Setting Gun Owners Back...

Status
Not open for further replies.
round here (Texas) it is legal to walk down side of road with a rifle or shotgun. So if I got called on to investigate a person with a gun to find out what this person is doing. First when I pull up my safety to myself is Im asking to see firearm. First thing first is Im asking to see firearm, second thing is I will get firearm ! If you then say you were walking to range, going to friends house, whatever - fine. But then I will call the firearm in because all I know is he just climbed out someones window...
If everything checks out, No problem - no charge youre on your merry way. Dont disrepect atthority, all youre doing is fixing to escatelate things that dont need to be.
If a officer asks to get your weapons in OR out of a vehicle - YOU MUST. Dont do like these two jerks do and get ready ! Some people do play like they're a lawyer or that they do have a right and thet're going to show officer to prove a point. You do have a right AFTER I get weapon, find out whats going on, make sure its yours and not stolen and then you are on your happy way.
You are displaying in a safe manner, Im safe when we are talking and its over.
I admit the officer in clip is nice as he should be. But first thing when rolling up on someone you dont know if hes legit, just killed his wife, or 35 kids at a school - At time of arrival you dont know so secure weapon and then hash things out. Sometimes if you watch videos of officers people say are nice sometimes end up dead or hurt. Plan on going home after every shift.
 
Nobody's being educated, and all it's doing is driving traffic to the author's YouTube page. Heck, the guy's not even carrying the rifle correctly.
Click to expand...
Actually criminals are being educated . The three of them could all be criminals and walked away, If I were a criminal I could have learned something from it...;)

This is where I struggle with open carry...
Click to expand...
Me too and I open carry, just not a rifle and in the way they did.

To me there is a big difference in open carrying a pistol and a rifle on the psyche. The advantages to the rifle itself are apparent at just a glimpse. Had they all kept their pistols on their sides and carried on normally, people would have been less alarmed by it. Yet if they had done so they might not have gotten a response from Police which was their goal from the beginning.

Let me just say hats off to LE Jim on this one. Professionals like him really do shine positive light on what the job is all about. Way to represent Jim!;)
 
It just seems like poor manners to open carry anywhere but your own property or where you're reasonably certain you won't be perceived as the threat - in the woods, etc...

To use the previous term, where you're not carrying AT people...
 
A two-word phrase explains the giant, glaring blind spot that bonehads like these overlook, and explains why they do us far, far more harm than good.

That phrase is: People vote.

Maybe they weren't going to care enough to vote in an upcoming local election. Maybe they wouldn't have been concerned about firearms enough to vote in favor of increasing gun regulations. They might now, though.

The average person is not a hardcore gun enthusiast. The average person who sees morons strolling along with rifles trying to provoke arguments with police probably does not like that behavior. They might dislike it enough to take political action to pass more gun laws in their region.

People like these aren't just annoying, they contribute to shifting the political scales against us.
 
You are always going to have people test the bounds of the law. I wouldn't get too worked up about this. The Cop in the video may or may not know this, but the way he handled the situation basically ensured that these three guys, and probably a lot of others, would have little interest in walking around carrying a sidearm and a an AR15 taking videos. They had their 60 seconds of excitement when the officer showed up and started to question them - that's what they wanted. The rest was uneventful and basically pretty "boring" for lack of a better word. Ok, now it's been done, posted on the internet for everyone to watch.

Also, the cops now have a good training video on how to handle these situations. Although, I think perhaps he should have had his own camera running and called for backup. Three armed, one with an AR against one cop with a sidearm - I wouldn't like those odd if things turned ugly.
 
Skans said:
Although, I think perhaps he should have had his own camera running and called for backup. Three armed, one with an AR against one cop with a sidearm - I wouldn't like those odd if things turned ugly.
Click to expand...
There was back-up there & I'm sure they were video recording. At the 7:20 mark you can clearly see the other police car over the officier's left sholder.
 
Wonder if you’re going to see this video used as advertising for the Brady bunch to promote stronger gun control.
Morons
 
Also, thinking about this a little more, what would they do if the police, unbeknownst to the people filming, had gotten a call about a store in the area being robbed?

Description: A guy with a rifle. (As most LE and lawyer types know, in crisis situations everyone is not always able to tell the height, weight, color, what he was wearing, etc...)
 
Wasn't there a law when a peace officer asked for your ID you must produce it? If no ID or refuse to produce it you get taken in for vagrancy?

I think these doorknobs should be taken in for stupidity.

It is their right. :rolleyes:
 
That cop was outstanding. In today's world those fools are lucky they weren't staring down the business end of about 20 AR's.
 
Not sure exactly what the law says where this video was taken but in TN the CCW laws state that if an officer asks you must show your permit and, again if he asks, you must momentarily surrender your weapon. I would assume the same applies to long guns.

These two guys were really only out to seek a conflict, more of a "Yeah! Lets stick it to the man!" gesture than anything else. Certainly not gaining any ground for the 2A cause. Kudos to the officer though, I only hope I could have that much patience and restraint when dealing with a situation like this.
 
I have no idea about Oregon law. In Virginia, open carry is constitutional carry. Concealed carry is a privilege in Virginia.

In my state, the police response is supposed to be dictated by the behavior of the person carrying the weapon. Police officers have overstepped their authority in the past with regard to this issue, but by now all agencies are informed about open carry by Virginia citizens. There have been violations of these rules and associated corrections issued by the state attorney general and the courts.

Safely openly carrying a gun does not require a response from the police and gives them no justifiable reason to stop the person. They have no authority to stop a person open carrying for the purposes of lecturing them. Any stop is voluntary so long as the person has not committed a crime. The police have no authority to take, check, handle the gun or demand ID. This is exactly how it should be because expression of a constitutional right is not a crime. This is how it is in Virginia; Oregon likely has significant differences in its laws.

Open carry does not set gun owners back because it is a lawful expression of a constitutional right. If you believe it sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege. Your belief, despite any protests you say you have, is that the state and/or government can revoke the privilege and that you do not want to upset them. I hope this makes you reconsider your thought process on the issue of bearing arms as a right that cannot be revoked without constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a similar incident somewhere in Texas a while back? A man and his son? I beleive they got taken in. What was the outcome of that?
 
Wasn't there a similar incident somewhere in Texas a while back? A man and his son? I beleive they got taken in. What was the outcome of that?
Click to expand...

I believe the courts sided with the defendant.
 
A fine but no jail time. He's appealing which means that his guns are still in custody pending the end of legal proceedings.
 
Hopefully, he'll get his gun back. Here in Northern Virginia, that gun would be long gone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am completely confident that he will get them back. I am also completely confident that he will NOT get them back until the matter is completely resolved, one way or the other.

As far as the video (and this kind of thing in general) is concerned, I have a very simple assessment.

Any plan that involves intentionally attracting police attention and then arguing with the responders isn't well thought out, to say the least.
If you believe open carry sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege that may be revoked without a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Open carry CAN set gun owners back. We know this because we've seen it happen in the recent past. We've seen additional legal restrictions levied on residents of CA as the direct result of open carry demonstrations. We've seen private companies (Starbucks and Peet's) impose restrictions on firearms carry on their premises as the direct result of open carry demonstrations.

VERY simple and undeniable cause and effect. Denying that open carry can set gun owners back is denying reality.

In like manner, those who don't believe that the bearing of arms can be restricted without constitutional amendment are also denying reality. In the real world, there are all kinds of "extra-constitutional" retrictions on the bearing of arms.

The quoted comment, restated very succinctly is:

"If you believe in reality then you are agreeing with the position that reality exists."

If this were a perfect world, I could leave it at that. Since it's not, I'm going to have to clarify the HECK out of my position or I'm instantly going to be accused of being anti-second amendment.

So here's the clarification.

1. I am not against open carry.

2. I AM against gun owners doing stupid things in public. Clearly not all instances of open carry fit the definition of "gun owners doing stupid things in public" but just as clearly some instances of open carry do fit that description.

3. The fact that I am against gun owners doing stupid things in public does NOT mean I'm in favor of creating new laws against gun owners doing stupid things. I don't think we need new lfirearm aws--there are enough firearm laws already.

It DOES mean that I REALLY wish gun owners wouldn't be stupid and it also means that I REALLY hope that when gun owners do stupid things, that the public can overlook those stupid things instead of using them as a rationale for increased limitations on the right to bear arms.

4. I do NOT believe that open carry MUST set gun owners back, nor that ALL open carry sets gun owners back. But some of it can, and some of it has--there's simply no denying it.
 
JohnKSa - excellent assessment.

These guys wanted a confrontation. They were open carrying to intentionally provoke a confrontation not to practice their right to OC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top