Brandishing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace

While it may be technically legal, and I don't know if it is there, imo its still pretty stupid. For one, why would you need to? It should seem obvious you will draw nervous looks and unwanted attention. I'm all for challenging the man when your rights are being infringed, but I also don't believe in going out looking for trouble just for kicks. Just because you are in the legal right doesn't mean it won't end badly for you anyways.

I don't feel like fighting a court battle just to prove a political point.

Not sure if the kid was out to make a fuss or prove a point, but the fact is he didn't break the law.

Therefore, why he did it shouldn't matter. Maybe he wanted to get across town to go to the range, didn't have a car and didnt' feel like carrying a case. A sling is a fairly traditional way of transporting a rifle for those moving on foot.

Sounds like he is being arrested and charged because they think its silly to carry a gun in a "safe" neighborhood, whether or not its legal. Based on a link within the article to a longer article.

I do agree that it sounds, based on this and based on other stories I've read of people being approached by cops when they OC, that cops need better training in how to deal with a legal gun owner.

The article doesn't quote the young man or his attorney. (They do quote his accusers, but do not reference any attempt to give equal time, which does, I think, show blatant bias.) We have then only the (prima facae biased) word of MSN and the police agency that the young man had 'no reason' to carry the rifle when/ where he did.
Further, I would like to quote from the written ruling of 05 March 2012, of U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg: "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs." If open carry is LEGAL where this young man was at the time, the police authorities' opinion that is wasn't 'necessary' or 'appropriate' should not constitute legal ground for INFRINGING UPON EXERCISE OF A LEGAL RIGHT. I personally am disheartened to read comments from other gun owners conceding this point. When police authorities are allowed to 'decide' whether we 'need' our rights, we won't really have any.
This, to me, positively REEKS of politically biased abuse of authority.

Edited to add: Ok, I have been taught never to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance... but I still don't think they have a 'Legg' to stand on!

I don't see anything in the picture that fits the definition of brandishing.

1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly

2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

If these people had uniforms on no one would give them a second glance. It was not the method that they used to carry the weapons that caused the problem. It was just the fact that they had them.

From the linked article:

Police Chief Don Studt conceded that Combs was exercising his constitutional right, but said he was also "creating a disturbance."

Click to expand...

Let's look at the principle here.

Suppose a black man decided to take a stroll through a white neighborhood after dark. Could he be charged with "creating a disturbance" by exercising his constitutional right to walk on a public street if it upset someone?

I have been taught never to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance

Click to expand...

I like that quote.

Owen Sparks said:

Suppose a black man decided to take a stroll through a white neighborhood after dark. Could he be charged with "creating a disturbance" by exercising his constitutional right to walk on a public street if it upset someone?

Click to expand...

Of course not. This ain't the 1950's. Besides, your scenario concerns a civil right...oh, wait...never mind.

I don't understand why people do things to draw law enforcement attention to themselves just so they can say "because I can". The police have a duty to check out anyone walking down a public right of way carrying a long gun, or maybe even a handgun. Doing things like this only sheds a bad light on those of us that defend the second amendment. Now, before any of you start flaming me saying "the police should mind their own business, etc., etc." let me ask you this. If this same person is walking down the street with a rifle, and is ignored by the police as some of you will think they should. What will you do if he goes to the school that your kids are at and start shooting the place up? Then everyone would demand to know why the police "didn't do their job" and check this guy out. That's why it's stupid to do things like this when it's unnecessary. All it does is bring problems to the very people that you are trying to make a statement about. Counterproductive. Don't give the anti-gunners ammunition to use against us!

I still don't think they have a 'Legg' to stand on!

Click to expand...

There are still those that don't consider 2nd Amendment rights to be "Civil Rights". Until abusing authorities get slapped with some 1983 violation judgments, that won't change.

As previously noted, "Disturbing the Peace" is what a black man would be charged with for walking through a white neighborhood a half-century ago. I hope it doesn't take another half century before charging a gun-owner with Disturbing the Peace for walking with an openly holstered handgun or slung rifle would be equally unthinkable.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Back in the 1970's there was a black man known as 'The Walkman' who put an end to the 'Black codes' in the South by walking through White neighborhoods and being arrested multiple times. After he won in court he would then sue for damages. This technique works. What say we all join in and put an end to all this anti-2A foolishness?

If these people had uniforms on no one would give them a second glance.

Click to expand...

Just to point out what might not be clear to all: The pictured people are not the ones who were arrested, detained, or hassled. They, themselves, are protesting the treatment of a young (18) man who was arrested back in April.

Owen Sparks said:

After he won in court he would then sue for damages. This technique works. What say we all join in and put an end to all this anti-2A foolishness?

Click to expand...

I don't think I would be in favor of this technique, though I appreciate the logic and admit it may do some good. However, while I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, not everyone will have a similar appreciation for the civil rights parallel, and we'd most likely do more harm than good.

The police have a duty to check out anyone walking down a public right of way carrying a long gun, or maybe even a handgun.

Click to expand...

I must have missed that 'law'...

Owen Sparks said:

Back in the 1970's there was a black man known as 'The Walkman' who put an end to the 'Black codes' in the South by walking through White neighborhoods and being arrested multiple times. After he won in court he would then sue for damages. This technique works. What say we all join in and put an end to all this anti-2A foolishness?

Click to expand...

OK you first.

^^^It worked for open carry in Washington.

And the times - they are a - ever on changing

Police Chief Don Studt conceded that Combs was exercising his constitutional right, but said he was also "creating a disturbance."

Click to expand...

...

My favorite part - "was exercising his constitutional right, but said he was also "creating a disturbance" - To who, the_police..

Our system of laws, of "late", are not really known, yet/enforced and sometimes "not enforced" all depending on the economy/cost, Political Correctness, factor or simply made up as they go.. right or wrong, legal or not.

Best of both worlds.. Not

OMMV


Ls

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120612/METRO02/206120376#ixzz1xbqDo4k2

This is the article I mentioned above, that was linked in the OPs link. Think linkception or something like that.

Longtime resident Margaret Betts said while she supports citizens' legal rights, openly bearing arms in a community generally considered safe seems "silly."

"Just because you can doesn't mean you have to," she told the commission.

Click to expand...

Ah, looking closer, I guess they just interviewed someone as opposed to the prosecution. But hey, here's our side:

Gun enthusiasts and supporters of "open carry" flocked to the regularly scheduled meeting of the commission, which was not expected to take action or address the charges, to voice their opposition.

They say the penalties ignore a right protected by law, even if that might be unpopular among some. They also called for improved police training.

"Why ruin the life of an 18-year-old man for the actions of an overzealous police officer?" said John Roshek, president of the Citizens League for Self Defense, a group that works to educate people on their Second Amendment rights and open carry.

Click to expand...

If the law doesn't support our rights, what will?

You can execute a civil right and still be found guilty of disturbing the peace. Go yell fire in a crowded theater and see how well your free speech argument holds up in front of a judge after three people are trampled to death. I am not saying this to defend the actions of the police or their stance. And it is also true that most of those circumstances are covered by existing law. But not always. Every town with a movie theater does not have that law specifically. But every town that prosecuted you would find the language of there laws specific enough to cover your actions. I would suspect that could also be argued for firearms.



That being said, there is a growing number of people out there that will open carry for the sole purpose of being confronted. We have a group here in Vegas that do it on the strip just for fun. You can say all you want that they have every right to do that. But just because you can doesnt mean you should. I personally believe that if you are carrying a gun for the sole purpose of seeing how other people react to your gun, you are on the low end of the gene pool.

Agsalaska, while that is true, this scenario doesn't point to that. Now, if we find out that the guy was fiddling with it, trying to egg on a fight, or threatening to unsling it, then yes - it was a disturbance. But just having it slung when he legally has the right to carry it means that he didn't cause any disturbance other than the fact that he had it. It would be like walking into a movie theatre with a gun on your hip and not doing anything with it.

As far as we can tell, the problem isn't that he was brandishing his weapon, but that other people were offended by his weapon.

Skribs said:

Agsalaska, while that is true, this scenario doesn't point to that. Now, if we find out that the guy was fiddling with it, trying to egg on a fight, or threatening to unsling it, then yes - it was a disturbance. But just having it slung when he legally has the right to carry it means that he didn't cause any disturbance other than the fact that he had it. It would be like walking into a movie theatre with a gun on your hip and not doing anything with it.

As far as we can tell, the problem isn't that he was brandishing his weapon, but that other people were offended by his weapon.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. And I should have been more clear. I was not referencing the circumstances in the article as much as I was some of the comments on this board. I have no idea what the kid was doing other than open carrying in some town.

I have no idea what the kid was doing other than open carrying in some town.

Click to expand...

Right, and it's pretty funny how much intent will color even our opinions about this.

1) Some 18 year old dude looking to make a "viral" YouToob video taunting "the Man" by carrying a huge combat rifle around downtown? OOOOhhh, that's bad! Boooo! Idiot, trouble-maker, and a bad example we should all be ashamed of.

2) A young Eagle Scout who doesn't have a car or a ride, but who wants to walk out to the local shooting range to practice with his Grand-Dad's old Garand, and the police rough him up? He's a modern-day hero and a reminder of how good we used to have it here in the land of the free, when we could all bring our hunting guns to school and ride the bus out to the shooting range. A credit to us all!

Guess we can have it both ways.