights, at the time, but it does give officers better guidelines for similar situations in the future.
No system is perfect, as long as there are humans involved, but ours is self correcting. The degree of correction, and the rapidity with which it happens varies tremendously, because humans are involved, but it does, eventually happen.
Want to be a test case? GO ahead! Just don't whine about it when not everyone passes the test with flying colors every time.
Behaving within the written letter of the law, but well outside societal norms is allowed, but don't whine when you get hassled for it.
Perhaps the police went beyond their legal authority when they searched the inside of the OP's pockets, but that is for a court to decide. It seems reasonable to me, given the situation, simply because anything in the pocket could be a weapon, until the police know otherwise, they do not have control of the situation, and public safety is not assured.
Police do have a degree of latitude beyond what is codified in law, to deal with situations in (hopefully) the best fashion possible. They are allowed to do things they deem needful and prudent at the time, and if later judical review determines that their actions were excessive, the system awards compensation, if it is deemed warrented. No, that doesn't help your sense of personal dignity at the percieved affront to your rights, at the time, but it does give officers better guidelines for similar situations in the future.
No system is perfect, as long as there are humans involved, but ours is self correcting. The degree of correction, and the rapidity with which it happens varies tremendously, because humans are involved, but it does, eventually happen.
Want to be a test case? GO ahead! Just don't whine about it when not everyone passes the test with flying colors every time.
I think kwikrnu is a double agent pretending to be a pro-gun activist while actually working for the anti-gunners by creating ill-will and bad press for responsible gun owners.He has done this sort of stunt repeatedly despite warnings that he is hurting the cause. Perhaps this is his intent.
The alternative is that kwikrnu is a narcissistic, insecure guy who has never had a date and still lives with his mother. Much like someone dressing up as a super-hero and playing pretend crime-fighter, kwikrnu feels compelled to draw attention to himself by donning his super-hero weapon of choice and strut in public.
Hark! I hear the tumblers of the locks beginning to turn on this thread.
The alternative is that kwikrnu is a narcissistic, insecure guy who has never had a date and still lives with his mother. Much like someone dressing up as a super-hero and playing pretend crime-fighter, kwikrnu feels compelled to draw attention to himself by donning his super-hero weapon of choice and strut in public.
Hark! I hear the tumblers of the locks beginning to turn on this thread.
- Status