Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops.


PDA






FourteenMiles
February 27, 2011, 11:14 PM
Here is an interesting video. Apparently this guy was denied a CCL, so he decided to open carry an AK in protest.

Here is 9 minutes into the clip when the cops arrive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUd_00Xrf_U&t=9m

*Some inappropriate language may be heard in parts of this clip.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spec ops Grunt
February 27, 2011, 11:21 PM
Seen this before, guy seems to be making an <deleted> out of himself for no reason.

cassandrasdaddy
February 27, 2011, 11:24 PM
yup

General Geoff
February 27, 2011, 11:27 PM
I have to applaud the man's courage for open carrying an AK on a main street in a city. And while he could have been a bit less curt with the officers, overall I think that encounter went alright. It would have been better if the officer just parked nearby, observed for any threatening or illegal behavior, and then waved and left. The bottom line is that the officers didn't have to engage the man in a difficult conversation, so I don't blame the man for being a bit irate.


I'm honestly amazed he's only been stopped twice out of "hundreds of times" he's done this, if that's true. Testament to the professionalism of the local police department.

Unknown777
February 28, 2011, 12:01 AM
Here is an interesting video. Apparently this guy was denied a CCL, so he decided to open carry an AK in protest.

Here is 9 minutes into the clip when the cops arrive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUd_00Xrf_U&t=9m

*Some inappropriate language may be heard in parts of this clip.
Perhaps a group of people could get together and do this.

FC
February 28, 2011, 12:03 AM
Pretty funny stuff there, he really flustered the first cop when he didn't consent to handing over ID for walking down the street.

cassandrasdaddy
February 28, 2011, 12:09 AM
why was our, well your , hero denied?

McKnife
February 28, 2011, 12:15 AM
Is this Kwikrnu?

That guy is awesome (and the guy in the video) and I support them 100%.

The only thing people might find weird is that it looks like he's talking to himself. hahaha Imagine the looks on their faces!

XxWINxX94
February 28, 2011, 12:19 AM
He has a strong message and I'm glad he stuck up for his rights. However, I would have given the cop my ID and then continued to argue about my rights, instead of giving the cop a "hard time."

Better yet, I would have a copy of the state statue/law reguarding open carry and presented it to the officer at the time of the encounter.

oerllikon
February 28, 2011, 12:20 AM
I personally thought the video was pretty funny. They really didnt have a reason to stop him.

Why did his CCL get denied?

Apex29
February 28, 2011, 12:21 AM
Yeah, it's really going to help his CCW application.

FC
February 28, 2011, 12:22 AM
why was our, well your , hero denied?

No idea but it can't be much of a reason if he is still allowed to own firearms.

InkEd
February 28, 2011, 12:35 AM
Congrats for him knowing AND using his rights as a citizen.

FourteenMiles
February 28, 2011, 12:53 AM
why was our, well your , hero denied?

Huh? Who called him a hero?

Anyways... I don't know, but not all places in the US are shall issue. In my state some CLEOs just won't issue CCLs to a mere citizen

JEB
February 28, 2011, 01:44 AM
anybody have any idea what state this guy is in?

as far as him open carrying the ak, i say good for him for having the guts to do it and the knowledge of his rights to back it up. he made one Very good point while talking to the LEOs, "yeah it makes people nervous, but the only way they will ever be not nervous is for them to see it and get used to it" (or something to that effect). very true! while concealed carry has a tactical advantage, if open carry were to become common place, it would carry the advantage of framiliarizing the public with the legality of civilians carrying weapons to defend themselves.

xcgates
February 28, 2011, 01:48 AM
Cool!

If I'm not doing something illegal, and I am not somewhere that requires me to hand over ID to cops, I'm not showing my ID card. Worth noting that some places only require you to verbally ID yourself. (Does not apply in a traffic stop.)

It is a general principle sort of thing. If a cop shows up asking to see inside my house, I'll ask to see a warrant. If he wants to talk, I'll step outside, and close the door. Polite, but don't hand everything to a cop on a silver platter.

sv51macross
February 28, 2011, 01:51 AM
People like this are exactly what we don't need. We're trying to normalize the idea of carry and get people used to the idea of citizens carrying handguns. Then this guy, as did Kwikniru go and walk around with a AK-47 on his back. That doesn't do anything productive, it just scares people. Here in Michigan, a guy brought a AR-15 to a MOC meeting at a Lansing steakhouse. Someone called the cops and you have some five squad cars and a few hours delay. Some chucklesucker carries a shotgun on his back through a Lansing library, and the city gets a damn restraining order out against MOC and it's affiliates.

I agree that the OC of long guns should be a legally defensible option. However, this is not damn Switzerland, and the fight is still far too young for the OC of long-guns to be anything other than damaging to the cause.

xcgates
February 28, 2011, 01:53 AM
I am an American, what do I have on me?

Wallet
Cell phone
handgun
pocket knife
notepad
pen
rifle
sunglasses
hat
etc...

I do, however, see this heading the same way many discussions on open-carry go.

Justin
February 28, 2011, 01:56 AM
Yeah verily, how tremendously uncouth and culturally tone-deaf of him. Clearly he doth act the fool in public, and to an audience composed of no less than ye local constabulary.

Dimis
February 28, 2011, 02:31 AM
He does seem to know his rights and what the laws are but if that were here in my home state of delaware (where open carry is also legal) his attitude would have been more than enough to have him take a trip in

If he would just let his brains be his guide and not his smart mouth I think he would get alot further with his goal but thats just my 2 cents YMMV

ZeBool
February 28, 2011, 02:46 AM
The guy is obviously doing it because he was denied a ccw. If he does in fact live in a state where he must obtain LEO consent for a permit, the attitude he demonstrated in the video will do nothing to aid his cause. I think the cops were very professional and handled the situation well enough considering that the attitude ratio was 95 percent him to 5 percent from them.

FC
February 28, 2011, 02:57 AM
I keep seeing people talking about the the guy carrying the Ak's attitude and I can't figure it out. He is legal to carry as he was and the LEO that stopped him was in the wrong, stopping and requesting ID just for carrying a gun is a no-no. The guy simply asked for the reason for the stop and declined to hand off ID at that point, the LEO responded by beginning a lecture.

Is there some reason that I don't know of that I would be required to listen to someone whine about something they didn't like? Sounds to me if they wanted to save themselves some trouble the local LE would go out of their way to get his concealed license sorted out.

AZ Five seveN
February 28, 2011, 03:09 AM
My take on this:

1) He is well within his rights to open carry his AK.
2) In terms of common sense that is, well, a plain stupid idea.

Why?

1) AKs are known by most Americans as a "terrorist" weapon thanks to video games, movies and the media.
2) There is no sensical reason to walk around town openly carrying an assault rifle.
3) It scares the hell out of a lot of people, and I'd be very suspicious of anyone walking around with an AK.

InkEd
February 28, 2011, 03:11 AM
First cop tried and failed at bullying him. Second cop handled the situation well. Citizen knew and took advantage of the law. I hope they grant him his cww.

InkEd
February 28, 2011, 03:14 AM
However, I do agree he would better prove his point by wearing a pistol rather than a rifle. I wonder if his wife gets teased when he visits her at work?

BushyGuy
February 28, 2011, 03:21 AM
Why cant he open carry an AK47? I open carry my AK47 when i walk up to the bushes for target practice. I live maybe 200 yards from the woods, i OC all my guns.

nwilliams
February 28, 2011, 03:47 AM
Guy open carries an AK
I'm not impressed.:rolleyes:

Sounds like someone who is just desperate for attention and trying to cause a scene. I'm all about the right to carry but there's practical carrying for personal protection and then there's impractical carrying just be an ass, this is an example of the latter of the two.

AZ Five seveN
February 28, 2011, 03:49 AM
Why cant he open carry an AK47? I open carry my AK47 when i walk up to the bushes for target practice. I live maybe 200 yards from the woods, i OC all my guns.

That really isn't the same thing.

He's walking down the "main street" of a city, and you are obviously in an area remote enough to shoot your gun near your home without repercussion. I live in the Phoenix metro area, and if I open carried an assault rifle, I'm sure multiple people would call the police same as in the video.

It IS a right, but it makes no sense to carry a rifle around the main drag of a city or town unless that's the norm. It's common sense.

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 03:51 AM
Try looking at some of this guys other videos. He curses every other word, neglects proper firearm safety handling (see his video on safety checks) and just has a crappy attitude. He is well within his rights to carry the AK but why be so hostile? Why such vitriol. To me, this dude seems angry and unstable.

xcgates
February 28, 2011, 05:00 AM
It is our right in this country to act in ways other consider stupid, moronic, inconsiderate, be foul mouthed, etc.

It is not our right in this country to be free from feeling "uncomfortable."

I know some people who are violently opposed to motorcycles, would I stand for them calling the cops because I'm "riding a motorcycle" and they are worried about me causing an accident, hurting people? Not an exact parallel, however I fail to see why police should stop and talk with someone (that they know personally!) for doing something perfectly legal, simply because someone is "uncomfortable."

Caller: "There is a dude with a gun!"
Dispatch: "Is he threatening someone?"
Caller: "No, he is walking down the street, but I'm nervous."
Dispatch: "It is fine and legal to do that, but I'd be happy to send a cruiser to drive by and see for themselves.
Caller: "Umm, okay."

I can't say for certain what I would have said, however I would probably keep my responses vague. (if I get stopped while driving, I'm "going to the store", or "going to a friend's", or "driving for fun.") "Am I being detained? No? Have a good day sir, I'll be on my way." I don't think attempting to debate a cop on the side of the road is very smart.

This fellow may not represent some "ideal" gun owner, however the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not just for some. It is for all, however uncomfortable that makes people.

JTH
February 28, 2011, 05:29 AM
The guy is just trying to bait the LEO's into doing something stupid, that violates his Civil Rights, so he can sue them. Nothing more or less. Wait until he encounters a civilian more bold and a bigger fool than he is. Many innocent people could die. Next question is the rifle loaded?
JT

jgiehl
February 28, 2011, 07:06 AM
Within his rights, yes.
Doesn't mean he's not an ass.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 07:10 AM
I think this guys YouTube name is AK47 master. If ever you are bored watch some of his videos. Really entertaining if you get a kick out of stupid people that think they are the stuff.

USAF_Vet
February 28, 2011, 08:41 AM
Cant watch the video since I'm at work, but by reading the thread, I get the gist of it.

I see a lot of people talking about societal norms and morays as if they are God's gospel. Right now, society is mostly ignorant and afraid of firearms, but it doesn't need to stay that way. Most gun fearing people wouldn't know the difference between an AK-47 and a bolt action .22 short and ar willing to let their fear and emotions dictate how they think and act rather than educate themselves, or allowed to be educated of their rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Those who are gun rights advocates are a fringe group in a mostly ignorant, widely uncaring society. While I have no reason to walk the streets downtown with my rifle or shotgun or whatever, doesn't mean that I couldn't or shouldn't be able to do so. Michigan is an open carry state, so I'd be acting within the law. I take it from the comments that the guy may be been acting like a d-bag, which does make open carry look bad. Yes, the general public does need to get used to the sight of citizens with guns if we are ever going to change the norms and morays of society. Open carry is not a bad thing in the least, downtown or on a rural backroad. Often, police are just as ignorant and fearful of our gun rights as the general public. If the guy in the video is making a statement about his rights, I'll support those types of actions as long as he doesn't make the gun toting community look bad.

JackTheRipper
February 28, 2011, 09:34 AM
I understand both situations, second cop definitely handles it better. I respect him for carrying it, it's important to exercise your rights... I would never do it though, lol...

the second cop says "I myself am not going to go publicize it because I don't want more people open carrying"

I bet a looooot of average citizens are clueless on basic gun laws, and of course the police aren't going to advertise them...

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 09:55 AM
Doing it for trouble making is not a great idea, doing it for practical reasons is different.

I've ridden my motorcycle to the range on nice days with a FAL slung across my back, loaded. Weather was too nice to be in a car and I was curious how people would react.

Got a couple of funny looks but that was about it. Should I have put it in a case? Probably, but I'm just enough troublemaker to not do that I suppose.

Should do it again this spring :evil:

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:01 AM
Doing it for trouble making is not a great idea, doing it for practical reasons is different.

I've ridden my motorcycle to the range on nice days with a FAL slung across my back, loaded. Weather was too nice to be in a car and I was curious how people would react.

Got a couple of funny looks but that was about it. Should I have put it in a case? Probably, but I'm just enough troublemaker to not do that I suppose.

Should do it again this spring :evil:
Personally, I am against Open Carry because of problems that it causes like this. Honestly, if you need to move a gun around in public, use a case. Honestly, I can't blame people for calling the cops when they see someone walking down the street with an AK 47, or any gun!

But...a case would be hard on a motorcycle...and, an FAL on your back is pretty cool :D

RimfireChris
February 28, 2011, 10:08 AM
It was a bit over the top, but he was legal to do so. My $0.02, he could have made a better point by OCing a handgun. That would have made the interaction with the LEO a lot quicker.

jerkface11
February 28, 2011, 10:44 AM
I would have given the cop my ID and then continued to argue about my rights, instead of giving the cop a "hard time."

I don't have a walking down the street license do you?

JWF III
February 28, 2011, 11:07 AM
Don't know about the state laws, shall isuue vs. May issue, but this was filmed in Michigan.

The police car has "Houghton Police" emblem on the rear quarter panel. The man says something about Marquette (also in Michigan). (But Iowa also has both towns.) He also says something about a store called "Northwoods". Yellow pages .com lists a "Northwoods Sporting Goods" in Hancock, MI. Which happens to be 1/2 mile from Houghton MI across a river.


Was he right to do it? He was within his right, but I can't say he was right. If he did it just to get a rise out of people (including LE), then no, he wasn't right. Only he can answer that.

Wyman

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 11:21 AM
He has another video on YouTube of him jusT talking about what happened. He. Basically says he just wanted to take a walk down main street with his AK on him bc it was a nice day and didn't want to carry his pistol, back up pistol, 3 knives, spare magazines, and such. He was after trouble. Just bc some things may be our right does not mean its a good idea.

memphisjim
February 28, 2011, 11:33 AM
i see that its legal but i am for cops questioning a guy walking down the street with an ak

leadcounsel
February 28, 2011, 11:37 AM
I'm kinda on the side of "let's not rub open carry in our opponents faces" because it undermines the credibility of it and it also may impede on getting it more widespread.

I didn't watch the video (I'm at work) but I am concerned about any potential "bad press" of open carry or other gun stuff... just because it's a right doesn't mean we need to act irresponsibly. Again, NOT saying this was irresponsible.... just saying in general.

If he refused to provide ID to the police, then IMO he's in the wrong.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 11:39 AM
i see that its legal but i am for cops questioning a guy walking down the street with an ak


Are you in favor of cops questioning a guy walking down the street with a baseball bat?

Panzercat
February 28, 2011, 11:40 AM
On one hand I understand that some people here are grumpythat he's making a scene and or potentially inconvenincing people. Let's face it, he's doing it on purpose.

On the other hand, yeah and? From now on, you are frowned upon from taking your dog for a walk because he's big and he makes people nervous. It's not against the law, just that he's a big dog, he occasionally barks and people panic. After all. hundreds, if not thousands of people get bit by dogs every year. They kill kids, doncha know?

Perhaps you should consider keeping your big dog in doors where you won't be frowned upon by jittery people who call the police because they don't know any better and don't know you're allowed to walk you dog in public by law. :\

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 11:40 AM
Exactly Memphisjim. If some is walking down your street with an AK you would be concerned and not just say " oh, look at that guy. He is exercising his rights. How nice."

Nushif
February 28, 2011, 11:47 AM
This is one of those slippery slope arguments, as Texas pointed out.

There is no "legal" difference in carrying a pistol or well ... an AK down the road openly. Both are firearms. My pistol actually has more tac rail than an AK, so it's more "assaulty."

Is he going against societal grain and making a ruckus? Well, yes he is. But as someone above pointed out as well ... societal norms are not gospel. It's if I remember right one of our main foci (been wanting to use that word) here to do exactly that! We *want* people to be more accepting of firearms ownership, right? That's also against societal norms.

Because of that I find it a bit ironic when we say he's "just making a scene" or somehow "ought not" do that. The sole difference here is how much we individually feel comfortable in making people more accepting of firearms ownership.

Actually, if we all were model citizens and "responsible" to a tee we wouldn't carry firearms, since they're not societally condoned. I think we should remember that we're here *against* societal norms. So telling someone they ought to behave more like the rest of society is a bit hypocritical.


Oh yeah reading this, I don't think I'd be uncomfortable with a guy walking down the street with an AK, even when it's loaded. (like a defensive firearm should be ...) Maybe it's because I'm used to armed people around me or maybe it's because I spent too much time in Oregon, but I'd actually get a good chuckle out of it.
It all depends on how one carries himself. A guy buying a coffee is a guy buying a coffee whether he carries an RPG, a LCP or an AK.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 11:47 AM
If some is walking down your street with an AK you would be concerned

Of course you should be concerned, but should LE approach and question every individual carrying a firearm? Big difference.

I'd be in Condition Orange most likely but I think it's a bad path to go down to have LE involvement in every perfectly legal activity. Where does that end?

What about a baseball bat? What about a guy with a pit bull? Or a saw? I just fear the slippery slope.

BP Hunter
February 28, 2011, 11:53 AM
I'd understand if we would open carry a handgun, but an assault rifle??!! I know, we open carry or conceal carry for self defense. An AK is obviously an overkill. As gunowners, you have to admit, you'd feel real uncomfortable if I guy walks in a store with an assault rifle. It's just plain stupid. Normal people just don't do that. Rights, his right?? That's the problem with people nowadays. It's all about their own rights. Yes, he has the right to open carry his AK, but show his rights in a decent manner.

Husker_Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:56 AM
I don't have a problem with the cops contacting him and asking some questions based on calls from other people. We don't know what the callers said, and it is debatable if he was ever detained in the video. It would bug me if the cops just stopped him without any calls or other reason to investigate what was going on.

I also don't have a problem with a guy open carrying a rifle down the street, and he was perfectly within his rights. But this guy rubs me the wrong way.

As an analogy, the First Amendment protects a person's right to make racist remarks to people as they walk down the street. It doesn't mean that it is either smart or expedient to do so.

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 11:57 AM
In this perfectly legal activity I think its fine that he is stopped by LE, just like LE stop legal drivers at sobriety check points. Some behavior that is legal is potentially not harmful, some can be quite so. This guy is already known by the police since he is appealing his CC Application being denied...which he thinks is "bullsh**" This guy is angry and angry people with AKs can be questioned for a few minutes to assess his possible volatility, IMO.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 11:58 AM
As gunowners, you have to admit, you'd feel real uncomfortable if I guy walks in a store with an assault rifle. It's just plain stupid.

Let's not change the discussion to going into Wal Mart, this is a guy simply walking down a public street with a rifle, minding his own business.

Let's go to a case of a guy who has his car break down and he decides to take his Model 70 to the range to sight it in for deer season. He slings his rifle on his shoulder. sticks 3 rounds in his pocket, and heads out to a range 4 blocks from his house.

Should LE approach this law abiding citizen because he's carrying a "sniper rifle" slung over his shoulder?

In this perfectly legal activity I think its fine that he is stopped by LE, just like LE stop legal drivers at sobriety check points.

So that's completely different and unrelated it seems. The Supreme Court ruled that those type of things were allowed because, as Chief Justice Rehnquist put it, "an exception (to the 4th) was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary."

Since long guns being openly carried result in, oh, ZERO crimes each year, would stops there still be "effective and necessary"?

au01st
February 28, 2011, 12:05 PM
Well he said he didn't go in stores because he didn't want to alarm people and was just walking to his wife's work. I'd imagine if my CCW was denied I'd find the biggest gun I could and OC that, too.

If I see someone OC'ing, I'll go talk to them if they don't look to be in a hurry, maybe compliment their holster, and hand them a card.

Nushif
February 28, 2011, 12:05 PM
Actually, I just saw something else that's rather odd.

We see a lot of this language like "decent" and "respectable" as well as usage of terms like "Assault Rifle."

Those are the exact terms Antis use!

The whole point to the Anti argument is that nobody *needs* firearms in a sciety of "decent" and "respectable" people, thus we shouldn't have them.
Their point is that we ought to not unsettle others and thus should .... not own "Assault Rifles."
And that we ought not "unsettle" people with our "tasteless" presence.

General Geoff
February 28, 2011, 12:05 PM
i see that its legal but i am for cops questioning a guy walking down the street with an ak

Here in Pennsylvania, the state Constitution explicitly says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned." ;)

I know, PA is not Michigan. But just pointing out that authority questioning a man who has done no harm to anyone, on the sole basis of "being scary" is kind of uncouth.

Manco
February 28, 2011, 12:10 PM
While it's arguable whether such actions help or hurt our cause overall, what's not arguable, at least in my view, is how far American culture has degraded. It's not that I don't believe in the value of civilization, but insofar as there could be too much of a good thing, I think that we've become overly "civilized" to the point where we're more like organic automatons serving and looking to the state to provide for us (sort of a hive mentality) than individual living creatures. It may seem odd to draw such a conclusion from this particular video, but I think it's quite evident in what the police are trying to do and why, despite the fact that they have no legal authority to harass the person making the video.

cleardiddion
February 28, 2011, 12:14 PM
I've walked down my mainstreet with a MN 91/30 slung over my shoulder.
A funny look or two but not even stopped by the cops.
Heck, I OC'd everywhere when I got my pistol.
To me, not all that big of a deal.

InkEd
February 28, 2011, 12:14 PM
He was trying to make a statement and prove a point. He did within his legal rights.

People have used the right to open carry, as a means of making a political statement for years. The Black Panthers (who's actions, beliefs and reasoning for doing it are NOT the subject of this thread) used to open carry shotguns. Some Colonial people carried muskets and pistols in defiance of/protection against British redcoats. And I am sure there are other examples both in the US and abroad of people open carrying firearms as both means of protection and political statement.

A handgun carried in an exposed OWB holster would be a more practical choice. However, he was making a political statement and a rifle makes a stronger point.

IMHO the 2nd Ammendment gives us the right to own and carry any type of firearm we desire. The elected lawmakers disagree and have passed certain restrictions on it. As a society, we must accept or challenge those restrictive laws.

That said, if I saw a person walking around a busy street with a rifle; I would probably call and report it. If he's not doing anything wrong when the cops check him out, then send him on his way as a lawful citizen. It is an uncommon thing and there is no harm in checking him out.


IMHO another way to make his point AND still get attention (not to mention the attention would probably be less negative) would be to open carry a fancy sixgun rig like Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger. People aren't really "afraid" of cowboy revolvers (unless you wear a bandit mask) and if the gunbelt was highly decorative it would definitely draw attention. Most folks would probably ask out of curiousity and then a conversation about carry laws, gun ownership, etc could be held. Just a thought.

InkEd
February 28, 2011, 12:18 PM
He could also carry and musket to point out the absurdity of the situation without causing a panic. A small antique cannon would work too. Pretty much anything that is obviously ridiculous to carry on a daily basis but still not intimidating to people.

Panzercat
February 28, 2011, 12:19 PM
I'd understand if we would open carry a handgun, but an assault rifle??!! I know, we open carry or conceal carry for self defense. An AK is obviously an overkill.

And so are evil 30 round clips. Why would you ever need to own one of those? And speaking of that, you can simply bypass that by carrying two guns instead of one; ergo any law abiding citizen should in all good conscious be limited to one fire arm. And not one of those "black rifles". There's absolutely no need for that. All fire arms should be limited to...

Yeah. cwutididthere? :scrutiny:

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 12:20 PM
Ok..lets forget sobriety checkpoints.

Lets go with what we seem to know about THIS guy.

He has had his CC app. denied. It's on appeal.
He is obviously pissed, though still in control DURING the interaction with the police.
He posts videos which are filled with invectives indicating some degree of anger IMO...judge for yourself the links are right there next to this vid.
His written responses to viewers of his vids are excoriating...more anger.
One of his videos shows him handling handguns in an unsafe manner.
The police know this (they made it clear that they know who he is, and I bet dollarsto doughnuts they have checked out all his stuff online) and they are thinking he MAY be a ticking timebomb.
If they did nothing and he ended up hurting or killing people then everyone would be faulting the police for not doing their job. I say continue to stop this person and eyeball him...he just don't seem right. And if you aint right in the head you shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon around town to pick up the missus.

As far as the guy with the hunting rifle walking a couple blocks to the range to sight in his weapon? This is quite a different scenario you have created than the one playing out in that vid.

Justin
February 28, 2011, 12:29 PM
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with a stunt carrier open carrying a long arm like this if his YouTube page didn't give off such an overpowering vibe of ill-spoken mall ninja nutjobery.

If you're going to do something in order to make a political statement, it behooves you to conduct yourself in public in a manner that isn't going to drive away people who are indifferent to or on the fence about your issue. If your political statement is framed in such a way that it actually manages to drive off people who should be in agreement with you, you're doing it wrong.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 12:33 PM
As far as the guy with the hunting rifle walking a couple blocks to the range to sight in his weapon? This is quite a different scenario you have created than the one playing out in that vid.

But it's really not. From a legal standpoint both of these individuals are the same. Law abiding, in a public place, harming no one.

That the local LE has a history with him means they should watch him closer, no question. And, if LE knew him already why did they ask him for ID? They were as provocative as he was in this case if they already knew him yet insisted on engaging in that manner knowing ahead of time that he's just some "pro gun wacko who likes attention".

Don't misunderstand me, I think the guy pulled a bonehead stunt but I'll argue his right to do it, and to be left alone while doing it, as long as he isn't breaking any law.

armoredman
February 28, 2011, 12:46 PM
His attitude was more confrontational than neccesary. I had an aquaintance in Tucson many years ago who would open carry a semi auto AK clone across his back while riding his Honda scooter. Cops would stop him, ask him questions, he'd give them what was legally required, they let him go. His game.
I have carried a rifle in public before, but in a covert case, 99.9% of the public would assume a soft sided portfolio case, etc. That was just to not leave it in the car when I absolutely had to stop somewhere between range and home. Would I carry it in public regularly? if need be, yes, and it is 100% legal in this state.
To the California poster and a few others with the same opinions, if open carry bothers you and is absolutely guarenteed to cause our rights to be taken away, please explain the conundrum that is Arizona? We have had lawful open carry since the state was formed in 1912. We got CCW in 1994, and last year we went Constitutional Carry, both open and concealed. Heck, we had a man open carrying an AR15 to a political rally near where Dear Leader was speaking, and he was not arrested - he had broken no laws.
Also, I doubt this man was carrying an "assault rifle", full auto AKs are pricey, more like a semi-automatic clone of a military rifle. But you want some real scare? In AZ it is legal to carry your NFA registred firearm openly or concealed. I don't recall a single crime involving someone with a lawfully carried NFA firearm, either.
Yes, I prefer concealed carry for many reasons, and not shocking the tender sensibilities of the poor winter visitors, (snowbirds who can't drive), friom restrictive states is one minor one, but if I have to open carry, which I do occaisionally, I will do so without qualm. In all the years I have open carried in this state, since I was 16, (yes, it was legal), I have never been harrassed by any law enforcement officer about my firearm. I have had officers ask what ammo I used and what I thought about various firearms for duty or other use. :)
So, this guy may be an arse, he certainly doesn't make gun owners as a whole look good, but like the mainstream publishers have to grit their teeth and support Larry Flynt's 1st Amendment rights, sometimes we have to accept the annoying with the good.

soonerboomer
February 28, 2011, 12:47 PM
Mixed Feelings...
Yes, he has the right to open carry. However, the more he grandstands, the more likely people will get ruffled, and, in turn, the more likely his local government will become inclined to enact laws to restrict his (and our) freedoms.

armoredman
February 28, 2011, 12:50 PM
Except history does NOT bear that out, with traditional open carry states becoming less and less restrictive.

memphisjim
February 28, 2011, 12:54 PM
Even though not illegal there I do hope you can understand the difference between a baseball bat and and ak47. Walking down the city street with an ak deserves some attention And that's what happened Touched face guy was seemingly in right mind he's fine and he went on his way

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 12:57 PM
"That the local LE has a history with him means they should watch him closer, no question."

And it seems that they were doing just that, watching him more closely. And in this case you need a face to face and some conversation to make sure his mental faculties are intact.
I do think you are onto something about them asking for his ID, they were trying to intimidate him. His behavior in the vid was not extreme and they could have cut him loose sooner. I'd rather have those boys in blue being safe than sorry.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 01:02 PM
Is seeing people walk down the road with an ak normal? No Should cops check out things that are out of the norm? Yes

mgregg85
February 28, 2011, 01:04 PM
Good for him for exercising his rights, he's just gotta stop taking his anger out on the cops, not their fault that he got denied on the CCW. Sounds like cop #2 is a lot better at interacting with people, he stays calm and holds his ground.

Personally I would have calmly explained myself and walked away. He did make a huge error in my opinion, calling people sheep. Only way it could have been worse was if he referred to himself as a sheep dog.

Is this is Houghton, MI?

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 01:04 PM
Even though not illegal there I do hope you can understand the difference between a baseball bat and and ak47.

Well yes, I understand that the number of crimes committed with a baseball bat every year are exponentially higher than crimes committed with AK's.

So we should be MUCH more concerned about guys carrying bats around right? If we are going off of facts and reason?

If we want to get all caught up in emotions and feelings then sure, rifles are "scary". But the law should not do it's job based on feelings, and rights should not disappear based on emotions.

armoredman
February 28, 2011, 01:05 PM
Yes I do too - baseball bats never jam or run out of ammunition, same as a shank. Seen guys shanked 40-50 times by a single person in a single attack. Same as the Library of Congress has the Holy Bible and the Kama Sutra, Ben Hur and Behind the Green Door, you cannot pick and choose your Constitutional guarentees.

RockyMtnTactical
February 28, 2011, 01:15 PM
He could have been more respectful towards the cops, but I am glad that he is unafraid of using his rights.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 01:17 PM
But the law should not do it's job based on feelings, and rights should not disappear based on emotions.

Where were his rights violated?

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 01:18 PM
Where were his rights violated?

Potentially the 4th. Probably not in this case but it's been put forward here that cops should engage every person openly carrying a rifle, without cause and without exception. That would absolutely be a violation of rights. Again, go read the Supreme Court case on so called "sobriety checkpoints". They made it clear that they consider those a violation of the 4th, but the overwhelming good for society that comes from those violations outweighs individual rights because the rate of drunk driving is so high. One cannot make that argument for open rifle carry because, as far as I can tell, the crime rate for those openly carrying rifles is ZERO.

So for LE to have a policy of approaching every person doing a legal activity seems to smack of a violation of rights doesn't it?

If the crime rate for people openly carrying groceries is zero, should LE approach every person carrying groceries to try to gauge their mental state and decide if there is a danger of a can of peas being hurtled at someone's head?

If you say "well guns are different" then the antis win. Because they are not.

suzukisam
February 28, 2011, 01:22 PM
Why has our society elevated LE above our own rights? I was told by a friend of mine that his CCW class told him that he should keep paperwork on him to prove he was the owner of his pistol, otherwise any cop could just take it. Keep in mind private sales of any gun (non nfa) is not regulated in MO at all. it is no different than selling your watch, granted I usually always get a bill of sale to cover myself but it is not required. I'm sorry I would not have given my ID. I've been in my buddies car and the cops asked for my ID(passenger) for a tail light out? Why so you can go see if you have a reason to bust me? I'm tired of this "government tells us what we can and can't do whether it's within the law or not" attitude. I'm sorry if people want to hide in their house and watch american idol and take no responsibility to learn their rights, and want to be victims, but me having a gun... any gun is no reason to call the cops. This entire attitude is exactly why people like loughner can get away with the crap they do, because everyone wants to be lemmings and wait for the cops to protect them. well in Kansas city the cops are way too busy sitting all over I-435 shooting radar to be of any use. whether the guy in the video was an idiot or not he didn't want to be harassed by cops and he was out to prove it. and if 50 other people in that town did the same thing, guess what people would get over it and so would LE.

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 01:24 PM
I think that simply investigating situations, where people are carrying "military style rifles", is not unwise until the social climate has changed due to that very same process of investigation and subsequent manifestations of harmlessness.

9mmforMe
February 28, 2011, 01:27 PM
Don't get me wrong...he was well within his rights as others would be who do the same. I'm just saying this guy needed to be checked out. And when in the process we desensitize and educate the masses, so much the better.

MEHavey
February 28, 2011, 01:37 PM
What this man has done is elevate the paranoia of the uneducated masses.

Those masses are easily led by the Brady Bunch when frightened.

Dumb....

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 01:37 PM
This was not a random stop. A citizen called the PD concerned about this. And this is a little out of the normal, so the police did their job. He could have been headed to the bank to make a gunpoint withdrawal and the police would have looked foolish saying that they saw the guy walking through town with the ak but didnt give it a second thought. I realize it is within his rights and I'm all for gun rights and I enjoy shooting with my 5 year old boy but some things are just asking for trouble. This being one. I really like to avoid conflict. This guy left his house with the outcome being exactly how he envisioned it. The anti gun idiots salivate over stories like these. These are big propaganda boosters to them. That guy is a poster child for them.

rr2241tx
February 28, 2011, 01:48 PM
He's in Houston Texas. Open carry of a shotgun or rifle is entirely legal, open carry of a handgun on public property is not thanks to our Carpetbagger constitution. He is obviously well known by the HPD, so why they chose to engage him in the first place is a mystery. Is he being a total azzhat? Absolutely. Should he stop open carrying his AK? No. Most of Houston would be a better place if everyone open carried an AK.

leadcounsel
February 28, 2011, 01:57 PM
I'm a super pro-2A gun guy. That being said, I think there is a place for carrying guns openly and there is not a place for it, and there is also a time and place for handguns (personal self defense) and military style weaponry. All of us here would agree that an AK47 is near the top of the food chain when it comes to SHTF type of weaponry. I think that in average town USA if I were to see a guy walking around with a loaded AK47 I would expect he's preparing to rob a bank!

To compare an AK47 to a baseball bat is dishonestly; and under some circumstances I would EXPECT police to question both the guy with the ball bat and the AK47; and in some cases not. It's also about context.

But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??

There's classy open carry for personal defense, and then there's being a jackass. I think open carry of an AK47 in the city is the latter, and does not help gun rights.

bobbarker
February 28, 2011, 01:58 PM
Better yet, I would have a copy of the state statue/law reguarding open carry and presented it to the officer at the time of the encounter.

This will do you absolutely no good if the officer decides he is going to arrest you. At least, it did me no good, and I sat the night in jail. The cop said something to the effect of, "I know the laws, and you showing me a piece of paper you printed up at home doesn't change that."

suzukisam
February 28, 2011, 02:00 PM
Because cops are above the law...which is BS.. I hope more people do what this guy did!

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 02:04 PM
But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??

Pretty big difference between coming to the front door and walking down a public sidewalk don't you think?

There's classy open carry for personal defense, and then there's being a jackass. I think open carry of an AK47 in the city is the latter, and does not help gun rights.

No question, the guy is probably doing more harm to gun rights than good. I'm just saying that he's within his rights to do so without being hassled and it bothers me that the LEO's here decided to interact with the guy with no belief that he was up to anything bad, and in fact probably knew darned well he was just showboating because he'd done it before.

And honestly, if LE really wanted to stop this they would ignore him. A couple of trips without LE messing with him he'd get bored and find something else to do.

tarosean
February 28, 2011, 02:06 PM
anybody have any idea what state this guy is in?

LEO's car had Houghton, Michigan on it....

tarosean
February 28, 2011, 02:13 PM
He's in Houston Texas. Open carry of a shotgun or rifle is entirely legal, open carry of a handgun on public property is not thanks to our Carpetbagger constitution. He is obviously well known by the HPD, so why they chose to engage him in the first place is a mystery. Is he being a total azzhat? Absolutely. Should he stop open carrying his AK? No. Most of Houston would be a better place if everyone open carried an AK.

While Id agree that Houston would be nicer if everyone carried ak's...

Have you ever seen hat much snow in Houston??? we wont even get into the colors of the squad car not matching anything in the general area.

leadcounsel
February 28, 2011, 02:15 PM
Pretty big difference between coming to the front door and walking down a public sidewalk don't you think?

Fine - change the example. You see a man standing in front of your house on the public sidewalk with no visible weapons, looking right at you. Now you see the man holding a loaded AK47, still looking right at your house. Any change in your reaction?

The bottom line is that people say guns "aren't different" but talk out of both sides of our mouths. We have 4 special rules for them. We keep them (mostly) locked up. They ARE tools that are designed to make killing things easier.

We also discuss situational awareness. You'd be a FOOL to treat someone on the street carrying a loaded AK47 the same as a bag of groceries (as someone here mentioned). In fact, under some circumstances, you might even consider taking DEFENSIVE actions against the man.

When you see someone walking around in public with guns that are designed notoriously well for killing, it raises your situational awareness. And it should! I'll never advocate for gun control. But folks also have to use some individual common sense. The reason we have so much gun control is people do stupid things to demonstrate lack of control, then we get hit with stupid laws prohibiting the behavior.

So, while I am in favor of CCW, Open Carry, Constitutional Carry, you also have to do it with common sense. I would be angry if someone opened fire in a busy city/town with an AK47 (in self defense) because that's not the right tool for the job and we all know that the 7.62x39 is one heck of a traveler and penetrator, and it would endanger a lot of people.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 02:19 PM
Fine - change the example. You see a man standing in front of your house on the public sidewalk with no visible weapons, looking right at you. Now you see the man holding a loaded AK47, still looking right at your house. Any change in your reaction?

As I posted earlier, as a private citizen I'd be in Condition Orange immediately. I'd be arming myself in my home and watching the guy like a hawk. You'd be crazy to act like it's nothing at all.

But I would not approach him, and I probably wouldn't call the cops unless he was doing SOMETHING other than just walking down the street carrying a slung rifle.

Again, don't misunderstand me. I would be very cautious and in self defense mode if I saw this. I'd make every attempt to get as far away as possible.

But I'm not a cop. I don't believe cops have any reason to demand ID from or detain someone who is doing nothing but obeying the law. Even if he's an idiot. From the standpoint of LE, a guy walking down the street legally carrying a rifle should not be treated any differently than a guy carrying a baseball bat.

When people panic and call 911 an officer will be dispatched of course, and the LE should observe and sure, if he wants to pull up and ask what's up that's fine too. The move to demanding ID or detaining is across the line and none of us should be willing to tolerate that.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 02:30 PM
This whole thing is a matter of balancing rights, common sense, emotion, and reality.

I'll throw out a few ideas, having been on both sides of such a situation.

Yes, you may have a right to carry an AK on the sidewalk downtown.
No, you don't have a reasonable (I said REASONABLE) expectation of doing so without police contact.
How that contact progresses and concludes depends on a number of things, which include the professionalism of the officers, the time & place, and your own demeanor.

Many years ago when I was 19, I was living in a relatively small town outside an airbase in Idaho & happened to be between cars at the moment. I had bought a .22 rifle, walked to where I picked it up from the guy selling it, and walked back home carrying it.
Broad daylight, walking along a main street, I was not waving the gun around & did not look like a threatening type.

I was stopped by an officer who briefly and professionally checked me out, found I was very cooperative, listened to my explanation, and left after about a three minute chat.
I understood & wasn't bothered in the least.

Years later, when I was working as a cop in the second largest city in my state, calls started to come in from alarmed citizens about a scraggly looking guy carrying a broadsword slung over his shoulder.
On such incidents, two cars were automatically dispatched, I was one. We found the guy, walking down the sidewalk with his sword slung.
We talked to him, he wasn't particularly friendly but wasn't belligerent and did follow instructions not to put his hands anywhere near the blade while we were there, and did provide ID. No warrants, no indications from any of the complainants that he had ever had the blade in hand or behaved in a threatening manner, and he appeared to us to not be a threat to anyone, based on his cooperative demeanor & lack of witnesses to the contrary.
After less then ten minutes of talking & running him for wants, we were all on our way.
He continued to generate citizen calls for two or three weeks, all required a response, those who dealt with him more than once just showed up, talked briefly to determine no dangerous activity was involved, and he eventually disappeared.

As a matter of individual right, yes, you can walk down the sidewalk with a weapon openly displayed if your laws permit it.
But, as a matter of reality, in today's environment where the news media plays incessantly on every nut who runs on a rampage and kills a dozen people, the citizenry at large is very nervous at the sight of a gun.
The sight of a handgun, much less obvious, is one thing. The sight of what the majority of non-gunnies see as a fullblown assault rifle is pretty much guarranteed to result in a police response.

Something most people don't realise is that once Man With A Gun phonecalls start coming in, the dispatcher has no choice but to assign a response. He or she can't make the determination to "no-case" it, or clear it out on his or her own authority without followup. One or more cars MUST be dispatched. It could be anything from a kid with a BB gun to the beginning of an armed bank robbery.

Once dispatched, the responding cars can't refuse the assignment on their own authority, for the same reasons, plus a legal liability that attaches if they clear the call without responding & somebody gets killed.
On arrival, officers have a wide area of latitude and discretion in handling the situation, but they do have to make contact, however brief, and make a determination regarding the necessity for any further action. If none, everybody goes their own way.
Time wasted for all concerned, but that's just the reality of modern life.

Situational context does make a difference.
Guy carrying an AK on the downtown sidewalk of the capitol city of ANY open carry state at any time of day is an automatic police response to citizen calls. Count on it.
Guy carrying a hunting rifle to a neighbor's house in the back streets of Smalltown America probably isn't.
Guy carrying an AK from the gunshow to his car several blocks away will probably not generate a call to police.
Guy carrying an AK down the street at 3 AM probably will.

I view this as more of a common sense issue than a personal liberty issue.
Under the Constitution you have the right to walk into a biker bar and loudly yell "Anybody who rides a Harley is a sissy!"
Doing so just to assert that right is idiotic, and almost certainly quite painful.

It's unfortunate that society has become so fearful of those who display a gun, but again- it's the reality.
Even when not dispatched, in today's climate of fear (which is too often fueled by incidents of multiple deaths by deranged individuals) most cops WILL stop to check out somebody they encounter in a public place with something as beyond-the-norm as a rifle.

Society on the whole demands order, police are mandated to maintain it, and while YOU may know you're a perfectly innocent good guy just going for a walk and coincidentally excercising your right to open carry, the public doesn't know that, and the police don't know that. Not without stopping to have a little chat.

We can go on all day about asserting open carry rights.
But, those who insist they should be able to tote any weapon they want publicly anytime & anywhere they want without any type of "hassle" by police are not living in the real world.

As for the "slippery slope" thing, view it from the angle of John Q. I-Ain't-Got-A-Gun Citizen. Pit bulls occasionally make the local news when one runs amok & injures somebody, but neither they nor baseball bats make days and weeks of national news headlines for killing ten people in one endlessly publicized incident.
In the mind of the public, it's GUNS that kill, in the hands of a psychotic individual. It's GUNS that hit banks and convenience stores, not pit bulls or bats.

A hundred years ago, the sight of a gun was much less of a panic-inducer than it is today.
Even in much of rural America it's not that big a deal.
In downtown Bigtown, it is.

Don't blame the police for over-reacting, blame those who shoot up schools and political gatherings for creating a societal environment where the open display of firearms, particularly of a militaristic type in an urban setting where such things are way beyond the norm, is so forcefully associated with death and injury.

Walk your dog past somebody who doesn't like dogs, and as long as the dog behaves itself the cops don't get called. Dogs are a normal part of society in public places.
Carry a bat to the bookstore or grocery store, and you may get a few raised eyebrows, but if you present no appearance of intent to brain anybody with it, the cops probably won't get called.
Sling an AK over your shoulder & go for a burger at McDonalds and see what happens.

It's public mind conditioning.
People see "Man With Gun Kills Eight At Crowded Mall!" on the 10 o'clock news.
They do not see "Man With Gun Saves 30 When Crowded Bus Runs Off Bridge Into River!"

It's necessary to get past the emotion. You may be perfectly within your right in your locale to carry openly, but the practical matter is that you have no reasonable expectation of not drawing police attention if you choose to do so.
Right or wrong, as Stumpy said after playing with his pet crocodile (which he had a perfect legal right to do), that's just the way things go.
Denis

Dimis
February 28, 2011, 02:40 PM
stopping and requesting ID just for carrying a gun is a no-no.

just like to state that some places have open identification statutes that allow officers to ask anyone to show ID for ANY reason and it is mandated that individuals of the legal age of 18 carry said ID anywhere "public" like a highway
I don't know if where he was has this law

and seriously put yourself in the officers shoes...
If you saw a guy with a rifle slung you would at minimum ask him a few questions
and if someone calls it in they HAVE to go its not a matter of choice
imagine if there was a robbery in progress but they know the same guy robs this same 7 11 all the time they cant just go... oh its only jimmy its fine
even if it is a ridiculous call like "my husband left me and took HIS car and I want it back" the car is legally the husbands but the dumb woman calls them anyway and the poor officer goes to deal with a silly nonsensical woman that thinks cops "just arrest people" on anyone's whim but he still HAS to go.

this guys attitude is just garbage though
if he acted like a human being instead of a self righteous prick he would get allot further in his journeys
the police are not our enemy
there is no reason what so ever for him to act as a child and call people sheep or idiots or anything else
those are terms of emotion and not the facts that he needed to convey to make people take him seriously
we don't need the overemphasis of "I don't care if they are scared!!" all he needed to say was that he was exercising his rights and that people will have to become used to it without shouting or getting excited like a 3 year old when mom says no you cant have that toy

he acted guilty...
he became excitable at the first moment the police show up and remained defensive and overly excited through the whole experience like a kid caught in the act and trying to explain it away to mom and dad

there really was no need to be overbearing with his knowledge
the "I'm smarter than you routine" doesn't help his case either
nobody likes a smart ass with a condescending attitude
whether you wear a badge or not if you act like a know it all jerk people want to punch you in the face and that's how he came off
I know personally when people gloat about knowing more than me instead of helping me understand i want to pummel them and say wow you knew so much about "insert whatever here" but you didn't know much about taking an butt whooping did you?
those types are just pompous and annoying

tarosean
February 28, 2011, 02:43 PM
Many years ago when I was 19, I was living in a relatively small town outside an airbase in Idaho & happened to be between cars at the moment. I had bought a .22 rifle, walked to where I picked it up from the guy selling it, and walked back home carrying it.
Broad daylight, walking along a main street, I was not waving the gun around & did not look like a threatening type.

I was stopped by an officer who briefly and professionally checked me out, found I was very cooperative, listened to my explanation, and left after about a three minute chat.
I understood & wasn't bothered in the least.



When I was a kid, in a small town, my brother and I spent countless miles/hours with Marlin 60's slung over our shoulder while riding our bicycles... we were quite young (10-15) and were never once stopped or even blinked at by cops.

Different era's I guess....

Strykervet
February 28, 2011, 02:52 PM
Good job on not bending over for the police. Police do not ask questions in order to ascertain innocence, rather, they ask questions in order to substantiate their suspicions, i.e., to build their case against you. YOU CANNOT HELP YOURSELF OR SITUATION BY TALKING TO THE POLICE, outside of normal conversation. Know your rights. In most places, unless you are under investigation for a possible or suspected crime (from a broken tail light to murder) you do not have to hand over ID. A better question, when confronted for no reason as this man was, is to reply: "Am I being detained?" If yes, why. If no, then leave. You cannot be detained unless you are under investigation or are party to an ongoing investigation. I have heard this from an Army brief in basic and again from a law professor and visiting police chief --yes, a police chief said this. The above only parrots what they said.

We (my local area) recently went through this exact same scenario a few months ago at Starbucks. A guy walked in with a pistol on his hip and someone called the cops. But this guy ended up handing over the ID. He didn't have to, and it spurred a protest where many showed up with pistols. The cops showed up to watch, but this time they weren't so eager to coerce IDs when confronting a group with cameras. Later a statement was issued to the local department in order to get them all on the same page.

In my state, if it isn't explicitly illegal, then it is legal. Period.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 02:52 PM
Taro,
Different eras, different places.
Denis

Strykervet
February 28, 2011, 02:56 PM
Brandishing is a different story though, and it can and probably will be investigated (and usually it will end with the cop handing back your ID and saying thanks). We are in the process of getting the brandishing language changed in order to support open carry.

While fixing the language is great, and open carry is fine, there should be some precautions necessary to prevent loss of a firearm in public. I've seen too many people open carry with no retention. Not wise... No retention = concealed carry in my book.

LawScholar
February 28, 2011, 02:57 PM
This guy makes gun owners look very very bad to the American voting public. You know, the ones we need to persuade that gun owners are reasonable and normal?

This guy's attitude and actions do nothing but hurt the cause

RedAlert
February 28, 2011, 03:01 PM
This seems to me to be a "Pushing the envelope" type of scenario. Yes he is legal. But the envelope he is in is society in general. A percentage of those folks support the Second Amendment, and use their First Amendment rights to support it. For sure there is a larger percentage that fears guns and all laws allowing guns. Eventually if done right, by properly exercising our OC rights, we can expand the envelope of public acceptance. Notice I said properly.

How about having a rally, backed by local gun clubs, police, NRA, etc to show the public what is right, legal and proper about OC?

Locally here in Washington State there were a few rallies by OC proponents gathering and buying coffee, etc at Starbucks. Starbucks had been under fire for allowing OC patrons to enter and purchase coffee. There are some folks here who don't support the Second Amendment and figure Starbucks shouldn't allow OC. I'm happy to say Starbucks said it would adhere to the gun laws in place and not enact store rules that went against the State Laws. It all transpired peacefully.

It all boils down to educating the public in a manner that doesn't get them all riled up unnecessarily. Too bad gun education isn't a part of school education. Think of all the lives that might be save if kids knew enough to treat all weapons as loaded, etc.

Gouranga
February 28, 2011, 03:12 PM
To teroseans point, the reason he is stopped, it is an unusual sight. It is perfectly legal for me to carry an axe down the street. However, in downtown Charlotte, you do not see very many people carrying an axe down the street. Cops will key into the unusual. Doubly so if someone calls them about a "crazy/suspicious man with a gun.". If it was ordinary to carry a firearm openly in that manner, as in a lot of folks did it, no the officer probably would not have stopped him. i think as long as it is out of the ordinary for such a scene on the street, he will continue to get stopped.

The guy in the vid seems as though he is deliberately trying to start crud. It is in his tone, and demeanor. While I support the right to OC, I also recognize that it can bring you attention and I am fine with that. So long as the officer is respectful, and lawful, I am fine.

tarosean
February 28, 2011, 03:32 PM
The guy in the vid seems as though he is deliberately trying to start crud.


Since he is on a first name basis with the LEO.. Not sure he is the best citizen period....

FC
February 28, 2011, 03:39 PM
just like to state that some places have open identification statutes that allow officers to ask anyone to show ID for ANY reason and it is mandated that individuals of the legal age of 18 carry said ID anywhere "public" like a highway
I don't know if where he was has this law


Michigan has no stop and identify statute and even if it did, reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime committed or about to be committed is a requirement of such statutes. Hunches do not apply.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 04:03 PM
In my state, and other state & municipalities have some variation of the same broad principle, we have a disorderly conduct law that can be applied to a wide range of circumstances that include activities which create fear or disruption of normal activities. Usually used in group settings and public places, it's there as a catch-all for activities that may not be specifically addressed elsewhere in statute.

This is not a blanket license to arrest just because somebody pisses off a cop, the courts keep a good eye on it, but the sight of an AK wandering through a public place and causing public alarm can certainly fall under the disorderly conduct purview.
As such, in my state, a police officer is perfectly justified in requesting ID as a legitimate part of an initial investigation into a possible crime, and if there are indications that a public alarm has been created, establishing the ID & intent of the person allows greater latitude.
There are many other situations where ID can be requested during the initial investigatory phase of early contact in determining whether or not a crime is, in fact, being or has been committed.

Detaining such a person, WITH good cause, is perfectly acceptable, as long as such detention is brief and used for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there's a crime involved.
That may take three minutes or 30, depending on how much time's required to locate witnesses or victims, look at physical evidence encountered, and so on.

The "Totality Of Circumstances" rule also comes into play relative to obtaining or establishing identification.

The Constitution prohibits police from demanding ID from somebody just sauntering down the sidewalk at random, but does allow police to take further measures in establishing it with someone who may be involved in criminal activity.

There are many occasions where detainment results in arrest, and many where detainment results in the subject leaving under his own power.

Refusing to provide ID IF a criminal act is suspected can be another reason for further detainment.

Denis

nwilliams
February 28, 2011, 04:04 PM
He sounds like a jackass in the video as much as he is acting like one.

Personally I think the police officer in the video is handling the situation rather well. I'm sure there are some cops who would have seen this guy walking down the street with an AK and immediately pulled their gun and called for backup.

Seeing someone walking down a public street with an assault rifle is not normal and I can completely understand the police wanting to question him on his motives. If I saw someone walking down a public street with an AK I would certainly be a bit curious. If you ask me there is a big difference between someone walking around with a holstered handgun on their side and someone walking around town with an AK over their shoulder. One person is exercising his or her right to carry for protection and the other is carrying simply to be a jackass, it's not hard to figure out which is which in this scenario.

FC
February 28, 2011, 04:07 PM
DPris please cite which state and code for me.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 04:12 PM
Utah.
No, I won't do your homework for you. :)
Look it up.
Denis

THe Dove
February 28, 2011, 04:12 PM
I have not read every post as this is a long one. I did watch the video and from what I gather; 1. the police were called by concerned citizen(s). 2. the officers repsonded and checked the individual out to ensure he was not a threat to anyone or himself, 3. the individual checked out and was left to go on his way..........

We can break it down and disect all day long but the dude was not violating any laws, and the officers were not violating any laws by checking the individual out....

In summary, the dude got what he wanted (ie, video to post on youtube and walk away with his weapon).... I hope he is happy.

Also, I want to thank the officer's for doing thier job in a professional manner as well.

The Dove

FC
February 28, 2011, 04:19 PM
Utah.
No, I won't do your homework for you. :)
Look it up.
Denis

I already have. I am sorry but I was apparently under the misapprehension that you had some tie to LE, now I know otherwise. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

The code http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE77/htm/77_07_001500.htm

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

average_shooter
February 28, 2011, 04:24 PM
I'm very aware of people who open carry and also carry recording devices in case of police interactions. However, in large part they just go about their own business and start recording only if they feel the need arises.

This guy isn't doing that. The full video is about 15 minutes long and he is recording long before the police show up. He seems to know, suspect or be hoping that the police will show up so he can get a confrontation on video/audio.

He is very verbally combative and arrogant. The cops really aren't too worried; looks like first cop has his hands in his pockets, second cop knows the guy by name. But the guy still gets agitated and all fired up.

I would have a lot more sympathy for this guy if he were respectful and conducting himself professionally, with an AK on his back or not. I have a very low tolerance for his kind of behavior in anyone. It is simply not required in order to successfully communicate with others. He is within his rights, yes, but he also is definitely coming across as a jack*** in many of his videos.

He's just angry about something. And he acts similarly in his other videos. He also puts down and cusses out people who send him comments of support. I've been know to curse along with the best of them, but this is pretty ridiculous.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 04:32 PM
FC,
I'm a retired Utah career cop, I just wasn't going to look it up for you & provide cites. Or related statutes, Supreme Court rulings, or case law. :)
Or argue the "rightness or wrongness" of the principles that apply.

My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.
Denis

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 04:41 PM
My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.

That's not what the law says that was quoted. It says LE can demand name and address. There is a big difference. Being able to demand ID means that if someone is unable to produce ID they may be detained further.

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

FC
February 28, 2011, 04:42 PM
FC,
I'm a retired Utah career cop, I just wasn't going to look it up for you & provide cites. Or related statutes, Supreme Court rulings, or case law. :)
Or argue the "rightness or wrongness" of the principles that apply.

My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.
Denis

I didn't figure you would have to look it up! Being a cop I would think that you would know what law you were making use of to perform stop.

Just how long ago did you retire anyway? The code I cited was "Enacted by Chapter 15, 1980 General Session" so it's not exactly new.

suzukisam
February 28, 2011, 04:51 PM
Cops don't know the law as a general rule. A friend of mine runs a private security company and teaches lw to academy instructors. And he warned me that I better know the law and my rights because he has seen time after time people being arrested and dragged through when they even broke a law to start with.

Everyone keeps saying this guy was an a hole and maybe he is I don't know him. Maybe he is finally sick and tired of a sherrifs department deciding whether he has the right to protect himself or not and he has just decided to be as over the top as they are. You can google many instances of liberal sheriffs jacking with permit apps. This MAY be one of those. And if all my assumptions are the reality of the situation then I give him kudos for showing restraint with cops and not telling them which end to kiss. If he was denied because he some sort of felon, then that is a whole different story, however him having a legal ak gtends make me think the latter is not the case

DPris
February 28, 2011, 04:53 PM
TR,
Not following you.
If you're splitting hairs and interpreting the wording indicating VERBAL name & address can be demanded, but not an ID card, you're just splitting hairs.

FC,
I started in '76, retired in early '99.
I do not have the numbers of the entire Utah State Criminal Code memorized now, and I didn't then.
I knew the wording, I knew what the DA would prosecute, and I knew what the courts upheld.
It was entirely possible to do the job without memorizing the numbers for everything in the criminal code book.

When I made an arrest or issued a citation, I looked up the applicable number on what we called a "cheat sheet", which was a list of the most commonly applied statutes & ordinances, for the applicable paperwork.
If it involved a more esoteric violation, I hauled out the book & looked it up.

Denis

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 05:01 PM
TR,
Not following you.
If you're splitting hairs and interpreting the wording indicating VERBAL name & address can be demanded, but not an ID card, you're just splitting hairs.

It's not splitting hairs, it could potentially mean 2 different outcomes to me. There are many legitimate reasons a person might not have physical ID on them. If the law requires physical proof of ID then they can detain even if the person has a good reason for being without the card (lost etc).

If the law says they can demand name and address that's easily provided verbally.

Seems like 2 different things to me anyway.

Anyway, it's side tracking from the topic so I'll stop now.

FC
February 28, 2011, 05:05 PM
TR,
I knew the wording, I knew what the DA would prosecute, and I knew what the courts upheld.


If you actually stopped someone and demanded ID without reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed or about to be committed you broke the law.

You stated

In my state, and other state & municipalities have some variation of the same broad principle, we have a disorderly conduct law that can be applied to a wide range of circumstances that include activities which create fear or disruption of normal activities.

and you are 100% wrong. Hence the reason I asked for the cite. No prosecutor would go after anything that was so far from the actual law.

This is no longer just about questioning something you said DPris. It's about the need for people to know their rights and laws as it is apparent that some LE at least doesn't feel that to be in their job description.

FROGO207
February 28, 2011, 05:15 PM
It all comes down to there is a good way to prove your point and a poor way to prove your point. The person may be legally correct and whatever but allowing the rest of us that strive to promote the 2nd Amend. appear in a bad light by association is bad for the lot as a whole. He was correct but was he a great example?:banghead: I would hope to come off as an intelligent, caring, and passionate advocate for the 2A cause if I was ever in a remotely similar situation. The AK was used purely for shock factor and a poor choice IMHO.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 05:19 PM
Establishing identity is an element of the initial phase of investigating a crime, or possible crime.
Here, police can demand ID for the purpose of establishing identity under certain circumstances, as noted.
If any type of official "card" (DL, state ID card, etc.) can be & is produced, the process can be & frequently is resolved fairly quickly along those lines.

If no ID can be produced, or a subject refuses to produce one, that COMBINED WITH OTHER FACTORS such as the nature of the stop, the demeanor (threatening, intoxicated, etc.) of the subject, the determination that a crime probably has been committed, the necessity of determining if the subject is the committer or the victim, and so on, certainly can prolong the detainment.

ID is considered fairly important by the courts, to at least try & ensure the subject cited, warned, or booked is actually who he or she says they are. A verbal name & address not supported by paper just takes longer for everybody to sort out & frequently results in either the wrong body getting a "contact" or criminal record, or the right body skating.

I can recall two separate cases where I had to book two constitutionalists (please, no filthy letters, not interested) instead of releasing them on misdemeanor cite promises to appear at the scene, when they had no ID and I had no way of determining who they really were. Once booked, the jail would try to work that out before releasing, or ensure they were taken before a judge.
They didn't believe in ID cards or DLs, unfortunately society & the legal system do.

And, I'm sidetracking, too.

Bottom line is if you deliberately stick your hand in a piranha tank, you can't expect to get it back out with skin on it.
You want to go ahead & do it, fine. It's your right & your hand.
Denis

jonmerritt
February 28, 2011, 05:23 PM
I will not condem him for what he is doing, and those that do, wish they had the guts to do it. Would I do that? I don't know. He is in accordance with the law, period.
And any right not exercised, is a right lost.
So yes he would be considered a hero for standing up for his, and our rights!
It's amazing that those who purport to support and fight for our second amendment rights, condem the act of exercising that very same right.
Though I may not agree with everything he did in this video, he is a 2nd amendment hero, like it or not!

DPris
February 28, 2011, 05:33 PM
FC,
You can make all the presumptions you want about me, and about prosecutors, without ever having worked my job in my state, and it will change nothing.
As long as the required elements of the crime were present and the proper foundation laid, an arrest & prosecution could & did follow.

I don't know what you're reading in my statements, but it's not what I'm writing.

I said there had to be a reason for the stop, after which IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER FACTORS detainment pursuant to determining whether a crime was being or had been committed was permissable. Under such circumstances, ID can be demanded.

I said nothing about just stopping somebody for fun & demanding ID without the possibility of a criminal act being involved.

Again- Here an officer may detain & demand ID from a subject WITH reason to do so, and that can fall under the Disorderly Conduct Statute, a littering ordinance, or a major car crash where only one person is found standing there looking at the car sitting halfway inside the wall of a house.

There has to be a reason for the stop, and it can be as much as a bloodstained butcher knife in hand on a public sidewalk or as little as an AK slung over the shoulder at a pizza joint parking lot.
Your definition of reason & the courts' definition may differ, but if it comes to a clash, don't be surprised if yours isn't the winner.

Denis

dayid
February 28, 2011, 05:36 PM
AKs are known by most Americans as a "terrorist" weapon thanks to video games, movies and the media.
So what?

If ignorant people get the idea from movies that all cell phones are actually doomsday devices, should you stop carrying one?

If people begin to give up their own rights for the comfort of others, how soon is it before no rights are left? The comfort of the ignorant is a poor reason for anyone to leave themselves defenseless or halt their tongue.

As I said on another blog that posted this same event - how embarassing would it be for the police to stop him for being black and walking down the street? How about being a woman? Perhaps they should stop him because he's wearing a christian cross? No? Then why treat him any differently for doing something that holds the same (constitutional) protection?

Is seeing people walk down the road with an ak normal? No Should cops check out things that are out of the norm? Yes
Even if you go down that path (that they can stop people for any reason) - why did they continue to practice their "right" (laugh) to lecture him once they realized who he was and that he was completely legal? At that point it was harassment.

What this man has done is elevate the paranoia of the uneducated masses.
Would you like to be held responsible for the ignorance of others? That is - unless you're given their childhood to teach them and their time in school to make sure that they actually get an education.

But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet(sic) of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??
It depends, are they both gifts for me? :neener:

FC
February 28, 2011, 06:00 PM
Again- Here an officer may detain & demand ID from a subject WITH reason to do so, and that can fall under the Disorderly Conduct Statute, a littering ordinance, or a major car crash where only one person is found standing there looking at the car sitting halfway inside the wall of a house.

There has to be a reason for the stop, and it can be as much as a bloodstained butcher knife in hand on a public sidewalk or as little as an AK slung over the shoulder at a pizza joint parking lot.
Your definition of reason & the courts' definition may differ, but if it comes to a clash, don't be surprised if yours isn't the winner.

Denis

You are reaching now and that's fine, enjoy your retirement. Just because some LEO got away with it doesn't make it legal.


Sorry for the thread-jack.

All things considered it's impractical to carry an AK around town at best but I wouldn't find cause for alarm over a guy walking with it slung. If a guy was walking around with his finger in the trigger guard carrying it leveled I would definitely be concerned.

Someone made the analogy of someone walking up to your door with flowers, bat or an AK47 and I would be equally alarmed to see a guy walking to my door with a bat in his hand as i would a rifle slung. Walking down the street I wouldn't bat an eye over though.

vaherder
February 28, 2011, 06:18 PM
Why does he need to be more respectful towards LE?

Sorry LE needs to earn respect its not given just because they have a badge or gun.

They need to treat the citizens and taxpayers they way they would like to be treated.

Cop has attitude he or she gets attitude from me. I am sorry if they missed the fresh hot donuts. Attitude from you just means your day got worse.

The general public should never have to deal with cops with attitudes. You are a public servant and if you cant handle quit.

Now this guy really needs to be transparent and disclose why his CCW was denied and post his arrest record if he has one. His arrest record is a public record and not covered by the PA.

Va herder

BLB68
February 28, 2011, 06:26 PM
The police can ask you for an ID for any reason. Just like they can ask you if they can search your vehicle. In this case, the guy was under no obligation to give them the ID, and he didn't. The officer didn't demand the ID or arrest him for failing to produce it.

The first officer gave no indication that he knew who this guy was in the video. That was the SECOND officer. Since an ID card or DL is an expedient way to establish identity, I can't see the first officer asking for the ID as a big deal.

Was "AK47 Master" detained too long or "hassled"? No, his intent was to hassle the police, and had he shut his mouth and responded to the officers instead of babbling on like a moron and lecturing them condescendingly, he'd have been on his merry way much faster. HE is the one who prolonged the encounter, not the police.

Should they have stopped him? They responded to citizen calls about the guy. We don't have any ideas of what they said to the police. For all we know they could have been anything from, "Oh, there goes a nice young gentleman exercising his 2nd Amendment rights down Main Street," to "Hey, there's a scruffy dude walking down Main Street waving a huge gun around and talking to himself."

Whatever was said, they had to respond. The first guy responded and was getting a lot of lip. He seemed to be a less experienced officer than the second and lost control of the conversation. For that matter, he really didn't seem to have a game plan for his questioning of the AK Master. The second cop showed up, and knew the guy and what his agenda was, smoothed things over, and got him on his merry way.

One of two officers knowing the guy does not mean every cop in town knows who this chuckle head is.

I'm surprised there's been so much debate over another mall ninja/sheepdog/YouTube attention whore with a hugely negative attitude harassing his local police.

He may have been within his rights, but the police did their job. The first guy needs to work on his IPC skills, but nobody had his rights violated there. It was a manufactured incident set up by a d-bag with a huge chip on his shoulder.

straybullet
February 28, 2011, 06:27 PM
The internet is full of people trying to provoke a recordable offense by police for notoriety purposes. Negative publicity of this nature only can hurt us in the future by creating negative public veiws on gun carry as a whole. The people in many of these open carry videos and articles (like copblock) are in it for their 15 minutes of nightly news fame in my opinion.

DPris
February 28, 2011, 06:29 PM
FC,
Unless you majored in LE in Utah, took courses on criminal law from a sitting trial judge at one and the same well-respected defense attorney at the other who also taught law at the state academy for many years, graduated first in your academy class in Utah, worked behind a badge in this state for over two decades, and were a Field Training Officer for several years, you don't have a clue in dismissing me so lightly as "...just because some LEO got away with it..."

But, try as you might to make this about my credibility, the primary theme remains.

The open carry topic always generates heated commentary.
Regardless of whether you're in the "Hero" or "Idiot" camp, and despite the beliefs you may have regarding whether or not any governmental entity has any right whatever to dictate to you in any form whatsoever, and totally aside from the "All cops are just stupid" mentality, we're left with the fact that this world does not revolve around your core beliefs, in some areas the societal power structure disagrees, and when it compromises to some degree (by statutorially permitting carry at all, which IS a compromise in their eyes) there are still consequences involved in open carry (particularly such IN-YOUR-FACE-I-DON'T-GIVE-A-DAMN-WHAT-YOU-THINK! carry as with an AK) in heavily populated areas.

Blanket statements such as "Cops don't know the law" and "I got my rights, nobody else has any business messing with me" don't change that, any more than a statement by me that "Gun forum posters are morons" makes that one true. There's SOME basis in fact on all three, none are absolutes.

Right or wrong, it's the world we live in. Doesn't matter what you think it SHOULD be, what matters is the way it is.
You chose the risk, you deal with the consequences.

I've given you some things to think about on the issue, it's not as simple a matter as "It's legal, leave me alone!"
If you choose to disregard, that's fine.
Attacking my credibility won't change the way the nation runs.

Denis

BLB68
February 28, 2011, 06:31 PM
Why does he need to be more respectful towards LE?



For the same reason you show ANYONE common courtesy. If he'd have talked to me the way he was to them, he'd have been told to get out of my face or have the AK jammed somewhere dark. There's no excuse for his behavior. Bad manners are bad manners.

For that matter, all he had to do was ask the officer if he was being detained, and if he was told that he was not, then he could simply walk away from the interview. Quickest way to end a police interview.

danprkr
February 28, 2011, 06:31 PM
Appears to be a Houghton MI, is all I can find. I have no idea what their CCW laws are or why he could be denied. But if it is a may issue state it could be that he's trying to wear them down. Get to a point where who ever makes the call decides it's easier to give him a CCW than waste PD resources on these BS stops. Just a thought.

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2011, 06:37 PM
OK I think we've exhausted the LE "us vs them" side of this and it's turning personal as these usually do.

DPris is quite right, open carry debates get very heated and it's tempting to get nasty.

We don't want to do that, doesn't help the pro 2A cause at all that's for sure. Let's try to stay on track please.

Haxby
February 28, 2011, 06:37 PM
This guy is about two steps removed from wearing a tinfoil hat while he carries his AK around. I hope he never makes the lead story on the news.

Bonesinium
February 28, 2011, 07:01 PM
If he wants to open carry an AK for whatever reason, so be it. But he didn't need to try and BS the second officer.

Officer 2 "I know why you're open carrying."
"No you don't."

Yes he did. It was pretty obvious. He was because he could, AND to make a point. The officer knew exactly that. So why did he even bother trying to BS him.....to make a point. Ironically, that was just proving the officer correct. Had he just said it how it was, it wouldn't have changed anything, but it would have been more respectful, and maybe he wouldn't be bothered by the police as much.

End rant.

FC
February 28, 2011, 07:10 PM
I've given you some things to think about on the issue, it's not as simple a matter as "It's legal, leave me alone!"


You seem to be getting upset about this, legally speaking in this case "It's legal, leave me alone!" is exactly as simple as this matter is.

The only thing you have given me to think about is the fact that you apparently studied the law extensively and yet didn't know your own stop and identify statute although you apparently used it for nearly 20 years.

Has anyone messaged "AK47master" to see if they could find out why his CCL was denied in the first place?

BLB68
February 28, 2011, 07:24 PM
Michigan requirements for CPL:

http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Wikipedia has MI listed as a shall-issue state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Shall-Issue

That's about all I could find with a quick search. Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to get a CPL there.

cassandrasdaddy
February 28, 2011, 07:28 PM
it is mandated that individuals of the legal age of 18 carry said ID anywhere "public


fiction

BudW
February 28, 2011, 07:42 PM
Thumbs Up, he was with in the law, the first cop tried and failed to bully him,the second cop did what he needed to, the cop might think he knows why the guy is carrying but in reality he nor any of us know.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 07:51 PM
Actually we do know if you watch the other video he made.

2WheelsGood
February 28, 2011, 07:57 PM
Actually, he is breaking the law (in Michigan) if you want to get technical. Well, I should say if he drives with it in a car to get to and from where he's open-carrying. The only legal way you can have any gun in your car in Michigan (in the trunk separated from ammo) is for transportation to and from a gun range or other shooting facility. Unless, of course, you have a CPL. If he happens to live in that town and walks everywhere, then I am wrong.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 08:03 PM
Yea, he walked the entire way. He made another YouTube video explaining his side of what happened. I saw it a couple weeks ago.

One-Time
February 28, 2011, 08:07 PM
He was excercising not only what is a god given right, but what was also LEGAL in that state, cops were in the wrong, and I cant blame any freedom loving law abider not puting up w/ BS regardless.

S.W.G.
February 28, 2011, 08:13 PM
This is just stupid.

I fully support concealed or open carry of handguns, but a rifle?

I wouldn't look twice at someone open carrying a Glock, but if someone came waltzing into a grocery stor with a rifle, I would be on alert.

It seems to me that this guy isn't so much making a statement as he is being an Attention.....um.....'Lady of the Evening'.

One-Time
February 28, 2011, 08:23 PM
Why? How is a rifle any more dangerous than a pistol in a grocery store? Its silly to be unconcerned about a handgun, but to be 'on alert' because its a rifle, no logic in it :rolleyes:

EddieNFL
February 28, 2011, 08:36 PM
his attitude would have been more than enough to have him take a trip in

Does attitude fall under state law or is it a local ordinance?

Panzercat
February 28, 2011, 08:37 PM
I'm going to agree with DPris here. Let me state my qualifcations--

I don't have a legal degree.
I don't have LE experience.
I don't have routine run-ins with the law.
I don't feel it necessary to walk my AK for exercise.
I have trouble getting firearm purchase past my wife.
I'm occasionally forced to watch judge Judy with my wife. I hate her.

With that legal mastery firmly slipping through my grasp, I do have common sense. Not to disparage LEOs, but some us are forgetting this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc) that is often thrown around on this forum. Specifically, it comes down to the fact that if law enforcement wants to find you doing something wrong, they will. You will make a mistake. You will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, not to disparage the police, but i'm sure any half competent officer can manufacture a reason to detain an asshat parading around with an AK... Without breaking the law at its letter.

Yes, you have a right to walk your AK around.
Yes, police are going to ask you about it.
Yes, you probably deserve to get arrested if you're an idiot.

S.W.G.
February 28, 2011, 08:37 PM
Why? How is a rifle any more dangerous than a pistol in a grocery store? Its silly to be unconcerned about a handgun, but to be 'on alert' because its a rifle, no logic in it

I think there is quite a bit of logic in it.

A long gun simply isn't practical for self defense, so there must be some other reason why he is carrying it.

Maybe he is on his way to shoot up a high school. Or maybe, like the guy this thread is based on, he's trying to be a confrontational jack***.

In the parking lot of a range is one thing, but if someone walks into Shoney's holding a Mini-14, the first thing I'm going to do is locate an exit. Just in case.

Carrying a handgun makes perfect sense. A loaded deer rifle? Something isn't right here.

EddieNFL
February 28, 2011, 08:41 PM
A long gun simply isn't practical for self defense

Hmmm

True Grit
February 28, 2011, 08:52 PM
If the law denied this man then there probably was a good reason for doing so. I believe that it is people like this that will cause us to lose our gun rights. Those cops were just doing there jobs. Your darn right I would ask someone just what the heck they were doing walking around in my neighborhood with an AK-47. Is this guy nuts???

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 09:06 PM
He was excercising not only what is a god given right, but what was also LEGAL in that state, cops were in the wrong, and I cant blame any freedom loving law abider not puting up w/ BS regardless.
Guns are NOT a "God-Given Right". Why does everybody think that?
Its not a human right that you can walk down the street with an AK 47, protesting that you couldn't pass a background check. Its not in the bible either, unless they have re-written it.

And you guys wonder why there are anti's...

Moose1995
February 28, 2011, 09:18 PM
If he can legally own a firearm, then there shouldn't be too much reason why he couldn't get the permit. That being said, regardless of the law people should use common sense about how they display themselves with their firearms. We all know that a good percentage of the population are anti-gun. We all know that there have been plenty of incidents of people walking into a building with a high capacity rifle with bad intentions. Of course the police are going to respond, as they should. Of course they will question him, as they should. And in my opinion, they should also keep watching him. Because with a stupid video like that put up on youtube for the world to see, he could directly lead to someone else to do the same....only maybe that person DOES have bad intentions and can now LEGALLY position himself to cause more harm just because he has rights. This is not smart, by any stretch of the imagination.

2WheelsGood
February 28, 2011, 09:19 PM
If the law denied this man then there probably was a good reason for doing so.Yes, I would agree. Assuming this guy applied in 2010, this shows only 2 denials in Houghton. Both for misdemeanor convictions. I would assume this guy was one of those two convictions. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2009-10_CPL_Annual_Report_343621_7.pdf

EddieNFL
February 28, 2011, 09:57 PM
Guns are NOT a "God-Given Right". Why does everybody think that?

Probably because someone once said something about being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights which were later confirmed in a document many still think relevant. Silly, huh?

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:06 PM
Well, see that is where we get complicated isn't it?

The rights in the constitution were not thought of by god. They were thought up by human beings. That is a fact.

ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?

I don't mean to turn this towards a religious debate at all, I am simply speaking from a standpoint of rights.

bkhosken
February 28, 2011, 10:14 PM
I agree he's "pushing the envelope" and may get harassed and arrested. However, didn't Rosa Park refuse to give up her seat on the bus? Wasn't that a BIG DEAL, that pissed off a lot of onlookers and got her arrested? Doing things like that MAKES change happen. Trying not to scare people and being reasonable DOES NOT.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:17 PM
Yes, but that was because of RACISM. Being discriminated against because of your race is not the same thing as being discriminated against because you have a misdemeanor.

tarosean
February 28, 2011, 10:18 PM
ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?


exactly what I was going to bring up...


In Jesus's country of origin you cannot own a gun period.... Surely he would have granted his son those rights.... :)

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:19 PM
exactly what I was going to bring up...


In Jesus's country of origin you cannot own a gun period.... Surely he would have granted his son those rights.... :)
Agreed. People chant the "god-given" line a bit too much.
I love the ones who say that it is a human right, too :P

84B20
February 28, 2011, 10:33 PM
I hadn't planned on adding to the thread until I read two different replies calling the AK an "assault weapon." I highly doubt the guy could afford a full auto firearm, especially and AK47. We have enough trouble with antis calling them assault weapons and I assume pretty much all members here and pro 2A. So we should try to be a little more precise in our descriptions at least as this type of firearm is concerned. IMHO.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 10:34 PM
I prefer inherent or innate, but it is the same idea.


ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?

Not really contradictory, unusual would be a better descriptor. I guess your perspective would hinge upon whether or not you believe that the State grants rights or not. We here in America believe that some rights are innate, for those who believe otherwise; there's California.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:36 PM
I hadn't planned on adding to the thread until I read two different replies calling the AK an "assault weapon." I highly doubt the guy could afford a full auto firearm, especially and AK47. We have enough trouble with antis calling them assault weapons and I assume pretty much all members here and pro 2A. So we should try to be a little more precise in our descriptions at least as this type of firearm is concerned. IMHO.
Well...an AK is in many ways the definition of an Assault Rifle (Don't mean to upset the term nazis, I am one myself a lot of the time). Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bullets :P

armoredman
February 28, 2011, 10:39 PM
Israelis can own firearms, pain to do so, but last time I asked a buddy of mine in Israel they can go to the police station and check out a full auto UZI if need be. Try doing that in your home town.
Something that seems to be cropping up here is there is a blurring of a line - carrying and slung. If he is carrying the rifle in his HANDS, as some have posted, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, then YES, he is the same as any guy walking around with a gun in his hand - something is going on that requires a look see. If he has the rifle slung over his shoulder, yes, people will look, many will consider action/reaction plans, (which you should be doing anyway), but if he merely has it slung over his shoulder it is the same as being holstered.
As for rifles not being practical for self defense, seems to work pretty well for the military all these years. :) Patrol cars in many cities and states have rifles in the trunks for bad situations, I doubt they would have them if they weren't useful. I would hazard a guess that long guns are less PRACTICAL for casual dress, not active defensive use. A slung rifle can get in the way of many things, be a pain to keep on one shoulder all day long, heavy and awkward to manipulate if you are doing normal day to day activities that aren't commensurate with military work. (I do have to say i have seen a lot of pictures over the years of Israeli civilians and off duty reservists walking around in civilian clothes with slung M-16s. Hmmm.)
A holstered handgun is far more practical for non combat zone use in civilian applications, but a rifle can definately be useful for defensive use if needed and available. Just a pain to keep close if going to day care and the movies.
I still think the guy was over the top and an arse in public for pushing the envelope with the LEOs, but apparently he broke no laws. I could do the same down here, but I realize rarely is it PRACTICAL, for instance, to go to WalMart with a slung rifle - wants to slip right on down when you push the cart. :) But is it legal in many places, has been legal for a very long time in many places, it's just rarely practical outside of hunting season.


edit to add,
Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bullets :P
That's anti-rights trash right there. That semi auto rifle was no more designed to kill people than my sons CZ 452 Scout single shot 22 rifle was made for killing people. The select fire firearm was originally designed for military use, the semi auto version was made for civilian use.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:43 PM
I prefer inherent or innate, but it is the same idea.




Not really contradictory, unusual would be a better descriptor. I guess your perspective would hinge upon whether or not you believe that the State grants rights or not. We here in America believe that some rights are innate, for those who believe otherwise; there's California.

But see, really, if it is inherent or innate then it should be for all. That just seems to imply that we are not created equal as the idea goes.


@above: Yes, but from the point of anyone who isn't infatuated with firearms, when you SEE someone walking down the street with an AK do you think, Huh, it is a semi auto range rifle designed for the civilian market.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 10:48 PM
But see, really, if it is inherent or innate then it should be for all. That just seems to imply that we are not created equal as the idea goes.

You must mean "governed equal" otherwise you are using words in ways that are incorrect and tying concepts together in a muddled fashion.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 10:52 PM
If u watch the entire video he starts out by saying "this might get exciting if someone calls the cops. They should have given me my f-ING ccw and I wouldn't be doing this." That's not verbatim but close enough for this discussion.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 10:53 PM
You must mean "governed equal" otherwise you are using words in ways that are incorrect and tying concepts together in a muddled fashion.
Sorry-let me clarify that.
Human Rights are innate rights by definition-that is not disputable. Civil Rights are rights granted by the government by definition-and RKBA is a civil right.

EDIT: I know that people will debate this statement by saying that it says that these civil rights are endowed by the creator. However, Civil rights are not innate rights by definition.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 10:57 PM
Sorry-let me clarify that.
Human Rights are innate rights by definition-that is not disputable. Civil Rights are rights granted by the government by definition-and RKBA is a civil right.

That explains it. You are under the misapprehension that the BoR describes rights granted by the State. That is incorrect.

orionengnr
February 28, 2011, 10:58 PM
Houghton, MI. Upper Peninsula. Population approx 7500. Small-town America.

Civil disobedience is a time-honored American tradition. This doesn't even really qualify, because he's not breaking any laws.

I wouldn't do it, but I support him all the way. He knows his rights, and he was not discourteous to the officers.

I think he should have advised the officers that educating ignorant citizens might be more productive than harrassing a law-abiding citizen, but taht's just my opinion.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:04 PM
That explains it. You are under the misapprehension that the BoR describes rights granted by the State. That is incorrect.
No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens. However, the idea behind inherent rights is that they are endowed upon all human beings simply for being human. Now, judging by the fact that most of the free world (un-oppressed? For lack of a better word) does not have a similar right, I believe that it is unfair to call it a god-given right.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:06 PM
No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens.

No, that is incorrect.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:08 PM
No, that is incorrect.
Well, to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government.

armoredman
February 28, 2011, 11:09 PM
SuperNaut, I believe you nailed it, especially with the language he has been using, infatuated with firearms,, and such, I would have to believe he could be definately far more anti rights than pro rights. Too bad.
Have a nice night, everyone.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:13 PM
Well, to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government.

Yep, our innate human rights. People and their attendant inherent rights existed before government, government is just a system. A social machine that we the people created and control. It grants nothing; the government serves at the behest of the people.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:15 PM
SuperNaut, I believe you nailed it, especially with the language he has been using, , and such, I would have to believe he could be definately far more anti rights than pro rights. Too bad.
Have a nice night, everyone.
I assure you, I am FAR from an anti. However, I try to have an open mind on gun-issues and political issues. I would think that that is what a forum called The High Road is about.

Listen-I understand people's want for open carry. I understand people's want for high-cap magazines. I understand people's desire for more and more gun rights, and I support them. However, I take issue when people start thinking they are entitled to these rights necessarily. The 2nd amendment was intended for a somewhat different purpose originally. That does not mean it should not be adapted for the current purpose, but I strongly feel that people should understand the situation with these laws not just here, but in the rest of the world as well.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:16 PM
I take issue when people start thinking they are entitled to these rights necessarily. The 2nd amendment was intended for a somewhat different purpose originally.

Incorrect again.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:17 PM
Yep, our innate human rights. People and their attendant inherent rights existed before government, government is just a system. A social machine that we the people created and control. It grants nothing; the government serves at the behest of the people.
But are they inherent just because we say they are inherent? That is the question!
Many people in America today believe that RKBA should NOT be inherent. I feel it should, but I can also UNDERSTAND the views of the antis. I dont agree with it, but is important to understand it.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:21 PM
Incorrect again.
Not necessarily incorrect. This is where understanding the views of the anti's comes into the equation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is essentially, so that people can defend themselves, whether that be from infringement of their rights, someone intent on causing them bodily harm, or from an invading nation. The antis argue that it does NOT protect people owning fully automatic weapons, having silencers, and all these fun gadgets for shooting at the range and simply enjoying our hobby.
EDIT: Damn, double post, sorry.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:22 PM
But are they inherent just because we say they are inherent? That is the question!

They cannot be anything else.

The right to self-ownership and self-determination demands that these inherent rights are also able to be defended. These rights exist independent of any government and certainly independent of any sophistic pretenses.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:25 PM
The antis argue that it does NOT protect people owning fully automatic weapons, having silencers, and all these fun gadgets for shooting at the range and simply enjoying our hobby.

Irrelevant and not at all what you were asserting. But the change of topic signals that you understood and agreed with my corrections.

I thank you for that.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:26 PM
They cannot be anything else.

The right to self-ownership and self-determination demands that these inherent rights are also able to be defended. These rights exist independent of any government and certainly independent of any sophistic pretenses.
Alright, I agree. For the citizens of the United States of America, these rights are unalienable and irrefutable. The issue this stemmed from is the labeling of them as "God-Given Rights", which is what I take issue with.

fallout mike
February 28, 2011, 11:27 PM
Calgunfan, u r really sounding like an anti even though u say u r not.

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:30 PM
The issue this stemmed from is the labeling of them as "God-Given Rights", which is what I take issue with.

This is fine, it becomes a mere semantics issue AFAIAC. Call them inherent or innate instead and everything is copacetic.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:32 PM
Calgunfan, u r really sounding like an anti even though u say u r not.
If I do, I apologize. I am not anti-gun, or anti gun rights. I love guns, they're a big hobby of mine even early on. I hate the idea of them being taken away from me or anyone else without proper cause. The issue I have is that people assume it is a god-given right to walk down the street with an AK-47, because whatever people may say, that is just irresponsible and paints reasonable gun owners in a bad light. As for the inherent/god-given rights issue, I suppose that I have my beliefs about the subject that at times I may get carried away with and that make me seem anti. So I guess you just have to take my word that I am not.

Cal-gun Fan
February 28, 2011, 11:33 PM
This is fine, it becomes a mere semantics issue AFAIAC. Call them inherent or innate instead and everything is copacetic.
Alright, sounds like a compromise :)
And w/that, good night!

SuperNaut
February 28, 2011, 11:35 PM
Good night.

FC
March 1, 2011, 01:03 AM
Has anyone messaged "AK47master" to see if they could find out why his CCL was denied in the first place?

I messaged him and asked and he said

"I was wrongfully denied. They denied me saying I was a felon. But that is clearly not the case."

He did also say that he had purchased firearms after being denied a CPL without issue too. It sounds like he has reason to be annoyed over the denial, I know I would be!

ghostwriter
March 1, 2011, 01:20 AM
I have to admit, I read the first two pages of postings and skipped to this page to post so this might not be in the same grain but it does make you think.
I was headed to the gunshop one day last year to have some measurements done and some other stuff which necessitated me taking my rifle. So, as luck would have it, I'm driving along the road and the truck just shut off... click, just like that... (later found a defective condensor under the distributor cap that shorted out and killed the ignition) so instead of leaving my rifle in the truck for someone to steal, I hit the sidewalk and packing my rifle, walked the three blocks to the shop and finished my business there. So... in the same situation as the OP, I was packin too and I never got a second look (That I could tell) from anyone along the way. I did see a CHP and a local LEO pass me but they never stopped to check me out or anything. Guess I didn't look suspecious enough. So... There's a situation that was similiar and I think i handled it well and responsible and the gun was out in the open and not in a case so they knew very well what it was.
Would it happen like that again, maybe, maybe not... and I live in **********... certainly not as gun positive as some states are.

General Geoff
March 1, 2011, 01:56 AM
ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?

Every man, woman and child on the planet has the right to keep and bear arms. It just happens that most governments infringe heavily on said right.

And before anyone gets all uppity on me for including all children of any age, remember that until the age of legal majority, parents have the responsibility of doling out rights to their progeny as they see fit. Therefore, while every three year old has a right to keep and bear arms, they are generally not yet capable of the responsibility required to exercise that right. So their parents retain the power to restrict free exercise thereof, until the child is legally responsible for him or herself.

dec41971
March 1, 2011, 01:57 AM
I think this guy is commical at best and worst he really hurts the cause he attempts to champion. Wait until there is a mass shooting in his state then a few of his type guys go flaunting it. Give all the ammunition to the antis to get the votes to repeal that open carry. As for me, as 2A friendly as I am, I see some guy open carrying a rifle, Im going to be on high alert and give the guy a once over, and look behind my shoulder after passing him. Just natural reaction. I don't see any reason anyone wants to carry a rifle in a city environment. If I meet him out in the woods, I will still give him the once over and be alert, but as you might imagine, I'll be way more at ease. If you see a guy in heavy coat in the summer, it triggers a reaction and some vexing questions in your mind doesn't it?

Now imagine this same guy walking down main street like this with a Bin Laden beard...:evil: Try lying to us you will be calm and unmoved ha ha.

toivo
March 1, 2011, 02:29 AM
Houghton is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is definitely northwoods outdoorsman territory. (I was born just across the Portage in Hancock and spent the first eight years of my life just down the road from there, but that was a long time ago.) Houghton is a small town. It's also a college town, home of Michigan Tech, which actually has a rifle team:

http://mtucrt.students.mtu.edu/index.php

The gist is that a guy walking down the street with a rifle is not nearly as big a deal there as it might be in a comparable town in California or Massachusetts, say.

I have mixed feelings about this guy. Yes, he's within his rights, but provoking confrontations like this probably does more harm than good. I actually have more of a problem with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKZvUuYfd34

Go ahead and break all the safety rules you want when you're home alone. Just don't post videos of it on YouTube to be emulated by idiots all across the country.

OC_
March 1, 2011, 02:31 AM
I have friends im trying to win over to our side, so I ask, how is this helping our cause?

I think we should save open carry for when we need it - like after a disaster, either man made or otherwise.

And come on, at least carry something that the good guys use...

SharpsDressedMan
March 1, 2011, 04:45 AM
"Anyways... I don't know, but not all places in the US are shall issue. In my state some CLEOs just won't issue CCLs to a mere citizen" .......... This may be the whole point. If a local government WON'T issue, then let them suffer a legitimate citizen packing an AK in plain view. If they do not want the alarm of man with an AK, then maybe they WILL issue a CCW license.
__________________

vaherder
March 1, 2011, 06:55 AM
Great we have posters here who believe acting like an idiot or ass hat is grounds for arrest or ride in the back. Not much different from getting the same treatment for being Cathloic or black in the South about 50 years ago. Since the Constitution has reared its ugly head in this discussion lets just say I like to pursue happiness by being the village idiot or ass hat. I may find your pursuit of happiness makes you an idiot or ass hat.

Again just because your strap on a gun and pin on the badge doesnt mean you automatically get respect. Act like a jerk or do the macho flex your muscles moron cop routine and you get the attitude you deserve. Respect is mutal not exclusive to a fool with a gun or badge.

When I used to live in Fairfax County back several years ago and was still in the USN I let my girlfirend's teenage daughter drive my BMW M3. It is a one and only in color on the BMW individual program with a cloth interior. Only one like it on the planet. So she is driving and flashing red lights appear in the mirror. She pulls over. She wasn't speeding yet and didnt violate any laws. Officer was white. She is African American. I just slouched down in the passenger seat. He asked for license and registration. I said why. He said he had a report the car was stolen. I said I dont <deleted> think so since I am the owner. I asked if she ahd broken any laws. Cop said no he just had a report car was stolen. I said show me a copy of the report showing car stolen and your get the registration and license. He asked me to exit the car I said no. You need to get your supervisor and we will remain in the car until he or she shows up. He said get out of the car. I said get the fing SWAT team punk. My girlfriend's daughter is freaking out saying we are going to jail etc. I explained I can do this because I am older and white and its not a good idea for you to mouth off to the cops ever. Sorry thats the way life is. Supervisor shows up I calmly explain the situation to her. I give her my registration and creds. She looked at them and said thank you have a nice day. We filed a formal complaint against the officer and he is no longer with FCPD. Lawsuit was settled out of court. Helped with her college tuition.

Some times you have to act like an idiot or a jerk or maybe an ass hat. Last time I checked it was still a free country until the idiots on the right like Beck et al or the morons on the left like Pelosi et al get there way. So the dude with the AK can act like an <deleted> if he wants and so can I. Life is way to short to grow up and act like an adult.

If this one fool open carrying an AK47 can have a substantial effect on rights to keep and bear arms at local and Federal level we are in deep trouble as Nation.

One suggestion for those who are interested in Constitution and rights as human beings you need to read James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Voltaire, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and the greatest of them all George Mason. Read their writings not what others have taken out of context ie Beck about our rights as human beings. Note the use of the creator etc.

Va Herder

FourteenMiles
March 1, 2011, 07:07 AM
...from now on I read vaherders posts in Clint Eastwoods voice.

SharpsDressedMan
March 1, 2011, 12:18 PM
I see there are law enforcement officers that would like to maintian the perogative to "investigate" unusual activity, like carrying around a semi-auto rifle. The problems that arise, as mentioned by both sides above, is that loonies, and other dangerous people, are sometimes toting a gun for the wrong reasons. Cops would LIKE to have enough authority to do their jobs, protect the public, etc, without too much restriction. Some cops go over the limits of their authority, constitutionally, and never get called on it by prosecutors and judges that would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the government rather than the individual, to further protect the welfare of the masses. Police generally can more easily exceed their legal limits than the citizen who has had his rights "trimmed" in a case like this one can legally challenge the confrontation. It would be nice if all persons who test the limits of the law were perfect, could speak eloquently, and had law degrees, too. It would be great if police took each case individually on its own merits, treated all interested persons with respect for the individual's rights, and never arrested for anything they would do themselves, but the overwhelming pressure of immediate danger (real or perceived), expediting completion of a contact, and in most cases, having the final say as to "that's enough, you're going to jail" when respect and civility has gone down the drain with a contact-now-become-a-suspect, and, well, you get the picture. You could almost toss a coin, throw in a different cop, let the conversation get a little steamier, and have a totally different outcome than the video. And that is life. Sometimes you get total professionalism; sometimes just bad luck, and sometimes an otherwise innocent man with a challenge to the limits of the constitution goes to jail. All in a day's work.

nathan
March 1, 2011, 12:39 PM
Next time it will be a M1 Garand slung on his back with ammo bandoleer.

vaherder
March 1, 2011, 12:46 PM
14mils said "from now on I read vaherder's posts in Clint Eastwood's voice"

Clint Eastwood sorry just isnt cool enough. Sorry try you best Steve McQueen voice. One day I be as cool as Steve. Still working on it.

au01st
March 1, 2011, 04:16 PM
Clint Eastwood sorry just isnt cool enough. Sorry try you best Steve McQueen voice. One day I be as cool as Steve. Still working on it.

Driving the wrong car for that voice, lol. I enjoyed your post.

Justin
March 1, 2011, 05:25 PM
Regarding the original topic, Labrat over at Atomic Nerds (http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4409) pretty well sums up how I feel about stunt carriers.

Warning, some language is NSFW.

Nuclear
March 1, 2011, 05:51 PM
Like it or not, even jerks have constitutional rights.

And sometimes the person challenging the legal system is Rosa Parks, sometimes it is Ernesto Miranda (thief, kidnapper and rapist).

If I were being jacked around by a system that allowed me to buy guns and open carry them but denied me a CCW based on a questionable reason, I might too open carry a scary looking gun around until someone decided it was easier to issue the CCW.

2WheelsGood
March 1, 2011, 05:57 PM
And sometimes the person challenging the legal system is Rosa Parks...Rosa Parks had class. This guy is more like Chris Rock not giving up his seat on a bus... not exactly the face you want on your cause. At the very least he could have tried to have a more reasonable conversation with the cops. Just because you can act like an arse doesn't mean you should.

FC
March 1, 2011, 06:02 PM
Rosa Parks had class.

Just to put things in perspective, Rosa Parks was NOT viewed as having class by many at the time. She was viewed as barely human and lucky to be able to ride on the bus at all.

SharpsDressedMan
March 1, 2011, 06:07 PM
One more thing to mention. The cops get paid to take abusive language. Part of the job. If they can't leave their emotions out of it, and still act professional, then they should find other employment. I say this as a retired cop.

2WheelsGood
March 1, 2011, 06:09 PM
Just to put things in perspective, Rosa Parks was NOT viewed as having class by many at the time. She was viewed as barely human and lucky to be able to ride on the bus at all.Now you're making me laugh. Are you suggesting that in 100 years we'll look back at the video posted and think the guy is any less of an arse? We'll look back and celebrate all of our wonderful freedoms won because of his actions? Seriously?

FC
March 1, 2011, 06:14 PM
Now you're making me laugh. Are you suggesting that in 100 years we'll look back at the video posted and think the guy is any less of an arse? We'll look back and celebrate all of our wonderful freedoms won because of his actions? Seriously?

No I am not but you are trying to make out what she did as something other than what it was considered at the time and then use it as a comparison to open carry of an AK47.

As for whether or not it will make a difference in the next 100 years? Look me up in 2111....Do you think Rosa Parks thought she was making a difference? She was tired of taking people's crap, plain and simple.

gearhead
March 1, 2011, 06:15 PM
By all accounts, Rosa Parks was curt that day. I'm paraphrasing, but she told the driver and the police officer she was tired, and she was going to remain seated. Because her reason is considered righteous now it's looked upon as those questioning her right to remain seated were the bad guy but the situation really isn't all that different.

CharlesT
March 1, 2011, 06:23 PM
Did any else hear his "Sheepdog" comment that he muttered under his breath?

2WheelsGood
March 1, 2011, 06:32 PM
Because her reason is considered righteous now it's looked upon as those questioning her right to remain seated were the bad guy but the situation really isn't all that different.She took a very real risk of being beaten and killed by an angry mob of people. This guy risked nothing. He took the opportunity to spout off to a couple cops. Not all that different?

Justin
March 1, 2011, 06:37 PM
Comparing the issue of open carry rights to that of the civil rights movement strikes me as a tremendously ill-advised thing to do.

danprkr
March 1, 2011, 06:44 PM
Comparing the issue of open carry rights to that of the civil rights movement strikes me as a tremendously ill-advised thing to do.

Please explain. I have always believed that the right to self defense is the most import right we have.

FC
March 1, 2011, 06:50 PM
She took a very real risk of being beaten and killed by an angry mob of people. This guy risked nothing. He took the opportunity to spout off to a couple cops. Not all that different?

If you don't or don't want to get the principle that's fine but by your logic anyone who doesn't risk injury or death to do something is wasting their time.

Comparing the issue of open carry rights to that of the civil rights movement strikes me as a tremendously ill-advised thing to do.

Why? Doesn't the second amendment describe one of our civil rights?

DM0217
March 1, 2011, 06:55 PM
MY take on this is...that everyone has been dumbed down by the pc agenda. "It scares people". Thats a good reason to stop exercising your rights. The first cop bullied him. Hmmmm...why are cops bullying anybody? Mr "AK's" attitude was wrong. I will agree. When cops approach me I kill'em with kindness. "Good morning officer", "Good day officer", etc, etc, etc. Where I take issue is when comments like..."an AK looks like a terrorist weapon" No it is a terrorist weapon. So what. If the sheeple are too stupid to know and exercise their rights they don't deserve to have them, better yet they don't deserve to be an "American". We have more important things to worry about than why some ignorant human saw someone exercising their rights and called the cops. Anyway, that's what I think.

2WheelsGood
March 1, 2011, 07:22 PM
Please explain. I have always believed that the right to self defense is the most import right we have.

Gun laws, however misguided, apply to everyone. Laws that apply to people based on the color of their skin are,,, well, if you don't see the difference, there's no point in trying to explain it to you.

FC
March 1, 2011, 07:26 PM
Gun laws, however misguided, apply to everyone. Laws that apply to people based on the color of their skin are,,, well, if you don't see the difference, there's no point in trying to explain it to you.

That is a very narrow minded view point, civil rights encompass much more than skin color.

Justin
March 1, 2011, 07:30 PM
Why? Doesn't the second amendment describe one of our civil rights?

The Atomic Nerds blog post I linked to previously does a much better job of explaining why comparing open carry rights to the civil rights movement makes you look like a crazy person than I ever could. (http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4409)

(Wondering if I should have made that bold and red, as evidently at least one of you failed to click on the link.)

FC
March 1, 2011, 07:48 PM
What I got out of that windbag's blog is that he feels that you should be happy to have the rights you have and not use any of them in a way that might offend someone else.

In other words don't exercise any right that offends someone else.

That might be the most un-American opinion that I have ever read. Thinking like that only works for an agoraphobic, I am actually shocked to read it on a Pro Constitution forum.

Can you not make the mental leap and apply that thinking to other things as well?

Some people are offended by fur, hunting, eating meat, wearing leather, BACON...The list is all encompassing, every day that you go out in public you probably offend someone while exercising a right.

How many people that you interact with daily would be offended by the gun you likely are secreting on your person if they knew?

EddieNFL
March 1, 2011, 07:49 PM
No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens.

That explains why .gov feels they can take them away.

A group of men who, IMO were far more capable of thinking outside the box (and probably far more intelligent) than anyone on an internet forum agreed rights were/are endowed by a creator.

.gov has NOTHING to give anyone.

Justin
March 1, 2011, 07:49 PM
What I got out of that windbag's blog is that he feels that you should be happy to have the rights you have and not use any of them in a way that might offend someone else.

In other words don't exercise any right that offends someone else.

That might be the most un-American opinion that I have ever read. Thinking like that only works for an agoraphobic, I am actually shocked to read it on a Pro Constitution forum.

If that's all you got out of that blog post, which, btw, is maintained by easily a couple of the smartest people in the blogosphere, I'm not sure that I can help you at all.

At no point in the blog entry does the author advocate the removal or infringement of anyone's civil rights. However, they do lay out a series of fundamentally rational critiques of some of the "strategies" undertaken by stunt carriers that are far more likely to alienate all but the choir they're members of.


Can you not make the mental leap and apply that thinking to other things as well?

Some people are offended by fur, hunting, eating meat, wearing leather, BACON...The list is all encompassing, every day that you go out in public you probably offend someone while exercising a right.

The majority of people in this country are not offended by hunting, omnivorism, or wearing leather. Nor is there an overt political movement to forcibly remove those things from society. The gun rights movement has come a long way, but if we're to continue making headway, it behooves us not to reinforce preconceived notions about gun owners being a bunch of trigger-happy kill junkies.

That some are culturally tone-deaf that you can't actually rationally address the points raised in the original post causes me to think that the author has likely hit on a fundamental truth that some supposed gun rights advocates can't understand that they're actually doing far more harm than good.


How many people that you interact with daily would be offended by the gun you likely are secreting on your person if they knew?

All of my co-workers know that I carry, including my liberal Democrat of a boss. It took some work to convince him that concealed carry actually rendered him safer than not. How much easier do you think that conversation would have gone if I insisted on open-carrying an aesthetically threatening "assault weapon" while trying to make my point?

Seriously, give that some thought and let me know what you think.

FC
March 1, 2011, 08:26 PM
I have never advocated "stunt carrying" but I also understand that the guy in the video was wrongfully denied his permit and in his shoes I would be pissed too.

Of course I don't think that trying to convince your boss that carrying concealed would make him safer would go better with you open carrying a long gun although I must admit I don't know what it is about a given long gun that makes it more aesthetically threatening than another.

You are right about one thing, gun owners are definitely their own worst enemy. Instead of trying to use logic many prefer to use emotion and base what is done off of what a thing looks like.

I'll have to take your word on the quality and intelligence of that blogger, sounds like a tool to me.

Justin
March 1, 2011, 08:31 PM
I have never advocated "stunt carrying" but I also understand that the guy in the video was wrongfully denied his permit and in his shoes I would be pissed too.

Unless you're privy to mrak47master's (sic) legal record, you don't know whether or not he was wrongfully denied a permit.

And even if he was wrongfully denied a permit, the proper procedure would be to hire a lawyer and get the situation resolved through the legal system, not engage in stunt carrying.

firemanstrickland
March 1, 2011, 08:40 PM
i dont mind the protest, thats all well and good, but.......all that does is draw bad attention to gun owners and im all for open carry but i beleive he may have taken it a little to far.

xcgates
March 1, 2011, 08:45 PM
You know, I had a long, probably not very elegant post written up, but I'll leave it with this.

This is going (has gone?) the same way many (most? all?) OC debates go. Some say it offends and you shouldn't do it, and some say they don't go to far.

The guy is legal, yes he didn't behave very well, but there is no law saying you must be nice. Cops had better have reasonable cause to detain someone, though in the original video, I never saw him make an effort to leave, he continued to engage the officers long past where I would have taken my leave, and forced their hand if they wanted to officially detain me. They can ask me all the questions they want, just like anyone else can ask anything they want, and if I don't want to answer, I won't.

I will also carry long guns if it is legal, and I have reason to.

2WheelsGood
March 1, 2011, 09:29 PM
Cops had better have reasonable cause to detain someone.Reasonable cause is the key word. If a cop sees someone driving down the street weaving back and forth, is it reasonable to assume they're drunk? Weaving doesn't prove you're drunk, but it sure is reasonable enough to assume you are for a cop to be justified in pulling you over.

A mob of guys walking down the street wearing white sheets and carrying torches may not be doing anything illegal at the moment, but I guarantee they're going to get more attention from the police than a group of Girl Scouts. Again, reasonable.

What are the total number of citizens (not military) who have ever walked down the street open-carrying an AK-47? Maybe .001%? It's pretty darn rare. Is it "reasonable" to stop someone when you see this incredibly rare occurrence? Maybe. I can tell you that unless I knew the person, if I saw someone walking down my street with an AK, I'd keep a pretty close eye on him.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect cops not to bat an eyelash at someone walking down the street carrying an AK. Maybe some day in the future if it becomes far more common, then it may not be such a big deal.

I live in Michigan, and I'm telling you that anyone open-carrying even a handgun is an EXTREMELY rare sight. Walk down the streets of Detroit carrying an AK and you'll get shot either by some gang-banger or a cop long before you'll get to explain yourself. But hey, at least you'll die being right.

cassandrasdaddy
March 1, 2011, 09:34 PM
fc how old were you when rosa parks rode that bus?

TexasRifleman
March 1, 2011, 09:38 PM
9 pages in and the thread has spread all over the place, as they usually do by that time.

We''ve gone from comments directly about the video, to the LE "us vs them", to Rosa Parks and civil rights.

It has gone where pretty much every open carry thread on THR goes in other words. Most have had their say and few will change their minds. That's OK but it's time to stop before the personal attacks kick in.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!