Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop


PDA






nathan
April 16, 2013, 10:43 AM
Kind of disturbing to watch the videos.


http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/war-veteran-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MErl
April 16, 2013, 10:47 AM
do we know the reasons why? (did not and generally do not watch videos)

CoRoMo
April 16, 2013, 11:25 AM
Vet: Just because a guy's got a firearm, he's dangerous?
Cop: Yes sir.

Cop: When you alarm people and they called us then we can come ... and investigate.
Vet: Okay, did you explain to them what the law is, sir?
Cop: They don't care what the law is.

gym
April 16, 2013, 11:25 AM
Read the article, the guy is a hero, with the Bronze star.

MErl
April 16, 2013, 11:32 AM
Vet: Just because a guy's got a firearm, he's dangerous?
Cop: Yes sir.

Cop: When you alarm people and they called us then we can come ... and investigate.
Vet: Okay, did you explain to them what the law is, sir?
Cop: They don't care what the law is.


try the same thing in CO and the cop would be in the right. open carry is a very grey area after the recent changes.

bmnloader
April 16, 2013, 11:35 AM
Rudely displying a firearm? what the #$%^ is that?

CoRoMo
April 16, 2013, 11:39 AM
try the same thing in CO and the cop would be in the right. open carry is a very grey area after the recent changes.
News to me. Can you copy/paste the text of the new legislation that speaks toward open carry?

I know the legislature passed a magazine restriction, universal background checks, and a bill to implement a fee for the universal background checks. Which bill included language about open carry?

I know of at least one CO police department that disarmed an open carrier, was then sued, lost the suit and paid. In that regard, it doesn't look like trying 'the same thing in CO' means the cop is automatically 'in the right'. Do tell.

MErl
April 16, 2013, 11:58 AM
the one that snuck through redefining a firearm to be a deadly weapon regardless of intent or use. HB 1043 pdf (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/A1381F329604BCFB87257AEE0057E410?Open&file=1043_01.pdf) Combine that with existing laws regarding deadly weapons and open carry gets very grey.


Specifically:
18-9-106. Disorderly conduct


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or

(b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 708, § 39, effective July 1, 2000.)

(c) Makes unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; or

(d) Fights with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or

(e) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting; or

(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

Section (f) there comes down to judgment call and a cop can say "Tell it to the Judge." If there was a MWAG call, there was alarm. Was that alarm calculated, well that's the judgement call.

There are probably more areas in the code as well. That little redefinition had broad effects.




As for the OP, looks like he was open carrying a rifle and got a MWAG call. This evolved into contempt of cop which not too surprisingly led to more issues.

gym
April 16, 2013, 12:02 PM
We aren't the enemy, we are the citizens that the laws were written to protect. In times of strife, you can't suddenly decide that you chose to make up your own interpretation of the law. the cop acted as he was "large and in charge", and violated the laws of the state or city, he is employed by.
As long as the soldier was within his legal right to own and carry those weapons, the cop is wrong, and should be sued and reprimanded for excessive use of force, and illegally detaining a lawful citizen.

Oklacoyotekiller
April 16, 2013, 12:02 PM
This is scary. If it can happen in Tx, it can happen anywhere. Goes to show not all conspiracy theories are theories.

CoRoMo
April 16, 2013, 12:13 PM
That little redefinition had broad effects.
It looks like it bans open carry.

BigBore44
April 16, 2013, 12:22 PM
You know, I do my best to defend police officers on here. But sometimes......Somethings are just indefensible. I hope he loses his commission over this.

Flynt
April 16, 2013, 12:30 PM
Can someone cut & paste the Texas statute(s)?

SharpsDressedMan
April 16, 2013, 12:34 PM
I hope the guy was not doing anything that REALLY violated the laws, and that this case goes all the way up, so that it sets the limits on police harassment of people BEARING arms, but not otherwise posing a threat.

wingman
April 16, 2013, 12:41 PM
Scary statement by the officer.

Rick O'Shea
April 16, 2013, 12:47 PM
Correct response: "Shouldn't you?"

OldCavSoldier
April 16, 2013, 12:55 PM
IMHO: Anybody who carries a firearm outside their clothing, and who is not working on a ranch or other such enterprise, is being extremely foolish. When bad-guys go into a place to rob it and the patrons, who does anybody think will be the FIRST people they shoot? Yes. The ones with the exposed guns.

So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.

loose noose
April 16, 2013, 12:59 PM
Being a retired Police Officer, and noting a Sergeant at the scene, I would definitely suggest that Grisham had a huge civil suit handed to him. Unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, emotional distress, harrassment under color of authority, just to mention a few.

TAKtical
April 16, 2013, 01:00 PM
Im pretty sure open carry is illegal in texas.

CoRoMo
April 16, 2013, 01:01 PM
...who does anybody think will be the FIRST people they shoot? Yes. The ones with the exposed guns.
So... the bad guys can always, immediately, and discernibly notice an openly carried firearm on a person? Or is it that open carriers are always standing in the right position, right up front, at the entrance where the bad guys come in?

The guy carrying openly is never out of view, or his sidearm is on the other side of his body from the bad guys?

allaroundhunter
April 16, 2013, 01:01 PM
deleted

nathan
April 16, 2013, 01:04 PM
In Texas its illegal to expose firearms even in the country unless you re in a private land. But ouside the fenceline and in public roads , that is a no no.
I guess its now the discretion of the cop to take it from there if you resist to obey their instructions. Its quite tricky from then on.

The best thing to do if you are armed in open country is to act in an unaggressive manner in the presence of LEOs. Seasoned cops and sheriffs are sometimes leery of people with guns. Its good this incident was recorded on video

loose noose
April 16, 2013, 01:06 PM
From what I understood they were in a rural area where their hike was beginning, and vicious animals were known to roam.:confused:

krupparms
April 16, 2013, 01:07 PM
Unfortunately a law suite willnot do much good! The LEO s are protected by the law & a insurance company will pay! The police are exempt from prosecution! I have had to take a similar matter to federal court! Only I was inside my home .The LEO who disarmed me & entered my home without a warrant or probable cause told me "It was the law of officer safety that let him violate my rights"! Don't look for justice! It left along time ago!

zxcvbob
April 16, 2013, 01:16 PM
In Texas its illegal to expose firearms even in the country unless you re in a private land. But ouside the fenceline and in public roads , that is a no no.
I guess its now the discretion of the cop to take it from there if you resist to obey their instructions. Its quite tricky from then on.

Handguns. I'm pretty sure open carry of a rifle is perfectly legal unless you are deliberately disturbing the peace with it. (But it's been quite a few years since I lived there.)

From what I've read, THE KID should press charges for false arrest.

CoRoMo
April 16, 2013, 01:21 PM
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
I know TexasRifleman noted many times that there is no mention of long guns in Texas' prohibition on open carry, but here's the statutes themselves.

r1derbike
April 16, 2013, 01:25 PM
He certainly was displaying (it could be seen) the firearm, albeit not rudely. All the cops seemed to be on the same page about how he was being "handled".

It's too bad he didn't have the rifle in a small zip cover or something, slung next to or across his backpack. If someone called then, I suppose they would have charged him with illegal concealment of a firearm, or something.

I hope he gets his weapons back after the trial, and doesn't lose his carry permit.

What next?

Have a flat: charged with failure to maintain proper pneumatic pressure within a pressure vessel.

Battery dead: charged with failure to maintain proper electrical potential within a vehicular lighting/charging system.

Relieving yourself in the woods, caught by a spy satellite: Rudely emptying a personal bladder system, upsetting a delicate eco system, and willfully damaging beneficial ground cover.

I hope those cops are reprimanded, but it will be found they did nothing wrong.

We didn't get to see the whole video, but I wonder if anything would have been done if he had been carrying any other longarm, besides his EBR?

No open carry in TX, but this could have been handled better.

blakeci
April 16, 2013, 01:34 PM
IMHO: Anybody who carries a firearm outside their clothing, and who is not working on a ranch or other such enterprise, is being extremely foolish. When bad-guys go into a place to rob it and the patrons, who does anybody think will be the FIRST people they shoot? Yes. The ones with the exposed guns.

So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.
name a SINGLE reported case.... back up your claim. You act like it happens all the time

Why do people feel the need to make up scenarios that either don't happen at all, or happen very, very, very rarely


but I can cite a case off the top of my head where an open carrier (of a large single action revolver) took down a perp who pulled a gun on a cashier at a gas station that the open carrier was standing in line to pay

Double Naught Spy
April 16, 2013, 02:23 PM
What is missing from the videos is what happened BEFOREHAND.
http://www.kcentv.com/story/21860185/local-soldier-says-police-violated-his-guns-rights

According to the police, he didn't comply with their instructions. So apparently what transpires in the videos is what happened AFTER that point.

Most of the outrage is fluff. It does not matter that Grisham was military, a hero, or not. There are quite a few military vets in prison, cops and judges as well. That sort of information is not relevant to the event at hand. If rights were violated, it doesn't matter if he is a hero or a regular citizen, rights should not be violated. There is nothing I see in the law or Constitution about hero status putting a person above the law, or below it.

krupparms
April 16, 2013, 02:39 PM
How is most of this outrage fluff? Military hero or just John Q. Citizen his rights were violated! You are right about his military status, it doesn't matter! HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED! RIGHT IN FRONT OF A TROOP OF BOY SCOUTS! WHAT DOES THAT TEACH THEM ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION & OUR CIVIL RIGHTS?

slamfirev10
April 16, 2013, 02:41 PM
wow!

read all the posts 1st then watched the vid

it (the vid) just made me angry....i bet the citizen is being flooded with calls from plaintiff's attorneys

HOOfan_1
April 16, 2013, 04:32 PM
"just cause a guy has a gun he's dangerous"

"yes sir"

"then kindly explain to me why you are allowed to tote around a gun"

disgraceful..hope those cops are fired...hope that guy gets a huge amount in a law suit.

Bubba613
April 16, 2013, 04:47 PM
After reading the article cited I'm still sympathetic to the guy. The charge of "resisting arrest" seems like something made up after the fact. The dept's comments look boilerplate and CYA. It looks from here, without any further evidence, like police misconduct.

HOOfan_1
April 16, 2013, 04:51 PM
After reading the article cited I'm still sympathetic to the guy. The charge of "resisting arrest" seems like something made up after the fact. The dept's comments look boilerplate and CYA. It looks from here, without any further evidence, like police misconduct.

Yeah the entire "tell it to the judge" thing gets old after a while. We shouldn't have to be arrested, have our property seized and hire a lawyer in order to protect our rights....

Double Naught Spy
April 16, 2013, 06:15 PM
Actually Bubba, I am as well. But don't think his story is unbiased and actually believe he is hyping it...which is a shame because it probably is not necessary.

nathan
April 16, 2013, 06:38 PM
The Ft Hood Army Base is closed to Waco and Temple. THe cops and sheriffs of that city deal with all sorts of characters from the military community. They can be callous at times and can overstep their policing mandate.

Averageman
April 16, 2013, 06:47 PM
This is in my AO. Rural area, overun with feral Hogs and some folks have reported a Cougar in the area.
I don't blame him for escorting his Son with a long gun in that area. I don't see anything he did as harmful. The boy needed a 10 mile hike for a merit badge, you bet I am going to be with him.
That being said I think I would have personally handled it differently. Why not drop and pocket the mag and clear the weapon and then move forward to speak to the officer?

Temple Texas Police aren't exactly over reactive, but statement like "We dont care what the Law is" and then flagging the back of the guys head while taking his pistol were really telling when it comes to their knowledge of the Law and their general disdane of the public.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/#ooid=EwNzl3YTpB5twGTGZN5AZZFsb6QzoPhm

I shoot with his Attorney, he is a good man and will have fun with this I am sure.

12many
April 16, 2013, 07:00 PM
This kinda stuff happens every day in all levels of government. Lots of bullies in the government who don't follow the rules and try to stick it to the citizens. There are lots of good police and gov. workers too, but lots of bad ones too. It has always been that way.

What happens next is very important and determines where we go as a society. Is the police officer demoted, fired, promoted, re-trained, or ignored so it can happen again?

ATBackPackin
April 16, 2013, 07:54 PM
I don't know exactly what happened, but some of the things said by the LEO's would have me believe that they overreacted and may have stepped in it. Then they charged him with resisting arrest. Then they dropped that charge and charge him with interfering with a peace officer.

With all of that said, the part that angers me the most is this.

Chris followed his dad’s instructions to keep the videotape going — even though it’s clear the incident took an emotional toll on the boy. As the officers put Grisham in the back of the car, the video picked up sounds of Chris crying.

The officers told Grisham they would take the boy home.

“I told him not to answer any questions,” Grisham said. “I told him not to answer a single question until his mother was there — and she would answer the questions for him.”

But that’s not what happened.

Chris told Fox News that the police officer refused to let him out of the car until he answered a series of questions. The boy had not been arrested.

“The officer told me that I wasn’t getting out of the patrol car until I answered his questions,” Chris said. “He said I didn’t have a choice. I was scared.”

Grisham said his boy was traumatized by the incident.

“Every time he sees a police officer he has a panic attack,” he said. “That’s unfortunate because we always taught our kids to respect police officers. My wife and I are angry about it.”


I would be irate and want heads to roll. It is one thing to violate my rights, but to violate my kid's rights. BS

Black Knight
April 16, 2013, 08:01 PM
[QUOTE][/Vet: Just because a guy's got a firearm, he's dangerous?
Cop: Yes sir.

Cop: When you alarm people and they called us then we can come ... and investigate.
Vet: Okay, did you explain to them what the law is, sir?
Cop: They don't care what the law is.
QUOTE]

Apparently the law doesn't matter to the cop either.

rugerdude
April 16, 2013, 08:36 PM
This reminds me of a time when I was shooting on county land across a river (which I learned was illegal because it was a right of way, not to mention I didn't own the land). A sheriff pulled up, and I slowly approached him with a holstered Glock 17. I greeted him in a polite and professional manner, and removed my sunglasses and he informed me that he was going to need to take my weapon. I calmly positioned myself so that he could easily remove my pistol from its holster. From there he informed me that what I was doing was illegal. We had a nice chat about Glocks and he returned my pistol and we both went on our ways.

It was not legal for me to open carry like I was doing, and it was not legal for me to discharge a firearm. I could also have been said to be littering. However, by setting my pride aside and communicating in a respectful manner, I was able to defuse any conflict before it started. Now, maybe I got lucky and maybe this guy got unlucky and it certainly seems like these police officers are out of line, but when you raise your voice to them it is only going to strengthen their resolve to detain you. The bozos out there that yell at the police and argue with them are a dime a dozen, and it would behoove anyone to behaviorally distance themselves from this group as much as possible. I've never seen someone argue their way out of an arrest. That said, I hope that the police in this area learn a lesson, and that this man is compensated for his troubles.

xwingband
April 16, 2013, 08:36 PM
So questioning the kid without parental consent... what's the law in Texas say on that?

If they're animals like a cougar in the area I don't blame him for being armed. It's more alarming that we can let people push others around with a call. He's got a two mile area for a guess on who called... I'd get new neighbors or coral that cougar their way. :evil:

Thermactor
April 16, 2013, 08:37 PM
This is part of the reason why I look at Texas in the light of an anti-2A state. Texas does not stand for 2nd amendment rights.

dogtown tom
April 16, 2013, 09:00 PM
Black Knight Vet: Just because a guy's got a firearm, he's dangerous?
Cop: Yes sir.

Cop: When you alarm people and they called us then we can come ... and investigate.
Vet: Okay, did you explain to them what the law is, sir?
Cop: They don't care what the law is.


Apparently the law doesn't matter to the cop either.
Well...........being that Disorderly Conduct in Texas includes "displays a firearm...... in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS THE LAW, the cop may be correct.

If I see a guy in camo walking down a country road with a shotgun over his shoulder.....no problem.

If I see a guy walking down a city street in a tactical vest with an AR....your damned right I'm alarmed.

Sgt Grisham failed to understand that Texas law regarding open carry of firearms is poorly written and does not provide him with the free pass he thinks it does.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

PENAL CODE
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

ATBackPackin
April 16, 2013, 09:09 PM
Well...........being that Disorderly Conduct in Texas includes "displays a firearm...... in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS THE LAW, the cop may be correct.

If I see a guy in camo walking down a country road with a shotgun over his shoulder.....no problem.

If I see a guy walking down a city street in a tactical vest with an AR....your damned right I'm alarmed.

Sgt Grisham failed to understand that Texas law regarding open carry of firearms is poorly written and does not provide him with the free pass he thinks it does.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm
Tom, you obviously know way more than I do on Texas law, but that is a ridiculous law.

Calculated???? By who???? 100 people and you have 100 different calculations. Seems as is they wrote that law so they could basically arrest anyone for open carrying.

MErl
April 16, 2013, 09:15 PM
AT, the law was just changed in CO to be similar for exactly that reason. The pols in power didn't like open carry and saw a very simple way to sneak in a block.

Someone was alarmed if they got the call. At that point it is a judgment of the cop as to what was intended.

Armymutt
April 16, 2013, 09:23 PM
The guy is less than stellar from the other stuff I've read about him. Basically a FOBBIT who got sent home early. You draw your own conclusions.

alsaqr
April 16, 2013, 09:41 PM
M/Sgt. Grisham is not new to controversy. Grisham had a big spat with the Huntsville, AL. school board over school uniforms. Some of his blogs got Grisham in trouble with the US Army. Grisham blames the school board for his troubles with the US Army.

This M/Sgt. Grisham story is all over the web. Every time i read it i'm reminded of the guy in TN who painted his Draco orange and carried it openly in a park.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20091208/OFFDUTY02/912080301/The-rise-and-fall-of-a-military-blogger

BTW: i'm a serious hunter of wild hogs. Most of my hog hunting is done alone with a muzzleloader. At age 74 i'm not terrified of hogs despite the fact a few have charged me. Killed a cougar with my muzzleloader while tracking a wounded hog.

M/Sgt.
US Army EOD
Retired

smalls
April 16, 2013, 10:11 PM
It was not legal for me to open carry like I was doing, and it was not legal for me to discharge a firearm. I could also have been said to be littering. However, by setting my pride aside and communicating in a respectful manner, I was able to defuse any conflict before it started. Now, maybe I got lucky and maybe this guy got unlucky and it certainly seems like these police officers are out of line, but when you raise your voice to them it is only going to strengthen their resolve to detain you.

The difference between his situation and yours was that what he was doing is legal. You were doing illegal activities.

If I'm doing something that's within the law, I'm not going to stop because some idiot either doesn't know the law, or doesn't like what I'm doing.

Deltaboy
April 16, 2013, 10:23 PM
That PD just opened themselves up for a LawSuit.

zxcvbob
April 16, 2013, 10:30 PM
They don't care. Wanna get their attention? Have Ft Hood MP's start randomly arresting Temple police and impounding their cruisers and weapons. IIRC, Highway 190 goes right through Ft Hood, and Killeen butts right up against the base.

HorseSoldier
April 16, 2013, 10:35 PM
So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.

name a SINGLE reported case.... back up your claim. You act like it happens all the time

Why do people feel the need to make up scenarios that either don't happen at all, or happen very, very, very rarely



The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.

Deltaboy
April 16, 2013, 10:39 PM
The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.
You might be correct but when seconds count the Police are minutes away.

barnbwt
April 16, 2013, 11:07 PM
The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers
To be fair, these open-carrying officers are involved in a lot more confrontations where a gun-grab may happen than a typical citizen will ever experience. Which is why they open-carry in the first place--they have a higher likelihood of needing that weapon so quickly that no cover-garment can be afforded (well, that, and the "intimidation factor"). I'd rather see stats --knowing they probably don't exist-- showing incident rates among open carriers vs. concealed. Even state-level stats for concealed-only vs. non- states wouldn't be helpful, because of the larger numbers of concealers in both.

But seeing as open-carriers aren't being massacred in the streets for their guns with bats, clubs, and cheaper guns, I have to assume that whatever effect carry-style has on attackers' choices is pretty small. Avoiding dangerous scenarios is far more effective at any rate.

Back on topic...
I'm appalled this happened as close to me as it did (DFW), especially since I though Temple was cool. I also didn't realize we had a significant aggressive feral hog problem here yet, but perhaps the Vet knows something I don't. Still nothing illegal about what he did, as far as I can tell, and officers had no call to freak out on him. Most likely this is one of those fateful deals where the cops made an abusive request ("PUT THE GUN, DOWN!") as he was going about his business, and he refused, thus upping the ante. And the rest is history.

In my experience, it is unwise to disobey police officers (by yourself :D). I imagine his legal fund will be flush with cash and salivating lawyers.

TCB

PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon
But doesn't Brady say we're more likely to be killed with our own gun, anyway? What percentage of citizen shooting deaths (omitting suicides if PoliceOne does) involve their own weapon? And for the 64000$ question, how many officers needed the extra second-or-so that open-carry rig bought them on their draw?

HorseSoldier
April 16, 2013, 11:26 PM
You might be correct but when seconds count the Police are minutes away.

I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.

DAP90
April 16, 2013, 11:31 PM
name a SINGLE reported case.... back up your claim. You act like it happens all the time

I won’t claim it’s common, but it does happen.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/teen-homicide-suspects-have-criminal-histories/article_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html

Risky
April 16, 2013, 11:32 PM
I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.
I don't understand why there is a discussion about open versus concealed carry here, unless you know of a way to effectively conceal an AR15 on your person and have it readily accessible on a hike. There are plenty of other threads discussing the merits of concealed versus open carry of handguns.

r1derbike
April 16, 2013, 11:33 PM
I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.+1

Element of surprise. Have no desire to OC, even if it were legal here.

PavePusher
April 16, 2013, 11:38 PM
IMHO: Anybody who carries a firearm outside their clothing, and who is not working on a ranch or other such enterprise, is being extremely foolish. When bad-guys go into a place to rob it and the patrons, who does anybody think will be the FIRST people they shoot? Yes. The ones with the exposed guns.

So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.
Please ensure you never carry books or newspapers without a camoflauging cover. Otherwise, you might disturb sensitive, ignorant people.

Also, please cite to one of these "shot the open carrier first" scenarios. Plain-clothes Citizens, please, not uniformed LEO or Security guards.

PavePusher
April 16, 2013, 11:47 PM
The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.
And that demographic is also wearing rather distinctive clothing, and directly confronting criminals.

Now cite to statistically meaningful numbers of instances of Jane/Joe Citizen being done in for open carry, by criminals.

HorseSoldier
April 16, 2013, 11:59 PM
And that demographic is also wearing rather distinctive clothing, and directly confronting criminals.

Now cite to statistically meaningful numbers of instances of Jane/Joe Citizen being done in for open carry, by criminals.

I don't know if the proponents of open carry really want to go down that road of defending it on elusive statistical grounds since the reality is that the stats say only a miniscule amount of private citizens will ever be involved in a defensive shooting at all. If you're betting on things mostly working out in your favor, why carry at all? If you're preparing for a worst case scenario, why give your opponent an edge by telegraphing your capabilities?

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 12:04 AM
I won’t claim it’s common, but it does happen.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/teen-homicide-suspects-have-criminal-histories/article_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html

that dude's biggest fault was being anywhere near Westover Hills Blvd after dark......scratch that....being near Westover Hills Blvd at all....

Don't hang out anywhere near Gilpin Court either....

SilentStalker
April 17, 2013, 12:04 AM
Wait so open carrying a long rifle is illegal now?! Since when? Wow. As far as the dude asking the cop, "so, just because a guy has a gun makes him dangerous," I would have pointed out to the cop that he too is carrying a gun and because of what he just stated with his own words I suppose it would be feasible for him to be assumed as a threat as well. You see my point here? What an idiot. Rights are not rights if you have to be arrested, have property seized, and then go to jail and court to prove that they are indeed rights. That is ridiculous. I hope dude has a good lawyer. Now if he was doing something illegal with it then that is a totally different story. Now it makes me wonder if I should be carrying any of my rifles in my eberlestock or mystery ranch packs!!!!!!!!

CapnMac
April 17, 2013, 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Sgt Grisham failed to understand that Texas law regarding open carry of firearms is poorly written and does not provide him with the free pass he thinks it does.

There is a possibility that MSgt is old enough (or was raised) back before the Texas CHL, when one of the few times we ordinary citizens could carry (at all) was "while engaged in an activty where such carry is commonplace." Back then, you could put a K-22 in a holster before you went bank fishing (where you might be among water moccasins and the like). That you could carry a sidearm while hunting. (But not while hiking or backpacking a trail--a time when a person would be most likely to accidentally raise the ire of an entire pack of javelina . . . )

For those who have not been in the Waco-Temple-Kileen area, there are not too many good places to go for that 10 mile hike for Eagle. Where the MSgt & his boy went is one of those few places. It's also a place where feral pigs and javelina run, and also the sorts of 'people' who dump dogs to go feral live too. The kind of place you really want to borrow your buddie's beater truck to drive to and park.

So, did anyone else note what amount they think will be needed to "win the good fight"? That the defense fund target is $11,000? (Which may explain why this is being "hyped"--eleven grand is nothing to just whistle up.) Also telling--to me--was the pull quote from the Bell County prosecutor, that he wanted to see that the weapon was destroyed, and could not return to the "streets."

MaterDei
April 17, 2013, 12:29 AM
You guys should really stay on topic. This is not about Colorado law or about OC vs. CC.

This case is about the police infringing on somebody's rights. The police were in the wrong and even they admit it based upon what they charged MSG Grisham with. Their charge against him is not weapons related and I suspect that they will lose a civil case.

As an American and especially as a Texan I'm appalled by this and hope that a message is sent loud and clear to those who desire to trample on our rights.

rugerdude
April 17, 2013, 12:38 AM
The difference between his situation and yours was that what he was doing is legal. You were doing illegal activities.

If I'm doing something that's within the law, I'm not going to stop because some idiot either doesn't know the law, or doesn't like what I'm doing.

Well, apparently the way the law is written, it isn't exactly a clear-cut case of him obeying the law. Also, I'm not saying we should roll over and let the police do whatever they want, but you don't win fights with police on the streets, period. You win them in court. If you want to be belligerent with them while they're arresting you, fine, they'll call in back-up and have all the more witnesses on their side of the issue, and it only makes a better case for them when they want to say you were not compliant.

zxcvbob
April 17, 2013, 12:51 AM
Well, apparently the way the law is written, it isn't exactly a clear-cut case of him obeying the law. Also, I'm not saying we should roll over and let the police do whatever they want, but you don't win fights with police on the streets, period. You win them in court. If you want to be belligerent with them while they're arresting you, fine, they'll call in back-up and have all the more witnesses on their side of the issue, and it only makes a better case for them when they want to say you were not compliant.

Where you have to cough up thousands of dollars for defense, the cops get paid overtime to be there, and even if you prevail you may never get your guns back.

What I can't figure out is why they --police mostly, but the government in general-- keep poking at the bee hive. I think they *want* to provoke someone into shooting. (which according to the Supreme Court in John Bad Elk v. U.S. is not necessarily illegal)

Double Naught Spy
April 17, 2013, 01:58 AM
How is most of this outrage fluff? Military hero or just John Q. Citizen his rights were violated!

That was the point I made, but Grisham is playing emotional issues to gain favor for his cause.

You are right about his military status, it doesn't matter! HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED! RIGHT IN FRONT OF A TROOP OF BOY SCOUTS! WHAT DOES THAT TEACH THEM ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION & OUR CIVIL RIGHTS?

Well first of all, it did not happen in front of a troop of boyscouts. See, even you were taken in by the fluff and outraged by it and you didn't realize it had happened. Grisham said they were on a boyscout hike, but the only people on that hike were Grisham and his son.

From the link cited in the OP...
Grisham’s trouble with the law started in mid-March. His son Chris was working on one of the final merit badges he needed to become an Eagle Scout. Chris had chosen hiking.

Father and son grabbed their gear and headed out on a blustery Saturday morning to hike about 10 miles. They were midway through the trip when Grisham turned around and saw a police car.

Misdirection is a wonderful thing as are irrelevant emotional information.

His rights were violated? There are two opposing views. There is his view that he complied and the cops view that he did not. The claims in the OP article says that he can be seen complying and apparently offer that as proof that he was always complying, but lots of people "comply" when they are already in custody, LOL. It doesn't mean they were complying before they were in custody.

If he really did comply, then yeah, maybe his rights were violated. If he didn't comply, nothing I saw in the video indicates any sort of violation of rights. It looks like fairly typical, if not overly kind, dealing with an argumentative armed person.

slamfirev10
April 17, 2013, 02:10 AM
full vid (i did not see it posted yet):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4MK3R4PI&feature=youtu.be&a

smalls
April 17, 2013, 02:50 AM
Well, apparently the way the law is written, it isn't exactly a clear-cut case of him obeying the law. Also, I'm not saying we should roll over and let the police do whatever they want, but you don't win fights with police on the streets, period. You win them in court. If you want to be belligerent with them while they're arresting you, fine, they'll call in back-up and have all the more witnesses on their side of the issue, and it only makes a better case for them when they want to say you were not compliant.

I'm not saying get belligerent. I'm saying I won't just give in, or lay down because someone is ignorant of the laws.

I won't kick or scream, but I won't sit there, either.

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 09:36 AM
That was the point I made, but Grisham is playing emotional issues to gain favor for his cause.


That has worked rather well in the past to make people aware of rights violations...

MErl
April 17, 2013, 10:12 AM
You guys should really stay on topic. This is not about Colorado law or about OC vs. CC.

This case is about the police infringing on somebody's rights. The police were in the wrong and even they admit it based upon what they charged MSG Grisham with. Their charge against him is not weapons related and I suspect that they will lose a civil case.

As an American and especially as a Texan I'm appalled by this and hope that a message is sent loud and clear to those who desire to trample on our rights.

Discussion of TX law is on topic. CO law not directly, sorry for bringing that part up. He was violating TX law, at least in a grey area.

The cop was within the law to confront and disarm. The cop probably would have been within the law to arrest him under different charges, not sure about that part of TX law.

If this had been in CO before the changes or another state that allows unlimited open carry and this happened it would be different. The case is that what he was doing in TX was against the law.

The escalation and results were wrong, that happens quite often when people do not comply 100% with police. Even when people are in the right and stand on their rights it leads to escalation. That is a general police issue and not a topic for THR though.

Redlg155
April 17, 2013, 10:26 AM
I hate to say this, but both were lacking in interpersonal communication skills. This incident could have easily been avoided with the correct amount of communication between parties.

smogmage
April 17, 2013, 10:38 AM
The escalation and results were wrong, that happens quite often when people do not comply 100% with police. Even when people are in the right and stand on their rights it leads to escalation. That is a general police issue and not a topic for THR though.

I'm so glad to know you speak for everyone on what is and what isn't for discussion here. I'm also so glad to know you agree with our rights being trampled on until a court sorts it out well after the fact and after much turmoil for everyone involved. Clearly it wouldn't be better if those sworn to uphold our rights didn't trample all over them in the first place.

I honestly don't understand most of you guys here on this board. Willing to just go the route of England and Australia, moaning and groaning all the way down the road to total confiscation.

Where have all the Patriots gone? Where are all the Brave Men who are willing to give up their Lives, their Fortunes, their Families to Keep Their Scared Honor?

Double Naught Spy
April 17, 2013, 10:39 AM
That has worked rather well in the past to make people aware of rights violations...

Sure enough, it got krupparms yelling (all caps text in his post) about the horrors of what was witnessed by a "troop of boyscouts" that didn't even exist. So it is very good for getting people emotionally involved. I don't disagree at all with that assessment. I just tend to see that when folks provide a lot of emotional and often unrelated content in their arguments about how they were wronged instead of specific documentary insights, that the case being claimed isn't as strong as claimed. We shall see.

smogmage
April 17, 2013, 10:50 AM
Don't know if anyone caught the other amazing one liner from the Sgt.

"We are EXEMPT from the law"
Hows that for a second class citizen for ya.
Whatever happened to equal protection under the law, hell for that matter THE RULE OF LAW. This is clear cut trample all over the Rights of the Individual for the sake of the collective to "Feel Safe".

EXACTLY what our country was founded AGAINST.

dogtown tom
April 17, 2013, 11:16 AM
smogmage Don't know if anyone caught the other amazing one liner from the Sgt.

"We are EXEMPT from the law"
Hows that for a second class citizen for ya.
Whatever happened to equal protection under the law, hell for that matter THE RULE OF LAW. This is clear cut trample all over the Rights of the Individual for the sake of the collective to "Feel Safe".
EXACTLY what our country was founded AGAINST.
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.;)

Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.

savhmustang80
April 17, 2013, 11:35 AM
Ok, here is my take, and MErl I do think that this is a valid topic for The High Road, 1) per my understanding of the TX statute- the guy has not committed and arms violation under state law. The carrying of a long gun, in the area he and his son were walking I dont think can be deemed a public place. Yes it was along a public road, but I think public place would be a stretch for the prosecutor. As the statue does not cover long guns and it appears consensus shows it can be a dangerous area concerning wildlife- I believe he is good. 2) He was lawfully carrying his pistol concealed and the officers (I believe the Sgt) basically allude to that in the video- so there should be no charges there. 3) Note what he was arrested for- resisting arrest. There is no mention of an arms arrest, nor have I seen anything further indicating that additional charges were brought. I believe he should have his weapons returned to him.

Now I haven't seen additional video showing where the officer attempted to grab his weapon, I have just seen the immediate aftermath prior to him being disarmed. I do believe that the officer has the right to question and detain him in order to ascertain the situation. I do not feel that the guy was actually resisting arrest. Based on the video it appears that the officers elected to arrest him on something for CYA purposes. If the officer did in fact make the first move to grab the weapon without asking him for it then the officer is pretty damn stupid and will probably get hosed for it. I think you can tell from his reaction as the arrest went further that he realized he was in a bad situation of his own devising.

The comments made by the Police Sergeant are more troubling to me, and I think will cause more long term issues for that department than the actions of the initial officer (which will probably only cost them money). I have been in a very similar situation with the police, and generally try to avoid them like the plague now. Luckily it didnt involve firearms, but it did demonstrate how your freedoms can be destroyed on a whim. I wish the best of luck to the guy in his suit. It's going to be a long and expensive road for him, eye opening too, but I think in the end he will win, and hopefully be able to buy some class III stuff if he gets compensated well.

wow6599
April 17, 2013, 11:40 AM
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct

dogtown tom, if you and the officer are correct, I am very glad I don't live in Texas.

In the context of the video, I can understand the officer (on duty) being exempt from the law(s) in regards to carrying a rifle down a public road, but other than that I would like to know how/why they are exempt from laws that govern Texas citizens?

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 11:49 AM
Sure enough, it got krupparms yelling (all caps text in his post) about the horrors of what was witnessed by a "troop of boyscouts" that didn't even exist. So it is very good for getting people emotionally involved. I don't disagree at all with that assessment. I just tend to see that when folks provide a lot of emotional and often unrelated content in their arguments about how they were wronged instead of specific documentary insights, that the case being claimed isn't as strong as claimed. We shall see.

It only took 3 or 4 events of Daniel Harless threatening to murder people for anything to be done about it.


Actually it took a youtube video and a lot of EMOTION to even get his misconduct to be reviewed. Then it only took about 3 months for anything to be done about his clear misconduct.

You know what the most ridiculous thing is about that case though? The arbitrators left the door open for Harless to become a police officer again...http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x2105837634/Fired-Canton-officer-Daniel-Harless-wins-back-his-job


If the guy this thread is talking about were walking down a city street holding the gun in his hands, I would agree, he was just making an ass of himself (although still protected by the second and first amendments). In this case, it is clear he was walking down a back country road (no lines even painted on the road and a dirt road in the background) in the middle of NO WHERE, with his rifle slung. So no, I don't feel he was looking for attention, and I don't feel he should just have to shut up and let the cops violate his rights.

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread, one of the officers stated "after what has happened, you can't carry around this type of rifle"...so they admit they specifically didn't like it, because it was an AR. If he had a Winchester 1894 slung over his shoulder...I wonder what would have happened.

"after what has happened"....what has happened does not matter at all, unless "what has happened" involved a new law being passed. The Constitution doesn't become invalid during this nation's ever increasing knee jerk periods.

smogmage
April 17, 2013, 12:08 PM
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.

Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.

Last time I checked the 2A read something along the lines of
TO KEEP AND BEAR, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It doesn't say, well you can keep it in your house but if you take it outside and someone feels uneasy, well then the police will lock you up and take your guns.

TarDevil
April 17, 2013, 12:16 PM
A little courtesy on both sides and this encounter most likely would have ended differently. When the PD receives a MWAG call, they're pretty much obligated to at least investigate. Why is being polite and showing a little cooperation a violation of our rights? Why not just answer the cop's question. Instead the officer encountered a belligerent attitude.

I'm still not saying Grisham's arrest was justified and I do think his civil rights were violated. However, if ANYONE... including a conversation with an anti-2A... were to ask me why I carry, I would try to present myself in a respectful way and explain why I chose to exercise my 2A rights. If I can be polite to the average guy on the street, why not a cop as well?

dalepres
April 17, 2013, 01:23 PM
This is not about communications and respect. It's about the Constitution, the law, and liberty.

For the poster who said he talked himself out of a serious situation where he was in the wrong, well, that's definitely about respect and communications. You've done something wrong, intentionally or not, and you're hoping to convince the officer to use his discretion in a way that effects the intent of the law by telling you what you need to do to be in compliance and getting you in compliance but doesn't end with you in handcuffs.

When you are not breaking the law then you have no obligation to be respectful. The police have an obligation to know the law and enforce the law as written, rather than how they wish it was or based on their emotions. That's not to say it's smart to get into a belligerent argument with them. Your day goes better and his day goes better with out the high stress of a belligerent discussion. A little human kindness goes a long way - as long as it is possible to be kind. We don't know where this discussion went from civil to argumentative but being argumentative is not grounds for arrest.

Hopefully we can remember that it is not people like Grisham, whether we like him or not, who should scare the public; it's of the lack of people like Grisham that they should be afraid. Had people been carrying guns in Aurora, many less would have been killed or harmed - perhaps no one would have been because the shooter would have expected a response rather than no response. Had staff or security guards been armed at Newtown, less people would have been killed - perhaps no one would have been since the shooter would have expected a response rather than no response.

Our goal should be to exercise our rights to the fullest. Carry a rifle openly in Texas. Carry a handgun openly where legal. Eventually, if we all do our part, the norm will be to see lots of folks carrying guns and bad guys will think twice.

Jesse James never robbed another bank after the Northfield, Minnesota raid. How does that compare to bank robbers today, in our disarmed society?

JoeDorn
April 17, 2013, 02:19 PM
Handguns. I'm pretty sure open carry of a rifle is perfectly legal unless you are deliberately disturbing the peace with it. (But it's been quite a few years since I lived there.)

From what I've read, THE KID should press charges for false arrest.

Until recently if you had a pickup in Texas, it was considered obscenely undressed without a least one long gun in the rear window. Unfortunately the feral community found this a ready source of retail stock and the practice ceased.

I have met the individual at a local Tea Party function termed the 'Day of Resistance'... While I agree with his stance I believe he was pushing the issue...

There is little or no danger from feral pigs or big cats although both are in the county. None of the dangerous animals listed are normally not out at the time of day that the incident occurred.

The city involved, Temple, Texas, has a mayoral election coming up and the TEA Party has arranged a town hall meeting with both candidates. I am sure this will be presented.

BTW, Temple would much rather have its officers running their IH-35 speed trap than wasting their time on non-revenue production. I should hope this ends up being a negative revenue producer and C.J becomes a millionaire...

zxcvbob
April 17, 2013, 02:37 PM
Until recently if you had a pickup in Texas, it was considered obscenely undressed without a least one long gun in the rear window. Unfortunately the feral community found this a ready source of retail stock and the practice ceased.

I used to live in Temple, on the west side of I-35. I had a beater 3/4 ton pickup, and it had a gun rack in the rear window. :) When I moved to MN I still had the pickup, and once when I was moving to a new house I put a gun in the rack -- lucky for me it was just an airgun (still illegal to display, but I didn't know that, I thought a real long-gun was legal like that.) Cop pulled me over at night; the silhouette probably looked like a sawed-off shotgun. The cop was more of an Andy Taylor type than a Barney Fife, and I was respectful and apologetic. He told me to put it behind the seat, and don't do it again. :o

I don't want to draw too much of a parallel with Sarge's case. I was breaking the law and didn't know it, but "no harm no foul". That's how it should be. And when you're NOT breaking the law, it should go even easier: "We got a call of a man with a gun; had to check it out. Have a nice day"

dogtown tom
April 17, 2013, 03:09 PM
savhmustang80 .... The carrying of a long gun, in the area he and his son were walking I dont think can be deemed a public place. Yes it was along a public road, but I think public place would be a stretch for the prosecutor.
Sorry, a public road is a public place. It doesn't matter if you are the only one standing in the middle of the road.....its still a public place.

As the statue does not cover long guns...
Nonsense.
Read the citation from the Texas Penal Code posted earlier. FIREARM means FIREARM.

dogtown tom
April 17, 2013, 03:15 PM
smogmage Quote:
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.

Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.

Last time I checked the 2A read something along the lines of
TO KEEP AND BEAR, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It doesn't say, well you can keep it in your house but if you take it outside and someone feels uneasy, well then the police will lock you up and take your guns.
Sorry, but when in the past 200+ years has the Second Amendment been infringement free?

Texas law is clear and while you & I might not like state or local laws.........they DO APPLY until a court rules them unconstitutional. And the "display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS a CRIME in Texas.




TarDevil A little courtesy on both sides and this encounter most likely would have ended differently. When the PD receives a MWAG call, they're pretty much obligated to at least investigate. Why is being polite and showing a little cooperation a violation of our rights? Why not just answer the cop's question. Instead the officer encountered a belligerent attitude.
Nailed it.

waterhouse
April 17, 2013, 03:44 PM
I have not seen the video, but to address a few points:

1) per my understanding of the TX statute- the guy has not committed and arms violation under state law. The carrying of a long gun, in the area he and his son were walking I dont think can be deemed a public place. Yes it was along a public road, but I think public place would be a stretch for the prosecutor.

Texas Penal Code 1.07 DEFINITIONS:

(40) "Public place" means any place to which the
public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes,
but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of
schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities, and shops.


3) Note what he was arrested for- resisting arrest. There is no mention of an arms arrest, nor have I seen anything further indicating that additional charges were brought. I believe he should have his weapons returned to him.

It depends heavily on the District Attorney in the area, but it is common practice to not charge for a lower crime that is an element of of a higher crime. For example, if someone tosses a small baggie of drugs on the grounds while the cops are chasing them, they are often charged with just tampering with evidence instead of tampering with evidence AND the lower drug possession charge. As possession of the "evidence" (i.e. drugs) is an element of the tampering crime, often the lower charge is dropped.

In this case (and I wasn't there and don't know for sure), the Probable Cause affidavit would likely read something like "Mr. X was placed under arrest for Disorderly Conduct: displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. He then resisted arrest . . ." In other words, the fact that he was only charged with resisting arrest does not mean that there wasn't an initial weapons charge that led to the arrest.

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 04:20 PM
Sorry, a public road is a public place. It doesn't matter if you are the only one standing in the middle of the road.....its still a public place.



So are the wildlife management area all around Texas...is hunting with an open carried gun illegal there as well?

And the "display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS a CRIME in Texas.


Clearly in the video he was on a back country road in the middle of no where....if those cops thought he was carrying it "calculating to cause alarm"...they need remedial training

savhmustang80
April 17, 2013, 04:31 PM
Dogtown Tom- I stand corrected and enlightened. Sucks for you guys out there in TX. Down here in FL now, but lived most my life in GA- walking along a country road armed wouldn't fall under that definition here. That being said-not something that I would do.

I see your post regarding the statute on openly displaying a firearm with the intention to cause alarm. I guess everything will hinge upon the DA's interpretation of "intention to cause alarm".

Hell, in Georgia they actually want you to carry openly. And a street would be good to go as well. Just another reason not to go to Texas. Thought Texas was the firearm holy land, you guys got to bring things up to snuff!

_________
Previously of Kennesaw, GA- Guntown, USA

PabloJ
April 17, 2013, 04:37 PM
Given all shooting incidents that happened walking down county road with assult-style weapon is bound to get someone anxious and call the police. The police is going to treat any reports of person with firearm very seriously because such people pose potential danger to everyone.

robhof
April 17, 2013, 04:41 PM
High reward civil suits causes the department's rates to go up substantially and will result in the termination of problem officers. Many years ago I lived in south Dade county Fl. and the local swat were just getting up and coming, however they were used on more than a few questionable drug house incidents and actually killed a 78yo man when he yelled as they broke down his door, the family got a $3million settlement and the swat team was disbanded for 2 years and many officers were terminated. Turns out people were calling pesky neighbors in to police, from pay phones and swat would show up and break in. Now ALL calls must be verified by detectives and official observers. So I certainly hope the guy sues and asks for millions, enough to scare the insurer. Personally I'd find the best lawyer and tell him that the reward is all his, if he wins.:cuss::banghead::cuss::fire:

TarDevil
April 17, 2013, 05:34 PM
...if those cops thought he was carrying it "calculating to cause alarm"...they need remedial training

No telling what they thought prior to his uncooperative responses when first approached. If I came across someone with both and AR and an attitude, I'd be leery.

Again, I don't think his arrest was warranted. But why go through all the expense of proving a point when a little courtesy might avoid it.

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 05:44 PM
No telling what they thought prior to his uncooperative responses when first approached. If I came across someone with both and AR and an attitude, I'd be leery.
.

Well the video only shows him after they had already cuffed him...so we can't say he was uncooperative. Maybe the cops were initially the ones with guns an attitudes.

Being a jerk isn't against he law either....

Again, he was in the middle of no where...if they thought he was out there trying to cause alarm...they need remedial training

TarDevil
April 17, 2013, 05:53 PM
Well the video only shows him after they had already cuffed him...so we can't say he was uncooperative. Maybe the cops were initially the ones with guns an attitudes.

Being a jerk isn't against he law either....

Again, he was in the middle of no where...if they thought he was out there trying to cause alarm...they need remedial training

By his own admission, he refused to tell the officer why he was carrying the AR. In the long video, his verbal assault preceded the cuffs.

Being a jerk indeed is not against the law. Being a jerk while carrying an AR WILL get anybody's attention.. including mine and most certainly that of an LEO.

I repeat... they were obligated to investigate because they were dispatched. He could've politely responded to their questions then likely been on his way, sparing the angst of his son and the legal fees.

NelsErik
April 17, 2013, 05:59 PM
Additional Information (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/texas-police-dept-provides-statement-to-theblaze-on-vet-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-plus-a-texas-firearms-attorney-weighs-in/)<--READ!

slamfirev10
April 17, 2013, 06:11 PM
courtesy repost b/c so many are saying "the vid only shows....."

full vid (i did not see it posted yet):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4M...ure=youtu.be&a


EDIT: looks like the long vid had been pulled

EDIT #2: here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A8r4MK3R4PI

TarDevil
April 17, 2013, 06:12 PM
That video has been killed.

Edit: beat me to it!

CoRoMo
April 17, 2013, 06:18 PM
I imagine that he's going to sue. Glenn Beck advised him today to get a civil rights attorney and file suit. My guess is that any attorney then requested that Grisham remove the YouTube video immediately.

clutch
April 17, 2013, 06:32 PM
I don't understand why Texas has a reputation of being gun friendly. It isn't the best of states when it comes to guns.

Someone is alarmed about someone carrying a gun is all it takes to get the cops giving you an anal check? I've had a similar thing happen. CMP M1 Garand shows up. I load up 5 rounds of .30-06 and shoot target at my 50 yard sand box. Deputy shows up, someone 'thinks' I'm shooting at them. I'm in a bowl (depression), I'd need a mortar to drop a round on the fraidycat.

The sandbox was a 4' x 4' x 4' filled with sand. I escorted the officer to the rear or the box and pointed out there were no exit holes. He went away and never came back.

From the sound of the wind in April, I know for sure it was Texas. :)

clutch
April 17, 2013, 06:59 PM
That is weird, I see there is a page 5 but it will not load.

Edit

Well it did but I shouldn't be at the top of it.

12131
April 17, 2013, 07:21 PM
I don't understand why Texas has a reputation of being gun friendly. It isn't the best of states when it comes to guns.

Someone is alarmed about someone carrying a gun is all it takes to get the cops giving you an anal check? I've had a similar thing happen. CMP M1 Garand shows up. I load up 5 rounds of .30-06 and shoot target at my 50 yard sand box. Deputy shows up, someone 'thinks' I'm shooting at them. I'm in a bowl (depression), I'd need a mortar to drop a round on the fraidycat.

The sandbox was a 4' x 4' x 4' filled with sand. I escorted the officer to the rear or the box and pointed out there were no exit holes. He went away and never came back.

From the sound of the wind in April, I know for sure it was Texas. :)
Just because you see a bad experience there doesn't mean TX is not gun friendly. It might not be the best but, it's better than most. I believe some recent ranking puts TX at #15 out of 50 states in terms of gun friendliness.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/
And just because you had a good experience doesn't mean your state is very gun friendly. Where does MI rank? #33 or something like that.:p

There are always anti-gun cops, or cops on power trips, in any states.

smogmage
April 17, 2013, 08:02 PM
Sorry, but when in the past 200+ years has the Second Amendment been infringement free?

Texas law is clear and while you & I might not like state or local laws.........they DO APPLY until a court rules them unconstitutional. And the "display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS a CRIME in Texas.



The law as written in Texas is CLEAR as MUD. Its open to whatever whims and persuasions the officer is keen to on that particular day.

You have pointed out a fundamental flaw in our government, laws are passed regardless of if their Constitutionally permissible. Only after years in the courts do these laws ever get to make their way to the high courts to decide.



(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. .

And just who gets to decide the manner in which carrying a gun is "calculated to alarm". Its like calling something "Fair". Its entirely subjective and the difference between you breaking the law and not breaking the law is ENTIRELY up to someones reaction to you, NOT any action/inaction on your part.

JohnBT
April 17, 2013, 08:12 PM
That's not a flaw in the system. You'd rather have a years-long legal battle and delay prior to implementing every law while it works its way through the court system? Nothing would ever get done.


"Being a jerk isn't against he law either...."

No, but for most of recorded history it's been known to get you a ride downtown. That's not against the law either.

Intune
April 17, 2013, 08:22 PM
This one is going to cost 'em a bit o cash.

HOOfan_1
April 17, 2013, 08:38 PM
Umm. Yeah giving people a ride down town for no reason is against the law....

d2wing
April 17, 2013, 08:45 PM
LEO's are becoming more a law unto themselves in this area. Recently I heard a Judge say due process was gibberish.

12131
April 17, 2013, 08:51 PM
LEO's are becoming more a law unto themselves in this area. Recently I heard a Judge say due process was gibberish.
No kidding. Just Google Justice of the Peace Eric Williams.:fire: There's another shining example.

smogmage
April 17, 2013, 11:05 PM
That's not a flaw in the system. You'd rather have a years-long legal battle and delay prior to implementing every law while it works its way through the court system? Nothing would ever get done.


Yes, actually. I would prefer it that way. There's a saying "The government that governs least, governs best". Smaller government, get out of my way, get out of my life, let me prosper or fail on my own. That is how we were founded, that is how we prospered.


The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of our countries problems are born from the government trying to "fix" something and ending up making it either worse, or having "unintended" consequences. Least I name MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, funding and supplying the Taliban in the 80's against Russia, I can go on and on and on.

smogmage
April 18, 2013, 10:20 AM
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.

Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.


Lets try Round 2 on this one :
Quote from Justin Flint, a Texas firearms attorney with Pursley McNamara & Flint, PLLC in Missouri City.

"if someone in Texas is “carrying a long arm, a rifle or a shotgun, that is legal in the state of Texas… So there is no real probable cause there for a stop or for the police to detain any person for any amount of time,” the attorney added, speaking in generalities in regards to the law."


Spoken from a firearms attorney in Texas. I'd venture to say HE knows what hes talking about.

waterhouse
April 18, 2013, 10:37 AM
Since probable cause is not needed for a stop, only reasonable suspicion, I must question the attorney's statement. Also, he is speaking in generalities. When the public calls 911 because you have alarmed them with your rifle, that is a more specific case.

Once again, I wasn't there, and I may have handled it differently, but without knowing more to the story (for example, what the 911 caller said), there is not enough information to determine if a law was broken.

SharpsDressedMan
April 18, 2013, 12:38 PM
Guy walking down the street, pistol on his side, carrying a rifle, with his boy in tow. Not pointing guns at anyone; what is your reasonable suspicion of anything illegal? I don't see it. And I used to be one of those guys that used to LOOK for it for 20 years. I might ask him what he is doing, and be ready to draw if he acts too goofy, but I am also prepared to let him go on his way if he seems to be o.k.

Simon726
April 18, 2013, 01:04 PM
Open carry in not permitted in Texas , now get this, UNLESS it is a rifle or shotgun!

He had every RIGHT to carry that rifle and DOUBLY so to carry his pistol concealed!

I really do hope this guy SUE the snot out of Temple PD. If I were the lawyers for the NRA I would represent him pro bono.

Thethickster
April 18, 2013, 01:55 PM
That is wrong if he has his CHL he can carry his weapon and has no right to be disarmed, as far as the AR15 if its in Plain view with gun rack then he should not have been disarmed. If he did not have a CHL as long as the pistol is concealed say glove box, center counsel, on your seat covered with a sweater, he did nothing wrong.

I guess the cops ran a quick back ground found out he had all his paperwork in order and felt they needed to disarm him, maybe due to his training in the military, for the safety of the police, maybe they didnt want to get into a firefight with a seasoned veteran.

bigride
April 18, 2013, 03:30 PM
In reading over what the attorney said, the treatment of the son may be a huge problem for the police department. They wouldn't let him out of the car until he spoke to them. So the dad gets arrested for being loud and rude and the boy is detained for being quiet. The treatment of a minor is troubling. There are two sides to every story...sometimes more...but this looks to be a messy situation made more complicated by a couple of hotheads.

dogtown tom
April 18, 2013, 04:24 PM
smogmage Quote:
If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.

Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.

Lets try Round 2 on this one :
Quote from Justin Flint, a Texas firearms attorney with Pursley McNamara & Flint, PLLC in Missouri City.

"if someone in Texas is “carrying a long arm, a rifle or a shotgun, that is legal in the state of Texas… So there is no real probable cause there for a stop or for the police to detain any person for any amount of time,” the attorney added, speaking in generalities in regards to the law."


Spoken from a firearms attorney in Texas. I'd venture to say HE knows what hes talking about.
Apparently neither you nor Mr Flint has read the Texas Penal Code:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

CoRoMo
April 18, 2013, 04:36 PM
Here's an example of a MWAG call that didn't appear to end like the one posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWOTxvJibhM

smogmage
April 18, 2013, 04:41 PM
You can quote the penal code all day long, it still doesn't change the fact that it's not applicable in this case. The mere carrying of a rifle isn't calculated to cause alarm. Someone's reaction to you CANNOT be the SOLE determining factor in the difference between you committing and not committing a crime.

The fact that this is even up for debate is Absolutely ABSURD.

The fact that you as a Texas resident keep pushing it as if merely carrying a gun is an act in and of itself "calculated to cause alarm" is more than enough reason for me to cross Texas of my list of "Free" states to flee to. So thanks for saving me the time and trouble.

JColdIron
April 18, 2013, 04:44 PM
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;



How is a slung rifle considered a display calculated to alarm? A slung rifle is harmless. Just like a holstered pistol.

And how would one prove that the displayer "calculated" to cause said alarm. Just because someone freaked out because they saw someone with a rifle over their shoulder does not mean that person intended to scare.

That is kind of like someone getting mad at a spider for that person being scared of spiders.

radiotom
April 18, 2013, 05:28 PM
How is a slung rifle considered a display calculated to alarm? A slung rifle is harmless. Just like a holstered pistol.

And how would one prove that the displayer "calculated" to cause said alarm. Just because someone freaked out because they saw someone with a rifle over their shoulder does not mean that person intended to scare.

That is kind of like someone getting mad at a spider for that person being scared of spiders.
Not to mention, according to the law, that you'd have to say how he "calculated" that it was going to cause alarm.

MErl
April 18, 2013, 05:59 PM
The thing is, the cop doesn't have to prove you were out to cause alarm. He just has to think you might have been.

The fact is that there was alarm if they got a call. That is going to get you talking to the officer. If during that discussion there is any doubt about your intent, well, that is the fun part of laws with grey areas instead of clear lines.

When talking with the officer responding to the MWAG call, how do you answer these questions?
"Do you think people might be concerned given recent events?"
"Can you understand why people might be concerned?"

Either of those could be twisted to intent. The officer gets to make a judgment call and your words and actions (and history) have an effect on that.

JRH6856
April 18, 2013, 06:10 PM
How is a slung rifle considered a display calculated to alarm? A slung rifle is harmless. Just like a holstered pistol.

And how would one prove that the displayer "calculated" to cause said alarm. Just because someone freaked out because they saw someone with a rifle over their shoulder does not mean that person intended to scare.

That is kind of like someone getting mad at a spider for that person being scared of spiders.
Unfortunately, whether or not something is calculated to cause alarm is often determined by whether or not it does cause alarm or is likely to do so.

I know that open carry of rifles and shotguns is not common in the area where I live. I also know that anyone openly carrying a rifle or a shotgun is going to cause alarm for someone because the action is uncommon. Therefore, if I choose to openly carry a rifle or a shotgun, I do so knowing that it is likely to cause a alarm. And knowing that this is likely to get me arrested, I choose not to do so.

Gaiudo
April 18, 2013, 06:28 PM
Their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TempleTXPolice

Averageman
April 18, 2013, 07:32 PM
Lets be honest, these small towns dont get the cream of the LEO crop many times.
I think all that has transpired will result in a definate loss of job for those two Police Officers and some money being paid by the City to settle this out of court.
You have two personalites dealing with each other, one of you can be the bigger Man and defuse the situation before it gets out of hand or you can bow up and be the tuff guy.
Neither did, now look where it leads us?
I'm all for clearing the AR, pocketing the mag and being friendly about the situation. I wonder what the reaction might have been at that point?
I came home to find the Fire Department putting out a fire on my deck due to an errant spark from someones ciggarette.
The FD had the fire mostly out when I arrived, but a LEO followed me from my driveway to my backyard. When I removed my shirt to rip some boards up to help the Fireman, the LEO had a bit of a hissy fit and wanted my pistol. I cleared the weapon and handed it to him. My line of thought was he didin't want someone who might be upset on the scene with the Firemen.
Well, in the end all he did was check the pistol ( as in yes, this is a legal pistol) and call in the serial numbers. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything, maybe SOP. So what I thought might be public safety problem turned in to a fishing expedition when he ran my serial numbers on my gun while standing on my property.
I did smile when one of the Firemen muttered A**h*le loud enough for the Officer to hear as we went back to work on the Fire.
I will say it did defuse the situation and let us get back to putting out the fire.

SharpsDressedMan
April 18, 2013, 08:48 PM
What happened to the "benefit of the doubt". or presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty? I get offended when no actual overt action has occurred (just a citizen walking down the street with a gun, with no directed threat),but the police treat it as if you just murdered someone. How about issuing a summons, noting a recognizance bond since he is local, and let the judge determine if a crime has really been committed, without putting out a POSSIBLY innocent man. Too much to ask?

zxcvbob
April 18, 2013, 10:33 PM
I'm all for clearing the AR, pocketing the mag and being friendly about the situation. I wonder what the reaction might have been at that point?


They would have shot him as he cleared it.

wow6599
April 18, 2013, 10:38 PM
I don't understand why this is such a debate. He either broke the law or he didn't - period. As far as I can tell he didn't, and I hope he sues the pants off the police department, and the arresting officer(s) lose their jobs. One even admitted the law didn't really matter.....are you kidding me?

barnbwt
April 18, 2013, 11:53 PM
in the end all he did was check the pistol ( as in yes, this is a legal pistol) and call in the serial numbers. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything, maybe SOP
Are officers allowed to just randomly breathalyze people they come across on the street with no justification? Kindly ask every third driver to open their trunk, please? Glad the officer didn't chase up anything (real or mistake) on his serial check, but that doesn't make that procedure okay. You were on your property, your gun, concealed or not, is none of his business if you aren't being hazardous. I'd comply with such a request, but at the least I would be asking the Chief about the practice.

Back on topic, we still have yet to see any evidence the MWAG did anything but obey the law. So far the officers' actions have only been shown to be sketchy...at best. Until we see a dashcam video showing that the guy was juggling ARs while shouting obscenities before being booked, he has the benefit of the doubt.

TCB

zxcvbob
April 19, 2013, 12:34 AM
I have the serial number covered up with tape on my carry gun. Have to take the grips off to get the tape off -- easy enough to do if you have a search warrant.

Guy walking down the street, pistol on his side, carrying a rifle, with his boy in tow. Not pointing guns at anyone; what is your reasonable suspicion of anything illegal? I don't see it. And I used to be one of those guys that used to LOOK for it for 20 years. I might ask him what he is doing, and be ready to draw if he acts too goofy, but I am also prepared to let him go on his way if he seems to be o.k.

There's the problem. Terry doesn't require that the officer articulate anything to the suspect, and he has plenty of time to make something up after the fact -- retroactive RAS.

SharpsDressedMan
April 19, 2013, 12:54 AM
I believe they DO have to tell you what you are being arrested for BEFORE they drag you away in cuffs. Wouldn't you just hate being the officer on the stand who is forced to admit that you didn't KNOW at the time what you were arresting someone for?

Vector
April 19, 2013, 01:30 AM
The problem as I see it (outside of the cops arresting him) was the initial call to the police by a "concerned citizen".
Just because a citizen is not use to seeing open carry or ignorant of the law, does not mean they should get the police involved in something like this.

My theory is that we need to desensitize the general public to open carry by doing it anywhere where it is lawful to do so. Read more in this THR thread;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=710748

Otherwise our rights will continue to be diminished by those who think they are doing the right thing by calling the police any time they see someone OCing.

`

smogmage
April 19, 2013, 01:42 AM
Well there's a possible good outcome and a possible bad outcome to open carry movements. They started up a good size movement in Kommiefornia and enough people realized it was legal....so they went and got it banned. Now that no form of carry is legal in that horrid state they will be forced into legally allowing some form of carry. But only after much time and expense wasted on both sides.

I would prefer either the dispatcher informing the caller of the legality of what they are observing and not send officers to a non issue. Or punish these callers for wasting taxpayer money on wasted officers time and harassing citizens exercising their Rights.

SixxshootinSam
April 19, 2013, 02:41 AM
Anyone notice when officer friendly confiscated the guy's .45, he barrel swipes him from shoulder to shoulder? Good grief...

smogmage
April 19, 2013, 02:50 AM
Citizen points a gun at someone and its assault with a deadly weapon / aggravated assault.
Cop does the same thing and its just another day at work.

Averageman
April 19, 2013, 10:07 AM
Anyone notice when officer friendly confiscated the guy's .45, he barrel swipes him from shoulder to shoulder? Good grief...
At this point perhaps they need to turn this in to a training film as to "What not to do, if you confront someone carrying a Long Gun legally in Texas" and show it at the Police Academy.
There is nothing like flagging a Mans brainstem with his handgun while he is in handcuffs and it is being filmed.
Are officers allowed to just randomly breathalyze people they come across on the street with no justification? Kindly ask every third driver to open their trunk, please? Glad the officer didn't chase up anything (real or mistake) on his serial check, but that doesn't make that procedure okay.
I dont have a problem with that when there are first responders on the scene a lot of people are overcome with emotions at times like these. I was surprised, he saw my CHL and the pistol, why not just sit it (as it was unloaded) aside and carry on with whatever he thought he was doing at the time.
As I said, the Firemen on the scene were not impressed at all and I'm sure they have more interaction with him than I do.
I would like to see the locals become a little more active in confronting the situation and finding resolution on the issue.

Double Naught Spy
April 19, 2013, 12:45 PM
What happened to the "benefit of the doubt". or presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty

Innocence until proven guilty is a court issue. Grisham still has this, but "innocence until proven guilty" would not stop a person from getting arrested.

You are putting the cart before the horse. If operating that way, the police could not do their jobs because they could not arrest hardly anybody until they were convicted in court first where they were "proven guilty" and by then, most folks would be long gone.

SharpsDressedMan
April 19, 2013, 01:54 PM
^^Yeah, we all know that. But what was their "reasonable suspicion" to stop, and "probable cause" to arrest?

zxcvbob
April 19, 2013, 03:51 PM
^^Yeah, we all know that. But what was their "reasonable suspicion" to stop, and "probable cause" to arrest?


That's easy; "Smelled alcohol" would do it. That justifies the Terry stop without actual probable cause. The arrest was for not following orders during the Terry stop.

You're trying to look at it like an honest cop.

osteodoc08
April 19, 2013, 06:57 PM
The sad part is, this kinda stuff probably happens all the time and since there's no evidence to the contrary like a video, it goes un noticed. Good thing they got it on film. There's no disputing what happened on film.

As far as the honest cop thing, we just had some local cops busted for planting drugs in a counter sting, but I'd like to think we as a whole have honest LEOs. I have never had issues with our local LEOs. I was stopped at a road block several years ago and I told the LEO I was carrying. He asked for license and concealed permit. He thanked me and went on my way.

we are not amused
April 19, 2013, 07:49 PM
This is a perfect example of why many people look upon "cops" as the enemy.

It doesn't take too many bad apples to ruin the reputation of good cops, especially, when the "good" cops look the other way when a "brother" officer gets our of line.

I have had some good experiences with Law enforcement, and a few bad ones.

I remember the bad ones a lot more vividly than the good ones.

we are not amused
April 19, 2013, 07:53 PM
The sad part is, this kinda stuff probably happens all the time and since there's no evidence to the contrary like a video, it goes un noticed. Good thing they got it on film. There's no disputing what happened on film.

As far as the honest cop thing, we just had some local cops busted for planting drugs in a counter sting, but I'd like to think we as a whole have honest LEOs. I have never had issues with our local LEOs. I was stopped at a road block several years ago and I told the LEO I was carrying. He asked for license and concealed permit. He thanked me and went on my way.

According to a different news story, (sorry no link) it has happened in that area before. It seems the local DA hates guns and the local police do his bidding.

Derry 1946
April 19, 2013, 08:35 PM
Anyone notice when officer friendly confiscated the guy's .45, he barrel swipes him from shoulder to shoulder? Good grief...

Yeah, I noticed that too. His gun safety technique needs work.

winchester1886
April 20, 2013, 01:22 AM
I am from Texas and it's been a long time since I studied the Penal code but I know for sure in Texas you can carry your Ar15 or your AK on the rifle rack on the back window of your pickup. People where I live carry loaded 30-30 and shotguns in the cab of their trucks and it is legal.I don't know for sure if you were on the street with it if it would be legal.You might be charged with disorderly conduct. What I mean by that If you had a AR and was walking down the street or go inside a business it could alarm people the police would respond.If you wanted to be a (idiot) and told the LEO to take a hike I'm sure you would find yourself in custody.

smogmage
April 20, 2013, 09:59 AM
So you can drive around with it in full view but in your opinion you'd be charged with disorderly conduct for getting it out of the truck? How exactly would you put it in the truck in the first place? Pull the truck into your garage close the door put the rifle in; and the only way to get it out would be the reverse of that?

I'm failing to see the common sense anywhere in that.

TarDevil
April 20, 2013, 11:37 AM
I'm failing to see the common sense anywhere in that.
Ditto. I don't live in Texas but spend almost as much time there as I do at home, carry when there, so I've read the gun laws I think pretty thoroughly and can't find anything of the nature.

we are not amused
April 20, 2013, 01:57 PM
You are over thinking the problem. Sgt. Grisham was not breaking any laws, the police officer was in the wrong. Plain and simple.

Not all police officers are good guys. I am sorry, but that is a fact. Look at the trials of the New Orleans' officers charged with murder during Hurricane Katrina.

Some officers seem to think that they are the LAW, not servants of it.

Most are pretty honest and are worthy of our respect, but some just aren't.

SharpsDressedMan
April 20, 2013, 02:21 PM
What if you don't own a vehicle? The law needs to address the freedom you have to own and "bear" arms while walking down the street. Even in this day and age, people will be walking outside of vehicles with weapons, some of them across town, with no evil intent, possibly on the way to a shooting range or to the hunting gounds. Texas has to provide for lawful transport and carrying of arms in public, and ignore the cries of the ignorant, or those malicious few who call in sightings of such, and infer to the police that there is something criminal in the simple act of transporting guns.

docnyt
April 20, 2013, 03:03 PM
On a side note, was Grisham read his rights? If he was, maybe I just didn't hear it on the video.

DeepSouth
April 20, 2013, 06:08 PM
I just watched the video for the first time and I gotta say, he's definitely getting out of this. At the end they came and told him he was under arrest, he asked what for. Then they told him resisting arrest. Do WHAT!

The FIRST time they told him he was under arrest they already had him in Cuffs, disarmed, and leaning (unattended) on the hood. THEN they arrested him for resisting. Lol. He's got that beat.

Did I miss something? I gotta watch it again, they can't be that stupid.


As far as I could tell he did nothing illegal, even the cops couldn't tell him of a law he was breaking. The only thing he did wrong that I saw was get all upset, calm down, let them answer and hurt themselves, like they did anyway. That said open carrying an AR probably wasn't the best idea given the current situation. Don't get me wrong, if you want to and it's legal then get after it, just realize that everyone doesn't share your view of freedom and you are likely to get hassled, right or wrong, it's the truth. Weigh the consequences and make your own decision, just don't act all surprised if you get hassled.



My 2¢



Excuse typos, posted via iPhone.

dogtown tom
April 20, 2013, 06:42 PM
DeepSouth I just watched the video for the first time and I gotta say, he's definitely getting out of this. At the end they came and told him he was under arrest, he asked what for. Then they told him resisting arrest. Do WHAT!

The FIRST time they told him he was under arrest they already had him in Cuffs, disarmed, and leaning (unattended) on the hood. THEN they arrested him for resisting. Lol. He's got that beat.

Did I miss something?
Uh huh, like everyone else..........you missed what occurred BEFORE the video began.

Lots of internet lawyers in this thread proclaiming Sgt Grisham's innocence without knowing all the details.

This is Texas, were everyone gets their day in court before we fry them.;)

HOOfan_1
April 20, 2013, 07:06 PM
The FIRST time they told him he was under arrest they already had him in Cuffs, disarmed, and leaning (unattended) on the hood. THEN they arrested him for resisting. Lol. He's got that beat.
.

That would be rich if the only charge they arrested him for was "resisting arrest" They couldn't charge him with "disagreeing with their ignorance of the law"

I really don't think these police officers were willfully trying to infringe on rights.....nothing like Daniel Harless.

DeepSouth
April 20, 2013, 07:16 PM
I understand I didn't see what happened before the video began. But I did see him repeatedly ask if he was behind detained, I believe I can correctly assume if he had been told he was under arrest he wouldn't have been asking if he was being detained (aka arrested).

He may have responded in an agitated manner at beginning of the encounter, I find that likely, but it's not illegal to the best of my knowledge , not smart by any means, but not illegal.

I don't claim to be any kind of lawyer, I can't even understand legal paperwork most of the time. But if the first time you get told that your under arrest you were already cuffed, and have been left unattended then you aren't resting arrest. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure that one out.

He gets out of this EASY.

EDIT:
Well maybe not so easy.

They have changed the charges.


From his site he has setup, to gather cash.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2nd-amendment-legal-defense-fund


UPDATE (1 April 2013): My attorney received the incident reports and official charges from the DA today. The "resisting arrest" (class A misdemeanor) charge has disappeared and been replaced with "interference with public duties" (class B misdemeanor) charge. Neither charge is cause for taking my firearms and they still have not been returned. Now that we have official charges and incident reports, more information will be released this week. I am completely innocent of this and all charges and time will show that I did nothing wrong besides stand up for my rights as an American.



That one may stick because of his ow video showing how agitated and uncooperative he was.

Bonesinium
April 20, 2013, 11:32 PM
If harassment and theft are public duties, then he was definitely interfering with them.

The only crime I saw were violations of 18 USC § 242...by the guy wearing a badge.

wow6599
April 21, 2013, 05:54 PM
Uh huh, like everyone else..........you missed what occurred BEFORE the video began.

Which was.......

Double Naught Spy
April 21, 2013, 06:05 PM
One aspect not on the video was Grisham telling the cops that thet would not disarm him...as he admitted on Glenn Beck.

dogtown tom
April 21, 2013, 09:09 PM
wow6599 Quote:
Uh huh, like everyone else..........you missed what occurred BEFORE the video began.

Which was.......
Really? You have to ask?

NO ONE KNOWS unless you were there.......and since no one on this forum was there its just speculation whether its a valid arrest.

Condemning the actions of the officer or Sgt Grisham without knowing the whole story is a bit stupid.

wow6599
April 21, 2013, 10:36 PM
NO ONE KNOWS unless you were there.......and since no one on this forum was there its just speculation whether its a valid arrest.

I just assumed you did know what happened before the video started, since you said: "you missed what occurred BEFORE the video began".

So you don't really know if we missed anything.......right?

texasgun
April 22, 2013, 12:30 AM
ok guys... seriously??

A dude walks through a populated area with an AR15 on his shoulders, people call the cops and the cops HAVE to see what's going on... once a call goes in about a guy with a gun... they HAVE to follow up on that.

He's not exactly cooperating and kinda acts like a jerk... and yes - TX is not clearly defined in terms of OC for rifles vs. the display of rifles...

also: I live in WA State which is an OC state. Does this mean it's a great idea to walk through downtown Seattle with my Colt LE6940 across my shoulders? No - probably not.

Sometimes it would be great if we would use common sense.... the quickest way to loose OC is when a bunch of guys walk around with guns in the streets and Cops get a lot of calls...

I conceal carry inside the city and OC when hiking in the back-country.

cassandrasdaddy
April 22, 2013, 01:17 AM
common sense is no longer common. i suspect that a bit more polite from both partys in the beginning and a less testosterone mighta gone a long way to a happier result.

CApighunter
April 22, 2013, 01:50 AM
Cop-"We are exempt from the law"
Vet-"You ain't exempt from the law"
Cop-"Yes we are"

This is the scariest part for me. Many cops believe they are above the law an don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of society. I have nothing against law enforcement as a whole, just the ones who have total disregard for the constitution.
CApighunter

CapnMac
April 22, 2013, 02:20 AM
dude walks through a populated area with an AR15 on his shoulders

Well, except that's not what he did.

Go watch the video, but watch over the shoulders. The sergeant was not sauntering about downtown Temple. He was not really in Temple proper, but out in the 'Heights, which is trailer parks and occasional houses on a mix of 2-5 and 5-10 acre lots.
Really, go back and look at all that empty in the background, it looks very similar over the camera operator's shoulder, too.

Further, the AR was in a patrol sling, not over a shoulder.

Now, some of the folk who live in the 'Heights are nervous nellies--their 'neighbors' in the trailer parks are not setting a high moral bar (some fail to have as much value as the excrement of pond scum).

Not the nicest of neighborhoods (Everett would be a bit of an improvement to that side of town). But, the choices for where a person can go park the ride, then hike 5 miles out and back are not numerous, which meant having to go to the edges.

The sort of place where there are some would not dial 911 for MWaG, but might just decide that a passing stranger needed shooting and right now. Where that fully-concealed handgun might not have the reach a person might want to respond to irrational actions.

texasgun
April 22, 2013, 02:23 AM
I honestly don't know what "threats" the guy was expecting when going with his AR15 for a walk... having lived close to that area in Texas for 4 yrs I can safely say that there's not much around which cannot be stopped by a .45

DeepSouth
April 22, 2013, 02:24 AM
If I remember correctly he told glen beck he had walked by 1 house. He was around the 5 mile mark in the hike when the cop showed up, at least that what he says.

Not a populated area by any means.

SharpsDressedMan
April 22, 2013, 08:34 AM
Testosterone is not an illegal drug; we are born with it, and it makes us what we are. Try turning it off when you see a hot looking girl. We just have to deal with it as best we can, and I'm guessing both officers and detainee did the best they could.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2013, 11:16 AM
I honestly don't know what "threats" the guy was expecting when going with his AR15 for a walk... having lived close to that area in Texas for 4 yrs I can safely say that there's not much around which cannot be stopped by a .45

Hey...that is the anti-gunner's favorite argument. "No one really NEEDS....."

Lj1941
April 22, 2013, 11:31 AM
"shall
not
be
infringed"

Trung Si
April 22, 2013, 11:55 AM
"No one really NEEDS....."
To stir a Hornets Nest, either.;)

Certaindeaf
April 22, 2013, 05:10 PM
Everyone needs a burka in Texas I guess.

Trung Si
April 22, 2013, 05:25 PM
No I don't think so, we have enough of them in Austin and Dallas!

Double Naught Spy
April 22, 2013, 06:06 PM
I honestly don't know what "threats" the guy was expecting when going with his AR15 for a walk... having lived close to that area in Texas for 4 yrs I can safely say that there's not much around which cannot be stopped by a .45

Hey...that is the anti-gunner's favorite argument. "No one really NEEDS....."

No, it isn't about need. The law says nothing about need, but Grisham is playing up a need about feral hogs and mountain lions in the area, for which I don't think there is a recorded attack on people in Temple in the last 100 years.

tnxdshooter
April 22, 2013, 06:53 PM
We aren't the enemy, we are the citizens that the laws were written to protect. In times of strife, you can't suddenly decide that you chose to make up your own interpretation of the law. the cop acted as he was "large and in charge", and violated the laws of the state or city, he is employed by.
As long as the soldier was within his legal right to own and carry those weapons, the cop is wrong, and should be sued and reprimanded for excessive use of force, and illegally detaining a lawful citizen.

It's on video. Id say this cop and his sgt are done.

Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2013, 07:04 PM
but Grisham is playing up a need about feral hogs and mountain lions in the area.

Grisham doesn't need to justify himself...the cops do

Double Naught Spy
April 22, 2013, 07:42 PM
And yet he did.

The cops will, in court. That is sort of how the process works.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2013, 07:46 PM
And yet he did.

The cops will, in court. That is sort of how the process works.

Grisham is justifying himself to the media. Some people seem to want to alibi the police because they don't think he "needed" a rifle.

Not sure why anyone on a RKBA website would care what his reasons were for legally carrying a gun....

smogmage
April 22, 2013, 08:00 PM
I live in WA State which is an OC state. Does this mean it's a great idea to walk through downtown Seattle with my Colt LE6940 across my shoulders? No - probably not.

Sometimes it would be great if we would use common sense.... the quickest way to loose OC is when a bunch of guys walk around with guns in the streets and Cops get a lot of calls...

That's defeatism talking. You're saying the quickest way to lose your RIGHT is to exercise it? Yea..... I cannot summon the words necessary to disagree with you in the Strongest of terms. Maybe we should stop saying "offensive" things in "sensitive" places before we lose the right to say anything at all. / end sarcasm.

texasgun
April 22, 2013, 08:59 PM
If you think that OC in cities is a "right"....then good for you....

OC is not a right and look what happened in CA when a bunch of people started parading around cities with OC but unloaded pistols and YouTube the cops being called in....

smogmage
April 22, 2013, 09:40 PM
I don't no how many times it needs to be said but 2A reads in part "TO KEEP AND BEAR"
A list of meanings:

BEAR
1 [bair] Show IPA verb,
7.
to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
12.
to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
17.
to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18.
to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
22.
to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.


How many more ways could the founders have written CARRY THE GUN DUH?
Rights do not end where population centers start, or sensibilities get offended. kalifornstan unconstitutionally banned all forms of carry and now they are backed into a corner in which they will be forced kicking and screaming into obeying our founding documents.

Second question is how many Texans don't support the 2A for exactly what it says?

texasgun
April 22, 2013, 09:56 PM
he could have carried a 1911 concealed with a valid CHL in Texas and nothing would have happened. Texas allows you to "keep and bear" arms... they just prefer the concealed way over OC.

But no... this dude walks around with his AR15 (because apparently there are mountain lions in that part of Texas.... yeah... ROFL) - Cops get called in and he starts acting like a jerk (same goes for the cops)....

sorry - everytime I see these "i OC and Cops stop me and I pretend to be the smart guy" videos on youtube... someone with too much time on their hands is craving for attention....

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2013, 10:01 PM
I
OC is not a right

According do whom? Just because there are laws against it? Yeah there used to be laws against non-whites voting too....hmmmmmm


and look what happened in CA when a bunch of people started parading around cities with OC but unloaded pistols and YouTube the cops .

How many times.....seriously...HOW MANY times must it be pointed out that this guy is not even close to being in the city....watch the video....go ahead...watch it.


HE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE

barnbwt
April 22, 2013, 10:26 PM
OC is not a right and look what happened in CA when a bunch of people started parading around cities with OC but unloaded pistols and YouTube the cops being called in....

What happened in CA when a bunch of "socially deviant" individuals of various stripes asserted themselves aggressively for years on end? What happened nation-wide when oppressed minorities finally organized in a productive manner to demand better treatment under the law? Sorry, no one ever wins by staying home or being cautious. That's only good for holding ground from a superior position, and has been painfully ineffective in cities/states where gun owners are far outnumbered politically and popularly. Considering the massive influx of Refugee Banners into my state of Texas these days, I'm all for nipping this "Scared Idiot Cries Man With a Gun" nonsense in the bud.

sorry - everytime I see these "i OC and Cops stop me and I pretend to be the smart guy" videos on youtube... someone with too much time on their hands is craving for attention....
I agree, poking the bear is never smart when dealing with cops, especially when guns are involved, but this is increasingly becoming a civil rights issue for people. It would seem equaly stupid for Rosa Parks (not that I'm conflating these two people) to choose arrest over a back seat, but it was a civil rights issue, and civil rights issues illicit responses from people based on principle. Yes, principled people are stubborn blowhards--but that doesn't make them wrong, and sometimes their actions/sacrifices are absolutely necessary for the betterment of others.

TCB

SharpsDressedMan
April 23, 2013, 12:07 AM
If the Supreme Court would rule on the words "bear" and "not infringe" with regard to arms, then open carry and most of the stupid laws would not even be in question.

12131
April 23, 2013, 05:25 AM
...Yes, principled people are stubborn blowhards--but that doesn't make them wrong, and sometimes their actions/sacrifices are absolutely necessary for the betterment of others.

TCB
QFT

smogmage
April 23, 2013, 08:57 AM
Well hell yes, finally got a Texan in here to restore my suspicion that Texas is 2A friendly!


If the Supreme Court would rule on the words "bear" and "not infringe" with regard to arms, then open carry and most of the stupid laws would not even be in question.

Very true, although a sad lot we all are if three words can't be read for what they are. But hey, I've been having enough problems trying to explain that to the TEXANS in this thread. So you know we have some real problems.

JohnBT
April 23, 2013, 09:04 AM
"If the Supreme Court would rule"

But they haven't and all the talk of what would be if they did is all pie in the sky.

Double Naught Spy
April 23, 2013, 09:54 AM
Grisham is justifying himself to the media. Some people seem to want to alibi the police because they don't think he "needed" a rifle.

Naw, Grisham is arguing his case in the court of public opinion. That his why he is playing up every angle possible, war veteran, rank, Boyscouts, his son being only 1 merit patch from becoming an Eagle Scout, that the cops should have known from his boonie cap that he was a combat veteran (that still makes me laugh because he looks like any other goofy guy in the video wearing clashing clothing), fear of threats not present and haven't been a problem, etc. None of this is relevant however, to the charges. Either he behaved properly before the video started or he did not. It doesn't matter who he is or who he thinks he is.

HE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE
No, he isn't. That is kind of the point. According to what he said on Glenn Beck, was in the city limits for Temple. However, maybe you can come up with a specific location (address, GPS coordinates, intersection) of the arrest and show us that it was in the middle of nowhere. I haven't seen where Grisham has disclosed this and the cops haven't either.

Queen_of_Thunder
April 23, 2013, 10:07 AM
The difference between his situation and yours was that what he was doing is legal. You were doing illegal activities.

If I'm doing something that's within the law, I'm not going to stop because some idiot either doesn't know the law, or doesn't like what I'm doing.





Its not what he was doing it was how he behaved when the police showed up. How he behaved prevented charges. The guy in the video appears to be looking for a fight. Guess his daddy never told him that you never argue with the police. Save your argument for your fay in Court.

In any encounter you may have with the police if a gun is present the police will secure it until a determinaton is made to either send you on your way or arrest you. Its for the safety of all concerned.

This guys actions are exactly what not to do during an interaction with the police. Makes us all look bad.

smogmage
April 23, 2013, 10:19 AM
In any encounter you may have with the police if a gun is present the police will secure it until a determinaton is made to either send you on your way or arrest you. Its for the safety of all concerned.

In more than a few cases it should have been the POLICE who secured their weapons for the safety of all concerned. Instead they wind up escalating the situation and killing someone, or accidentally shooting someone in the back.

I don't know where this idea comes from that when the police show up everyone is a convicted felon unable to be in possession of a weapon until proven otherwise by background checks and the serial numbers checked. It's called Illegal search and seizure when there is No Articulate Suspicion of a crime, also known as a Violation of someones Fourth Amendment Rights.

HOOfan_1
April 23, 2013, 11:44 AM
Why do we need GPS coordinates...WATCH THE VIDEO.

How anyone can watch that video and remotely compare the area being shown in the background to walking through the middle of a city is beyond me...:banghead:

smogmage
April 23, 2013, 11:55 AM
City or no city, IT DOES NOT MATTER. My Right to Keep and Bear doesn't begin and end at the city line.

Robert
April 23, 2013, 12:29 PM
Bickering and going around in circles means we are done.

Sam1911
May 3, 2013, 05:26 PM
Just an interesting coda to the situation: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/03/decorated-vet-who-was-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-his-rifle-on-hike-with-teen-son-gets-a-huge-shock-at-the-nra-convention/

If you enjoyed reading about "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!