In this perfectly legal activity I think its fine that he is stopped by LE, just like LE stop legal drivers at sobriety check points. Some behavior that is legal is potentially not harmful, some can be quite so. This guy is already known by the police since he is appealing his CC Application being denied...which he thinks is "bullsh**" This guy is angry and angry people with AKs can be questioned for a few minutes to assess his possible volatility, IMO.
Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops.
- Thread starter FourteenMiles
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Let's not change the discussion to going into Wal Mart, this is a guy simply walking down a public street with a rifle, minding his own business.
Let's go to a case of a guy who has his car break down and he decides to take his Model 70 to the range to sight it in for deer season. He slings his rifle on his shoulder. sticks 3 rounds in his pocket, and heads out to a range 4 blocks from his house.
Should LE approach this law abiding citizen because he's carrying a "sniper rifle" slung over his shoulder?
9mmforMe said:
So that's completely different and unrelated it seems. The Supreme Court ruled that those type of things were allowed because, as Chief Justice Rehnquist put it, "an exception (to the 4th) was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary."
Since long guns being openly carried result in, oh, ZERO crimes each year, would stops there still be "effective and necessary"?
au01st
Member
Well he said he didn't go in stores because he didn't want to alarm people and was just walking to his wife's work. I'd imagine if my CCW was denied I'd find the biggest gun I could and OC that, too.
If I see someone OC'ing, I'll go talk to them if they don't look to be in a hurry, maybe compliment their holster, and hand them a card.
If I see someone OC'ing, I'll go talk to them if they don't look to be in a hurry, maybe compliment their holster, and hand them a card.
Nushif
Member
Actually, I just saw something else that's rather odd.
We see a lot of this language like "decent" and "respectable" as well as usage of terms like "Assault Rifle."
Those are the exact terms Antis use!
The whole point to the Anti argument is that nobody *needs* firearms in a sciety of "decent" and "respectable" people, thus we shouldn't have them.
Their point is that we ought to not unsettle others and thus should .... not own "Assault Rifles."
And that we ought not "unsettle" people with our "tasteless" presence.
We see a lot of this language like "decent" and "respectable" as well as usage of terms like "Assault Rifle."
Those are the exact terms Antis use!
The whole point to the Anti argument is that nobody *needs* firearms in a sciety of "decent" and "respectable" people, thus we shouldn't have them.
Their point is that we ought to not unsettle others and thus should .... not own "Assault Rifles."
And that we ought not "unsettle" people with our "tasteless" presence.
General Geoff
Member
Here in Pennsylvania, the state Constitution explicitly says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned."
I know, PA is not Michigan. But just pointing out that authority questioning a man who has done no harm to anyone, on the sole basis of "being scary" is kind of uncouth.
While it's arguable whether such actions help or hurt our cause overall, what's not arguable, at least in my view, is how far American culture has degraded. It's not that I don't believe in the value of civilization, but insofar as there could be too much of a good thing, I think that we've become overly "civilized" to the point where we're more like organic automatons serving and looking to the state to provide for us (sort of a hive mentality) than individual living creatures. It may seem odd to draw such a conclusion from this particular video, but I think it's quite evident in what the police are trying to do and why, despite the fact that they have no legal authority to harass the person making the video.
cleardiddion
Member
I've walked down my mainstreet with a MN 91/30 slung over my shoulder.
A funny look or two but not even stopped by the cops.
Heck, I OC'd everywhere when I got my pistol.
To me, not all that big of a deal.
A funny look or two but not even stopped by the cops.
Heck, I OC'd everywhere when I got my pistol.
To me, not all that big of a deal.
InkEd
Member
He was trying to make a statement and prove a point. He did within his legal rights.
People have used the right to open carry, as a means of making a political statement for years. The Black Panthers (who's actions, beliefs and reasoning for doing it are NOT the subject of this thread) used to open carry shotguns. Some Colonial people carried muskets and pistols in defiance of/protection against British redcoats. And I am sure there are other examples both in the US and abroad of people open carrying firearms as both means of protection and political statement.
A handgun carried in an exposed OWB holster would be a more practical choice. However, he was making a political statement and a rifle makes a stronger point.
IMHO the 2nd Ammendment gives us the right to own and carry any type of firearm we desire. The elected lawmakers disagree and have passed certain restrictions on it. As a society, we must accept or challenge those restrictive laws.
That said, if I saw a person walking around a busy street with a rifle; I would probably call and report it. If he's not doing anything wrong when the cops check him out, then send him on his way as a lawful citizen. It is an uncommon thing and there is no harm in checking him out.
IMHO another way to make his point AND still get attention (not to mention the attention would probably be less negative) would be to open carry a fancy sixgun rig like Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger. People aren't really "afraid" of cowboy revolvers (unless you wear a bandit mask) and if the gunbelt was highly decorative it would definitely draw attention. Most folks would probably ask out of curiousity and then a conversation about carry laws, gun ownership, etc could be held. Just a thought.
People have used the right to open carry, as a means of making a political statement for years. The Black Panthers (who's actions, beliefs and reasoning for doing it are NOT the subject of this thread) used to open carry shotguns. Some Colonial people carried muskets and pistols in defiance of/protection against British redcoats. And I am sure there are other examples both in the US and abroad of people open carrying firearms as both means of protection and political statement.
A handgun carried in an exposed OWB holster would be a more practical choice. However, he was making a political statement and a rifle makes a stronger point.
IMHO the 2nd Ammendment gives us the right to own and carry any type of firearm we desire. The elected lawmakers disagree and have passed certain restrictions on it. As a society, we must accept or challenge those restrictive laws.
That said, if I saw a person walking around a busy street with a rifle; I would probably call and report it. If he's not doing anything wrong when the cops check him out, then send him on his way as a lawful citizen. It is an uncommon thing and there is no harm in checking him out.
IMHO another way to make his point AND still get attention (not to mention the attention would probably be less negative) would be to open carry a fancy sixgun rig like Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger. People aren't really "afraid" of cowboy revolvers (unless you wear a bandit mask) and if the gunbelt was highly decorative it would definitely draw attention. Most folks would probably ask out of curiousity and then a conversation about carry laws, gun ownership, etc could be held. Just a thought.
InkEd
Member
He could also carry and musket to point out the absurdity of the situation without causing a panic. A small antique cannon would work too. Pretty much anything that is obviously ridiculous to carry on a daily basis but still not intimidating to people.
And so are evil 30 round clips. Why would you ever need to own one of those? And speaking of that, you can simply bypass that by carrying two guns instead of one; ergo any law abiding citizen should in all good conscious be limited to one fire arm. And not one of those "black rifles". There's absolutely no need for that. All fire arms should be limited to...
Yeah. cwutididthere?
Ok..lets forget sobriety checkpoints.
Lets go with what we seem to know about THIS guy.
He has had his CC app. denied. It's on appeal.
He is obviously pissed, though still in control DURING the interaction with the police.
He posts videos which are filled with invectives indicating some degree of anger IMO...judge for yourself the links are right there next to this vid.
His written responses to viewers of his vids are excoriating...more anger.
One of his videos shows him handling handguns in an unsafe manner.
The police know this (they made it clear that they know who he is, and I bet dollarsto doughnuts they have checked out all his stuff online) and they are thinking he MAY be a ticking timebomb.
If they did nothing and he ended up hurting or killing people then everyone would be faulting the police for not doing their job. I say continue to stop this person and eyeball him...he just don't seem right. And if you aint right in the head you shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon around town to pick up the missus.
As far as the guy with the hunting rifle walking a couple blocks to the range to sight in his weapon? This is quite a different scenario you have created than the one playing out in that vid.
Lets go with what we seem to know about THIS guy.
He has had his CC app. denied. It's on appeal.
He is obviously pissed, though still in control DURING the interaction with the police.
He posts videos which are filled with invectives indicating some degree of anger IMO...judge for yourself the links are right there next to this vid.
His written responses to viewers of his vids are excoriating...more anger.
One of his videos shows him handling handguns in an unsafe manner.
The police know this (they made it clear that they know who he is, and I bet dollarsto doughnuts they have checked out all his stuff online) and they are thinking he MAY be a ticking timebomb.
If they did nothing and he ended up hurting or killing people then everyone would be faulting the police for not doing their job. I say continue to stop this person and eyeball him...he just don't seem right. And if you aint right in the head you shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon around town to pick up the missus.
As far as the guy with the hunting rifle walking a couple blocks to the range to sight in his weapon? This is quite a different scenario you have created than the one playing out in that vid.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with a stunt carrier open carrying a long arm like this if his YouTube page didn't give off such an overpowering vibe of ill-spoken mall ninja nutjobery.
If you're going to do something in order to make a political statement, it behooves you to conduct yourself in public in a manner that isn't going to drive away people who are indifferent to or on the fence about your issue. If your political statement is framed in such a way that it actually manages to drive off people who should be in agreement with you, you're doing it wrong.
If you're going to do something in order to make a political statement, it behooves you to conduct yourself in public in a manner that isn't going to drive away people who are indifferent to or on the fence about your issue. If your political statement is framed in such a way that it actually manages to drive off people who should be in agreement with you, you're doing it wrong.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
But it's really not. From a legal standpoint both of these individuals are the same. Law abiding, in a public place, harming no one.
That the local LE has a history with him means they should watch him closer, no question. And, if LE knew him already why did they ask him for ID? They were as provocative as he was in this case if they already knew him yet insisted on engaging in that manner knowing ahead of time that he's just some "pro gun wacko who likes attention".
Don't misunderstand me, I think the guy pulled a bonehead stunt but I'll argue his right to do it, and to be left alone while doing it, as long as he isn't breaking any law.
armoredman
Member
His attitude was more confrontational than neccesary. I had an aquaintance in Tucson many years ago who would open carry a semi auto AK clone across his back while riding his Honda scooter. Cops would stop him, ask him questions, he'd give them what was legally required, they let him go. His game.
I have carried a rifle in public before, but in a covert case, 99.9% of the public would assume a soft sided portfolio case, etc. That was just to not leave it in the car when I absolutely had to stop somewhere between range and home. Would I carry it in public regularly? if need be, yes, and it is 100% legal in this state.
To the California poster and a few others with the same opinions, if open carry bothers you and is absolutely guarenteed to cause our rights to be taken away, please explain the conundrum that is Arizona? We have had lawful open carry since the state was formed in 1912. We got CCW in 1994, and last year we went Constitutional Carry, both open and concealed. Heck, we had a man open carrying an AR15 to a political rally near where Dear Leader was speaking, and he was not arrested - he had broken no laws.
Also, I doubt this man was carrying an "assault rifle", full auto AKs are pricey, more like a semi-automatic clone of a military rifle. But you want some real scare? In AZ it is legal to carry your NFA registred firearm openly or concealed. I don't recall a single crime involving someone with a lawfully carried NFA firearm, either.
Yes, I prefer concealed carry for many reasons, and not shocking the tender sensibilities of the poor winter visitors, (snowbirds who can't drive), friom restrictive states is one minor one, but if I have to open carry, which I do occaisionally, I will do so without qualm. In all the years I have open carried in this state, since I was 16, (yes, it was legal), I have never been harrassed by any law enforcement officer about my firearm. I have had officers ask what ammo I used and what I thought about various firearms for duty or other use.
So, this guy may be an arse, he certainly doesn't make gun owners as a whole look good, but like the mainstream publishers have to grit their teeth and support Larry Flynt's 1st Amendment rights, sometimes we have to accept the annoying with the good.
I have carried a rifle in public before, but in a covert case, 99.9% of the public would assume a soft sided portfolio case, etc. That was just to not leave it in the car when I absolutely had to stop somewhere between range and home. Would I carry it in public regularly? if need be, yes, and it is 100% legal in this state.
To the California poster and a few others with the same opinions, if open carry bothers you and is absolutely guarenteed to cause our rights to be taken away, please explain the conundrum that is Arizona? We have had lawful open carry since the state was formed in 1912. We got CCW in 1994, and last year we went Constitutional Carry, both open and concealed. Heck, we had a man open carrying an AR15 to a political rally near where Dear Leader was speaking, and he was not arrested - he had broken no laws.
Also, I doubt this man was carrying an "assault rifle", full auto AKs are pricey, more like a semi-automatic clone of a military rifle. But you want some real scare? In AZ it is legal to carry your NFA registred firearm openly or concealed. I don't recall a single crime involving someone with a lawfully carried NFA firearm, either.
Yes, I prefer concealed carry for many reasons, and not shocking the tender sensibilities of the poor winter visitors, (snowbirds who can't drive), friom restrictive states is one minor one, but if I have to open carry, which I do occaisionally, I will do so without qualm. In all the years I have open carried in this state, since I was 16, (yes, it was legal), I have never been harrassed by any law enforcement officer about my firearm. I have had officers ask what ammo I used and what I thought about various firearms for duty or other use.
So, this guy may be an arse, he certainly doesn't make gun owners as a whole look good, but like the mainstream publishers have to grit their teeth and support Larry Flynt's 1st Amendment rights, sometimes we have to accept the annoying with the good.
soonerboomer
Member
Mixed Feelings...
Yes, he has the right to open carry. However, the more he grandstands, the more likely people will get ruffled, and, in turn, the more likely his local government will become inclined to enact laws to restrict his (and our) freedoms.
Yes, he has the right to open carry. However, the more he grandstands, the more likely people will get ruffled, and, in turn, the more likely his local government will become inclined to enact laws to restrict his (and our) freedoms.
armoredman
Member
Except history does NOT bear that out, with traditional open carry states becoming less and less restrictive.
memphisjim
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,265
Even though not illegal there I do hope you can understand the difference between a baseball bat and and ak47. Walking down the city street with an ak deserves some attention And that's what happened Touched face guy was seemingly in right mind he's fine and he went on his way
"That the local LE has a history with him means they should watch him closer, no question."
And it seems that they were doing just that, watching him more closely. And in this case you need a face to face and some conversation to make sure his mental faculties are intact.
I do think you are onto something about them asking for his ID, they were trying to intimidate him. His behavior in the vid was not extreme and they could have cut him loose sooner. I'd rather have those boys in blue being safe than sorry.
And it seems that they were doing just that, watching him more closely. And in this case you need a face to face and some conversation to make sure his mental faculties are intact.
I do think you are onto something about them asking for his ID, they were trying to intimidate him. His behavior in the vid was not extreme and they could have cut him loose sooner. I'd rather have those boys in blue being safe than sorry.
fallout mike
Member
Is seeing people walk down the road with an ak normal? No Should cops check out things that are out of the norm? Yes
mgregg85
Member
Good for him for exercising his rights, he's just gotta stop taking his anger out on the cops, not their fault that he got denied on the CCW. Sounds like cop #2 is a lot better at interacting with people, he stays calm and holds his ground.
Personally I would have calmly explained myself and walked away. He did make a huge error in my opinion, calling people sheep. Only way it could have been worse was if he referred to himself as a sheep dog.
Is this is Houghton, MI?
Personally I would have calmly explained myself and walked away. He did make a huge error in my opinion, calling people sheep. Only way it could have been worse was if he referred to himself as a sheep dog.
Is this is Houghton, MI?
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well yes, I understand that the number of crimes committed with a baseball bat every year are exponentially higher than crimes committed with AK's.
So we should be MUCH more concerned about guys carrying bats around right? If we are going off of facts and reason?
If we want to get all caught up in emotions and feelings then sure, rifles are "scary". But the law should not do it's job based on feelings, and rights should not disappear based on emotions.
armoredman
Member
Yes I do too - baseball bats never jam or run out of ammunition, same as a shank. Seen guys shanked 40-50 times by a single person in a single attack. Same as the Library of Congress has the Holy Bible and the Kama Sutra, Ben Hur and Behind the Green Door, you cannot pick and choose your Constitutional guarentees.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
He could have been more respectful towards the cops, but I am glad that he is unafraid of using his rights.
fallout mike
Member
But the law should not do it's job based on feelings, and rights should not disappear based on emotions.
Where were his rights violated?
Where were his rights violated?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Potentially the 4th. Probably not in this case but it's been put forward here that cops should engage every person openly carrying a rifle, without cause and without exception. That would absolutely be a violation of rights. Again, go read the Supreme Court case on so called "sobriety checkpoints". They made it clear that they consider those a violation of the 4th, but the overwhelming good for society that comes from those violations outweighs individual rights because the rate of drunk driving is so high. One cannot make that argument for open rifle carry because, as far as I can tell, the crime rate for those openly carrying rifles is ZERO.
So for LE to have a policy of approaching every person doing a legal activity seems to smack of a violation of rights doesn't it?
If the crime rate for people openly carrying groceries is zero, should LE approach every person carrying groceries to try to gauge their mental state and decide if there is a danger of a can of peas being hurtled at someone's head?
If you say "well guns are different" then the antis win. Because they are not.
- Status
