THIS is the way to handle a cop!

[Fred_G]

Crazy how?

I understand the rights aspect of it. Just in my experience, talking to the cops and such has always been positive.

Don't get me wrong, I will fight for my rights. But every cop is not a lawyer. I think that 'stop' could have been made more positive.

And of course, just my opinion.

 

[Bruno2]

I think the video in the OP is a decent showing of knowledge of the laws in his state. The officer not so much.

People that are saying just to comply with the police must either be cops or someone that is willing to live in a police state. I wouldn't expect anything except future abuse of power by the law if I laid down and gave them compliance when its not mandated by law. We all have to know where we stand and what is considered over stepping bounds. JMO, but I don't think the police stop to think about infringing on a persons privacy and what that actually means.

Should a person be breaking the law then by all means run their history , check for warrants , former convictions, look at their license or whatever.I don't have to prove to the police that the candy bar I am eating while walking down the sidewalk minding my own business isnt stolen. I have a right to privacy and to not be hassled by the fuzz when I am acting in a way that is lawful. If you are a cop and you think different then you may in the wrong profession as well as in the wrong country.

We have a right to privacy and not to be hassled by the gov.

 

[Fred_G]

I agree with you more or less. But I think common dialogue with the people and the cops would be more productive.

Now, I did not keep in mind this was an OC state. That might change my answers. It is a bit different to be accused of a 'crime' when you are legal.

 

[Ankeny]

The cop was responding to a complaint. We don't get to pick and choose or refuse any calls.

And all too often the information given to the dispatcher by the RP is incomplete.

 

[Zoogster]

I think they both handled things okay.
I would much rather get along with an officer in an interaction.
However at the same time law enforcement will use the law to thier advantage in any area they can, it is only fair that citizens get all the protections provided by the law and decided under case law. Which won't happen if everyone just goes through the motions and submits to requests and detainment.
They will use whatever court decision gives them greater authority to frisk, search, detain or otherwise makes thier job easier, even if it inconveniences those subject to it.
Should we then put down citizens that use similar court decisions to thier own advantage even if it inconveniences an officer just doing thier job?

Obviously the easiest thing to do would have been to politely give the officer ID, have him run it, and then be on his way.
However if most do that then that will be considered the required course of action of anyone seen carrying a gun, in a legal manner.

The citizen carrying is correct, and officers stopping people lawfully going about thier business and requiring them to show ID is little different than stopping someone for being in a high performance sports car who has done nothing wrong.
They are doing nothing wrong, but they are in a car that goes some insane speed and has massive acceleration, while having many drawbacks making the car even worse than your typical vehicle if not using its few attributes, and so is relatively pointless on the road if they follow the law. An officer may want to stop them, see who is behind the wheel, maybe even let them know they have an eye on them. But that is not the way things work.

I also must put it into context. While I wouldn't mind such an interaction and going through the routine they desire once in awhile, I know in some locations they use it as a way to punish and discourge OC at all. A regular occurance of cops stopping and wanting ID while doing nothing wrong, and the obvious reason being you are legally carrying, would get old fast. Harassment by stopping people and demanding ID all the time would be a major inconvenience.
Having an officer handle your loaded gun, remove your loaded gun from a holster, and likely have that loaded gun pointing at you at various times especially while drawing and pulling the but away from you, is dangerous. Each time has a potential of injury, especially since many are not gun guys, and additionally many may not know how to handle all of the variety of firearms they come across. There is also straps on some holsters that can get in the trigger guard if not handled right, clothing that can get in the trigger guard, and you cannot stop or assist the officer in any way even if they are not doing things very safe or well or you are the armed person suddenly going for his gun and spooking them. Leaving you at the mercy of thier good or bad firearm handling.
So holding them to the letter of the law which does not even allow for that conduct may be what stops that harassment in general.

If some other guy wants to go out there and put a stop to me having to deal with cops expecting to draw my firearm out of my holster during any interaction...
I do understand the officer's perspective though.

 

[Bobson]

I think the video in the OP is a decent showing of knowledge of the laws in his state. The officer not so much.

The officer, as others have truthfully posted, has no authority to refuse to respond to a call-out by a dispatcher. He must respond if dispatched - Period.

People that are saying just to comply with the police must either be cops or someone that is willing to live in a police state. I wouldn't expect anything except future abuse of power by the law if I laid down and gave them compliance when its not mandated by law. We all have to know where we stand and what is considered over stepping bounds.

I actually agree with this point for the most part. I wouldn't advocate compliance outright, but there's a right way and a wrong way to stand your ground and refuse to comply. This guy did it the wrong way.

Heck, I'll come right out and say it. I think this guy was eagerly awaiting this opportunity to show what he knows about his rights. He was knowledgeable about the law (mostly - he was wrong when he said the officer must suspect a crime in order to stop him); and we all should be informed about the law. But the manner in which he refused compliance, his voice inflections and demeanor, all showed clearly that he was either nervous or excited. His nerves were likely not the problem, because as I pointed out, he knew his stuff. So it's logical that he was excited. He wanted to show this cop how much he knew, and he wanted to put that cop in his place. In doing so, he was extremely unclear when he spoke, he didn't clearly explain a single law he referenced, and he was argumentative in nature.

Like I said in an earlier post, he could have accomplished the same goal - and done it more quickly and effectively - if he wasn't so focused on being a jerk.

JMO, but I don't think the police stop to think about infringing on a persons privacy and what that actually means.

There might be some cops who don't stop to think about the cost of unlawful detention, but just as with cops who are rude or unprofessional, they're the extreme minority. Police departments take unlawful detention very seriously, even more now than in the past, because these types of civil suits cost cities millions of dollars annually.

Also, since you mentioned privacy, I think many members here might be surprised how many people in America actually value "safety" or "protection" above privacy rights. Maybe (hopefully) the sample I'm drawing my conclusion from isn't representative of most Americans, but if it is, it would actually explain a lot.

Example: I'm in a specific class this semester (studying criminal justice), and we have frequent class discussions on various issues related to privacy and Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) rights. I am consistently the only person in class who calls for less infringement in this area. Nearly every other member (there are a couple who tend to be neutral) of the class is all for amending the Fourth to allow LE greater permissions to forcibly step into the privacy of citizens - all in the name of "protection." It's downright worrisome how often the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" BS is thrown out. Many of these people seem to lack any form of logic whatsoever. Even when confronted with facts that disprove points my opponents bring up, it's not uncommon for a new voice to blurt out support for the person who was just proved wrong.

There's something wrong with this country these days.

 

[barnbwt]

Sometimes making a point just isn't worth all the attention you can draw to yourself!

We aren't all activists, but that doesn't make them wrong. The guy was probably snippy since he was excited and had a whole dialogue planned out ahead of time to blind-side the cop with. Activists love to proclaim their arguments and be arrested for their beliefs, remember

We applaud Police sting operations, yet denigrate civilians who do the exact same thing (though with fewer "entrapment" issues) to root up police abuses. Double standard. Does it occur to you all that the reason he/others set these things up is because cops have been hassling legal open carriers? And possibly not as nicely as in the video? The guy's demeanor and language probably made it clear to the officer that he was on tape--thus the extra professional attitude was assured. Still, good job for the officer not embarassing himself for the benefit of some agitator.

He told me they got a call about a man with a gun. I said, well, you found me. I told him they should go ask the person that called, why they call them.

You know, departments could always start prosecuting people for these obviously frivolous uses of 911 and whatever to report MWAGs like we do prank callers...but police are far more interested in questioning carriers unjustly and discouraging the excercise of their open-carry rights by harassing them. You really think the MWAG caller has only phoned in some random open-carrier once? Have they ever been scolded for tattling on an obviously innocent person?

CC in urban areas and call it a day.

And like magic, it's "out of sight, out of mind" and the people believe there's no guns in their midst. Then they get terrified when they learn they're still there. Then they pass laws so "certain folk" can't have guns. Then they ban them outright. Concealed carry was once thought of as shady and cowardly; the tool of the criminal and assassin. And while not true, "concealment" doesn't exactly bring thoughts of upright citizens to mind in the lay-people. People see OCers as "gunmen" and CCWers as "shady criminals." You can't win by appeasement, so you might as well try desensitizing people to your presence.

Just in my experience, talking to the cops and such has always been positive.

While my experiences have always been kind, professional, and courteous, other folks have experienced otherwise. It's like playing with a bear or other more powerful creature; whether you are paranoid, complacent, knowledgeable, or experienced, every interaction puts you at a disadvantage should you displease it. Especially if you are neither knowledgable or familiar wiith respect to law enforcement.

I guess I should just assume every call I get is for legal activity

Well, if no information suggesting suspicious or dangerous behavior is supplied, observed, or expected during an officer's followup to a call, shouldn't he write it off and move on without an inquisition?

Also, since you mentioned privacy, I think many members here might be surprised how many people in America actually value "safety" or "protection" above privacy rights. Maybe (hopefully) the sample I'm drawing my conclusion from isn't representative of most Americans, but if it is, it would actually explain a lot.

Many, if not all, the abuses we call out police for, are in fact, reflections of our own failings in society at large. Unecessary compliance=unecessary intrusion. Demand safety over rights=deliver enforcement over rights. Righteous indignation=arbitrary crackdowns. The police are the people, and when the character of the people is wanting...

***********************************


But, but...there's a man... with a GUN!!!!!

TCB

 

[Bruno2]

It's he feeding stray dogs philosophy Zoogster. If the dispatcher would just simply explain to the people calling in that if they are doing nothing wrong then we cant stop them to inquire about it. That would save the police a lot of wasted time. Dispatch should ask more questions such as "what are they doing with it?" , "Are they threatening people with it or brandishing it?". Then when they answer no just simply explain to them that it is legal and have the police go investigate a robbery or something important.

 

[Bruno2]

The officer, as others have truthfully posted, has no authority to refuse to respond to a call-out by a dispatcher. He must respond if dispatched - Period. Rugerdude said it well, albeit sarcastically:

I am not sure I understand. So if I call the police and say "I think my neighbor is selling weed". Then they will be at his house shortly t ask if he is selling weed?

Also, since you mentioned privacy, I think many members here might be surprised how many people in America actually value "safety" or "protection" above privacy rights. Maybe (hopefully) the sample I'm drawing my conclusion from isn't representative of most Americans, but if it is, it would actually explain a lot.

I understand, its that Ben Franklin quote that ends with those people not deserving to be free or safe. Same people that try to take our guns away every so often.

There might be some cops who don't stop to think about the cost of unlawful detention, but just as with cops who are rude or unprofessional, they're the extreme minority.

Example: I'm in a specific class this semester (studying criminal justice), and we have frequent class discussions on various issues related to privacy and Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) rights. I am consistently the only person in class who calls for less infringement in this area. Nearly every other member (there are a couple who tend to be neutral) of the class is all for amending the Fourth to allow LE greater permissions to forcibly step into the privacy of citizens - all in the name of "protection." It's downright worrisome how often the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" BS is thrown out. Many of these people seem to lack any form of logic whatsoever. Even when confronted with facts that disprove points my opponents bring up, it's not uncommon for a new voice to blurt out support for the person who was just proved wrong.

You are not doing a good job on selling the minority statement.

 

[rugerdude]

When did it become unthinkable to help somebody out now and then? Sure, that police officer represents the city/state/county etc law enforcement, but he or she is just a person. They're doing a job. The agenda doesn't come from these people, it comes from much higher up. That officer just wants to make contact, establish who the person is who's being complained about, and investigate the situation to a far enough extent that he or she is confident that the next time they hear about a person with a gun, they can say "Nope, that person is okay."

This is a public perception problem, not a law enforcement one. And sure, we could try to put the police in their place whenever this stuff happens, but wouldn't it be better if we were polite and treated one another with respect and had an overall positive relationship with law enforcement? That way instead of stopping this guy next time, the cop could just drive by and say "hey Joe" and call in to dispatch saying all was well?

But I guess he'd just be submitting to the totalitarian regime at that point First world problems....

 

[Bobson]

You are not doing a good job on selling the minority statement.

I said cops who are rude or unprofessional are the minority. Then I said that a group of college students value alleged protection over freedom and privacy.

Since when are rude cops the same as dumb students?

Think I found some of your work here:

 

[Bruno2]

When did it become unthinkable to help somebody out now and then?

Oh, I totally agree! Such as calling back to dispatch and saying "this guy is just walking down the street minding his own while OC'n. I don't see any reason to hassle him."

The agenda doesn't come from these people, it comes from much higher up.

Another cop representing the city/county/state?

This is a public perception problem, not a law enforcement one. And sure, we could try to put the police in their place whenever this stuff happens, but wouldn't it be better if we were polite and treated one another with respect and had an overall positive relationship with law enforcement?

This is a law enforcement problem , not a public perception one. And sure, we could try to put the public in their place whenever this stuff happens, but wouldn't it be better if we were polite and treated one another with respect and had an overall positive relationship with the public?

IMHO this is how it should read. Honestly I believe in my heart that the average policeman deals with some of the worst people our society has to offer. I also believe that even when toned down and dealing with someone like the OC guy they didn't have to be as pushy when the guy told them he wasn't cool with any of their demands. I am sure if he was dealing with the local crackhead he wouldn't have been so nice. However, the guy was just OC'n where it is legal. Still this cop just kept pushing to trample on his privacy. I don't hate the cops I just don't want them in my business when I am doing nothing wrong and everyone here should agree. This particular cop did everything he could to make it a confrontation.

The Kalamuth(or whatever) cop that made his OC stop did his business and got on. Still (with his training) he should have been able to just look at the trigger group of the HK and immediately see that it was not select fire. However, I still believe he did a great job and didn't feed the OC confrontation that the guy was looking for.

 

[Bruno2]

Since when are rude cops the same as dumb students?

So they aren't going to school to be cops?

 

[Vector]

I don't want to call out any specific poster, but here is a question for those who think the guy OCing did something wrong, or acted like a "jackwad".

You are on your way somewhere, legally OCing, minding your own business, and a LEO stops and disarms you. How would you handle the exact same situation?
Another words would you comply with every request this LEO made without objection?
If so, how long would be too long, and how many requests for ID or information would be too many?

 

[rugerdude]

Oh, I totally agree! Such as calling back to dispatch and saying "this guy is just walking down the street minding his own while OC'n. I don't see any reason to hassle him."

Yeah, except for it's his JOB to investigate. Your tax dollars are paying for him to investigate. We don't know what information he received over the radio. A stop to have a conversation with a man traveling on foot doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This is a law enforcement problem , not a public perception one. And sure, we could try to put the public in their place whenever this stuff happens, but wouldn't it be better if we were polite and treated one another with respect and had an overall positive relationship with the public?

I agree this should be a two-way street, however the best I can do from where I am to make this situation happen is to provide this type of attitude myself and have them follow. But maybe I'm just eager to submit to the fascist totalitarian state.

I am sure if he was dealing with the local crackhead he wouldn't have been so nice.

Quite the assumption.

 

[Bobson]

So they aren't going to school to be cops?

I know a few are, I know a few aren't. I don't know for most of em. Its irrelevant anyway, as going to school to be a cop isn't any indication they'll be successful in the hiring process. Statistically, even if every student in my class did try to hire onto a police department, only four or five would be successful, and three of those would need several attempts to be selected. And even if they're all successful, showing a lack of logic as a student isn't any indication that they'll treat people rudely or behave unprofessionally in their career later on. The purpose of school is to educate (and therefore change the behavior of) people who attend. Did you see the picture? Why are you connecting dots that aren't related?

You are on your way somewhere, legally OCing, minding your own business, and a LEO stops and disarms you. How would you handle the exact same situation?

With respect, tact, and clarity. At best, this guy was confrontational. Its an officer's job to be persistent, especially when dealing with someone who attempts to redirect him. This thread is beginning to evolve into a debate regarding the personality profile of a successful LEO. Pretty off topic.

 

[Bruno2]

A stop to have a conversation with a man traveling on foot doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's not unless he starts disarming him and asking for ID as if he has committed a crime.

We don't know what information he received over the radio.

This is true. However, it is a safe bet that the info didn't say anything about him threatening people or acting unruly because I bet the cop wouldn't have been so calm.

I am sure if he was dealing with the local crackhead he wouldn't have been so nice.

Quite the assumption.

Funny story, I used to have a guy that would work for me from time to time. He looked like a not so famous member of the Rolling Stones. You could look right at him and tell he was on meth. He would fall off the wagon and I would have to let him go. Then I wouldn't see him for several months and he would show up looking for a job. He got arrested one night and caught with some dope. He needed money to get out of trouble so He was looking for work. He used to ride a bike b/c he hadn't had a DL for several yrs. So the cops see this drug addict looking guy riding a bike with a backpack in the middle of the night and automatically assumed he was up to something illegal. Since he was used to being hassled he complied with their demands and then was arrested.

I am laughing as I type this b/c he looks like he is on the stuff . So he gets the mix from the police all the time. They really didn't have probable cause to stop him , but I am sure they couldn't resist.

 

[coloradokevin]

A right not exercised is a right lost.

The same can often be said of rights that are exercised poorly. I'm sorry, but all debating aside, this law student went out there looking for a confrontation, found the mildest form of it imaginable, and is now playing it up like it's a sensational situation.

Do you (or any of us - me included) really have any idea how that call was dispatched to the officer in that case? As a career LEO myself, I can tell you that dispatch often gets the facts wrong. This isn't entirely their fault either: call takers might type something wrong that was said by a caller, and many times a caller won't give an accurate account of the facts in a case.

Imagine this scenario:

"113, check a report of a man waving a gun around at the intersection of Main and Elm St. Caller reports that the individual is a white male, possibly in his 20's, and he's reportedly pointing a black handgun in the air".

I've had that call myself (places and call signs changed for the sake of the internet). It was a false call, at least to the extent that the guy wasn't waving his gun around as described by dispatch. The person was carrying openly, but in a non-threatening manner. Someone apparently felt threatened by the presence of a gun, and took some dangerous artistic liberties in describing the situation as more than it was. On the basis of that dispatched call I had every right to temporarily detain the person, temporarily disarm them, and request identification. I did not have a requirement to debate the law with them, explain all of the facts of the call, or play backyard lawyer with them.

Incidentally, in that instance I merely approached the guy, talked to him, requested his ID, then determined that the call was factually inaccurate. I then thanked him for his time and politely sent him on his way (I personally didn't feel the need to disarm him, but certainly may have if he had been anything but cordial during my initial approach at the scene).

As law enforcement officers we are expected to respond to dispatched calls of all kinds, and determine an appropriate outcome for the situation. We don't always have all of the facts when we walk into a situation, and we do the best we can with what we have.

In this instance the officer was polite, not grossly overbearing, and the law student was snippy and arrogant, and probably made things worse for gun owners in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Your mileage may vary, but I think choosing our battles can be important, too.

I don't want to call out any specific poster, but here is a question for those who think the guy OCing did something wrong, or acted like a "jackwad".

You are on your way somewhere, legally OCing, minding your own business, and a LEO stops and disarms you. How would you handle the exact same situation?
Another words would you comply with every request this LEO made without objection?
If so, how long would be too long, and how many requests for ID or information would be too many?

Since we're playing scenarios here please keep in mind that, once again, officers don't always have all of the facts going into a situation. Sometimes the wrong guy is temporarily detained for a good reason, and sometimes the right guy is temporarily detained for the wrong reasons (bad information, as I described above). Asking a person for their identification is such a situation is not an obtrusive request.

I once made a felony stop on a car after a dangerous pursuit of the vehicle. The vehicle (occupied x4) was pulling out of a parking lot of a business that I was responding to on a report of an armed robbery. The vehicle EXACTLY matched the description of the suspect vehicle, and fled from the area when I attempted to stop them. After a chase of several miles we boxed the suspects in, and took them from the vehicle at gun point. Much to our surprise, these idiots were not the suspects in our robbery, it was merely a guy and his friends who believed that we didn't have a reason to stop him (because he hadn't done anything wrong). Do you think that fact kept him out of jail after his display of "civil disobedience"? We had EVERY right to stop that vehicle, because we had EVERY reason to believe that it was occupied with 4 people who had just robbed a store at gun point. Had he merely pulled over and acted intelligently, he would have been identified, determined to not be the suspect, and been sent upon his way.

That's an extreme example, to be sure, but I'm using it to illustrate a point here: just because YOU don't understand why an officer is stopping you does not always mean that HE doesn't understand why he has a legal and fully justifiable reason for stopping you. Sometimes it's just because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes it's because a person inaccurately described your behavior as criminal, or perhaps you fit the description of someone who was doing something criminal. It happens.

 

[Twmaster]

So we are just supposed to roll over and OBEY every demand of us regardless of whether our rights are being trampled in the process?

Be a good little sheep and do what the man told you....

 

[Bobson]

On the basis of that dispatched call I had every right to temporarily detain the person, temporarily disarm them, and request identification. I did not have a requirement to debate the law with them, explain all of the facts of the call, or play backyard lawyer with them.*

As Shane Krauser has so often said, BOOM! goes the dynamite.

They really didn't have probable cause to stop him

All they needed was reasonable suspicion (RE: Terry V Ohio), which they had based on the description you gave him - "a drug addict looking guy with a backpack, riding a bike in the middle of the night."

 

[Davek1977]

"I don't disagree, but looking for a confrontation and acting like a know it all jackwagon isn't exercising a right." Actually, so long as he isn't doing anything else against the law, he has exactly that right under the 1st Amendment. I'm not saying I agree that he SHOULD have pursued that course of action, but to say he had no RIGHT to do so is certainly debatable. Whether or not it was proper is also debatable. I certainly have mixed feelings on the issue. How many open carriers has this cop encountered that were doing so illegally? How many stolen guns has he recovered from people OCing? How many felons has he encountered that wait around and talk to the police while visibly carrying a handgun? I think the totality of circumstances shouldn't have given the officer any reason to confiscate the gun, "run it" etc. When an officer checks the status of your driver's license, or car registration, he doesn't automatically assume you are guilty and temporarily seize the car, does he? Cannot a car be dangerous in the hands of a "potential felon" which is what the officer was treating the student like? Sure, he could have simply complied, whether he was legally obligated to or not, but honestly, what long term good does that do? it simply reinforces the idea to the police that it doesn't matter what the law says, it matters what rights they can convince people to give up, because "everyone else does it...why won't you?" Can't you see how this exacerbates the issue? If someone is complying with the law, as written, and theres no evidence or even suggestion that anything more was done that exceeded the scope of the law, officer contact shouldn't be necessary. When we start treating every "man with a gun" as a felon, we've lost the battle as far as I'm concerned,

 

[Ignition Override]

It baffles me how we are to carry a law book or list of court rulings (if not memorized) to explain anything or everything we do in public which attracts attention, or expect others to do so.
Don't get me wrong, this gun-owner was in the right, from a legalistic perspective. The guy proved his point in a very calm and astute manner, but to only contradict an LEO, though factually correct, can't be expected to make a respectful impression.
Some of these LEOs around our country risked their lives to fight terrorists on foreign soil. Whether these LEOs worked to stop terrorists in Iraq/Afghan or now volunteer to ultimately catch hometown career criminals, I respect them.

We can (also) take care of daily business in a manner which is designed to blend in and not inspire an emotional reaction. It might be totally legal to carry my SKS down my residential street to show it to a guy who is an FFDO but unfamiliar with most milsurps, but when Other people who are unfamiliar see the Russian-styled gas tube and AK-type looks, I can't expect them to forget their negative programming by Hollywood and the mass media.
It's just that the court rulings will never prevent a sensitive, subconscious reaction and the LEOs are required to at least check on people who appear to be a concern to the unfamiliar.

 

[Vector]

Since we're playing scenarios here

No offense, but you did not answer the question.

How would you deal with the situation (but in your case, you cannot pull the fellow LEO card)?

Keep in mind that many people blindly follow whatever an authority figure says. That is true of other professions such as doctors, yet eventually many people realize they can refuse treatment.
In dealing with LEO's, why would someone comply with unlawful demands unless they had a fear that failure to do so would result in trouble for them.
The guy in the video clearly understood his legal rights, and even though he may have come off cocky or rude, he legally asserted his rights in the face of unlawful demands.
I just believe that in our society, too many people are conditioned to act like sheep rather than free individuals.

`

 

[Robbins290]

I do gotta agree. The student was cocky and the cop was very nice. I've had worse while concealed carrying. I got cuffed and stuffed in Portland while I was pulled over. I don't remember now what I got pulled over for. But I never got a ticket. He found out I was carrying and called for back up. Then when the other cop showed up. That's when I got hand cuffed. He said i didn't do anything wrong. And it was for his saftey. I agreed and said do what ever you gotta do. Then they let me go after running the serial numbers of my pistol.

 

[X-JaVeN-X]

I don't understand why people get upset with guys that OC like this...even if they are doing it to purposefully draw a reaction. If this helps bring attention to the fact that carrying a gun on your hip is perfectly legal and also helps to normalize that visualization to the masses of sheep...then, well, good for those willing to do this. I see this as a one-up to writing a letter to your local congressman/senator and crossing your fingers that they defend your rights for you. Defend them for yourself...that's exactly what these guys that OC like this are doing. I personally applaud them for standing up for our rights and bringing more awareness to the situation.