AR-15 Open-Carry Starts HUGE Cop Party!

[Bama13]

lol, than we would not have total gun ban like we had in few places before. would not need NRA to fight if it was, we would not have local jurisdictions ban guns. but it happens, so no us constitution does not work same everywhere.

it is just people like you that will not figure simple consept that some things you do not in some places, even if you have that right. and it is people like you that make the rest of society, many of whom are not gun frendly people, think that may be it is time to get rid of that right, because it is not exersiced in a safe manner by you.

do not blame me when it happens. blame your stubborn "it is my right " attitude.

would you go 50mph on black ice??? you pbly would not, but by law you have that right.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. That is not my opinion, it is a fact.

If you wish to bow down to authority, then that is your right, but don't expect me to.

Now don't get me wrong, I would not have done what this man did, but I will defend his right to do it. I think it is a shame that you won't, but that is your right and I will defend that right also.

Always remember that it isn't: Left v Right, or Dems v Repubs, or red v blue, or even guns v no guns. It is Government v the people (us). We must stand for our rights or slowly but surely we will lose them, as we are now.

[Thanato]

Doesn't matter what the average person does. Rights are for everyone, not just average people. The man was not breaking any laws and therefore should not have been stopped. Perhaps if more people walked around carrying he wouldn't have been stopped, but that is beside the point. If you are obeying the law then the police shouldn't hassle you. Why didn't they simply observe him and see what he was doing? Then if he did something suspicious they could confront him but if he didn't then leave him alone.

A person of interest is a person of interest. They have a duty to ensure that he had no malicious intent that is their job. I have a right to walk around with a sword down town but common sense dictates that that is stupid, as I know the Police have a duty to investigate.

All in all this was a minor inconvenience on both sides.

[green_dude777]

you just arguing fior the sake of arguing, did you read what i wrote few pages back???? if you do not rase alarms carying in AZ than carry all you want, but if it does creates situations in lets say NY, why would you do it??

lol, no it does not. in reality anyway

Yeah, I read what you wrote. I read how it's, according to you, illegal to openly carry an AR15 with a loaded magazine. In the face of evidence, some that you even supplied, you still seem to be in denial about.

Now that you don't even understand how the constitution is the highest law of the land, I'm done participating in discussion with you. You are concerned with how we're helping the gun 'hatters' (are they 'mad' too), you don't even realize how much you are alone with your representations.

Good day sir.

[green_dude777]

A person of interest is a person of interest. They have a duty to ensure that he had no malicious intent that is their job. I have a right to walk around with a sword down town but common sense dictates that that is stupid, as I know the Police have a duty to investigate.

All in all this was a minor inconvenience on both sides.

As far as I can tell, nobody has a problem with the questioning... it's the detainment and illegal search that is the issue. Yamato even applauded the officer in the second video.

[Thanato]

As far as I can tell, nobody has a problem with the questioning... it's the detainment and illegal search that is the issue. Yamato even applauded the officer in the second video.

What detainment? They hold him for a few minutes and ask him a few questions? The search of his person is to ensure the officers protection and is common place while detaining someone.

[green_dude777]

He was held at gunpoint and his pockets were searched....what were they looking for, another dangerous weapon?

He even asked if he was being detained, to which the cop replied 'yes'.

[green_dude777]

What detainment? They hold him for a few minutes and ask him a few questions? The search of his person is to ensure the officers protection and is common place while detaining someone.

You do see the contradiction in your own statement, right?

[supervike]

Your 'fire' analogy would apply if the man was brandishing the weapon-but he wasn't, so he wasn't doing anything to induce a panic.

Are we gonna start making everything that scares anyone illegal? My tattoos scare children, my glass eye scares old ladies....better ready your firearm and search my pockets now.

No, I think you missed my point. My point was that even though we have the 'Highest Law in the Land', there are still common sense measures that don't allow those go unchecked.

It would be the same as threatening a judge, verbally. The intention supercedes the Constitution.

I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment, but I just think stunts like this are pushing for changes to be made. Those changes may not be in the favor of the American public.

I certainly understand what this guy is trying to do, just exercise his right, but it does put the public and the police on edge. Those very things combined will turn this into something that isn't intended. (ie, a nervous cop shoots someone, or a 'concerned' citizen takes matters into his own hand.)

Edited March 21, 2014 by supervike

[green_dude777]

No, I think you missed my point. My point was that even though we have the 'Highest Law in the Land', there are still common sense measures that don't allow those go unchecked.

It would be the same as threatening a judge, verbally. The intention supercedes the Constitution.

I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment, but I just think stunts like this are pushing for changes to be made. Those changes may not be in the favor of the American public.

I certainly understand what this guy is trying to do, just exercise his right, but it does put the public and the police on edge. Those very things combined will turn this into something that isn't intended. (ie, a nervous cop shoots someone, or a 'concerned' citizen takes matters into his own hand.)

I understand what you are saying, you're missing the difference. Once your expression impedes on someone else, it isn't legal. Hence I can't threaten to kill someone (assault), I can't yell 'fire' if there's no fire (inducing panic, inciting a riot, disorderly conduct) and so forth. By doing those, I would be infringing on someone else's rights.

If the man had his muzzle pointed in an unsafe direction, it would have been illegal (brandishing a firearm, assault, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace.... it all depends on jurisdiction). He was carrying in a lawful manner, hence it was an illegal search.

I suspect they were hoping for drugs, to help justify the detainment.

[aztek]

Yeah, I read what you wrote. I read how it's, according to you, illegal to openly carry an AR15 with a loaded magazine.

yes, in some states it is illegal. that is a fact.

Edited March 21, 2014 by aztek

[aztek]

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. That is not my opinion, it is a fact.

If you wish to bow down to authority, then that is your right, but don't expect me to.

lol, tell that to politicians, they seem to have no problem making laws that contradict it, and than acnowlege it, and still let laws stay. i'm sure you are aware of such examples.

i'm not talking about bow down to authority, and i really not telling you to, you sound very insecure about your rights. what i'm talking about is, not giving autorities any reasons to ask you to bow down, just not draw attention to you. and you will not have to answer police question, nor lay on the ground at gun point, nor even get arrested. nor create bad image, you obvously do not get that your actions do affect opinions about others, your pi***ing cops off, will turn antigunners heads towards me, figuratively speaking, even thou i do not deserve it.

go ahead keep feeding gunphobics with reasons to go after your guns. you know now i see clear conflict of interest, i pay my money to nra, so they work about how to quiet antigunners, and somehow create positive image about guns, and people like idiot in the video, and you supporting him,. make my money and nra effort fly right out the window. don't be surprised when 1 day, i will see you as a bigger threat to second amendment than bloomberg and co. obama or holder. without you, figuratevly speaking, they would not have much to bite into.

Edited March 21, 2014 by aztek

[Stellar]

Ive got an interesting question I'd like to hear your perspective on.

Are police allowed to open carry?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The US Constitution is the highest law in this country.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you are not breaking the law then law enforcement shouldn't point their guns at you, make you lie on the ground, or search you. Common sense says LEO's shouldn't hassle people for doing something that is legal.

Your comfort or state of mind isn't my concern. No one should ever be hassled for obeying the law. It really is that simple.

"unreasonable" is the operative word.

I think it was reasonable for the copper to go "hey mate, where you off to with that weapon?".

Unreasonable would be "we shot him because we thought he might have shot us" "why did you shoot him in the back?" "he'd have seen us coming otherwise".

[Yamato]

You do see the contradiction in your own statement, right?

Exactly, that's what detainment is. If Thanato watched the video I don't know how he can be denying detainment when the cop said "Yes!".

Unreasonable would be "we shot him because we thought he might have shot us" "why did you shoot him in the back?" "he'd have seen us coming otherwise".

There's a rash of itchy trigger fingers on open-carrying cops killing family dogs. It's common dog behavior to approach strangers outside with a protective guard-like behavior. So why risk that too? I suppose in the minds of some people, along with not exercising our gun rights we should also not own protective dogs.

Guy's disarmed flat on his stomach and copper's drawing a bead on his head with his pistol the whole time. One involuntary twitch of a finger on a hairpin trigger later and there's another forgivable "accident". Better call the entire department to block traffic for a situation already completely under control. Really?

It's exactly like Officer Jim Estes said, we can choose to either exercise our rights or choose not to exercise our rights. green_dude and bama also have the right of it. They're not saying we can only do one and not the other. It's when people come here with these black and white responses showing they have no idea why someone would exercise their rights, opinions about exercising our 2nd Amendment rights with no laws to show for it, claims that open carrying a loaded weapon is a felony, walking around with hidden rifles in bags is not, no helpful list of rules or regulations on open-carry to get the results of the 2nd video instead of the results in the OP, seemingly no respect for the Constitution anywhere in sight.

We won't know what our rights truly are unless we test them. That's why to do it. If someone wants to risk getting shot by a gun-happy cop, that is their right in this country, the results of doing so for better or worse notwithstanding. When personal opinion trumps the highest law of the land and exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights is "stupid", that's gross failure of knowing what the law even is.

When there's a nation full of azteks there will be no 2nd Amendment left because somebody's got to exercise it to keep the thing lit. These open-carriers are defending all of our rights and it's like some posters here truly can't understand that.

Rights don't defend themselves. Never have. Never will.

[Yamato]

A person of interest is a person of interest. They have a duty to ensure that he had no malicious intent that is their job. I have a right to walk around with a sword down town but common sense dictates that that is stupid, as I know the Police have a duty to investigate.

All in all this was a minor inconvenience on both sides.

If the difference between a hip carry and a back sling is the difference between Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and yet I've seen nothing presented here from any independent source material on open carry to make me think that's the case, then people need to know about this. I've subtly asked for this a few times already and have nothing to show for it, so now I have to ask blatantly I guess. If open carry on a back makes the night and day difference in how we're going to be treated on the street by cops, where's the open carry rules at so we can all set our expectations accordingly?

The OP cops couldn't even communicate effectively in real time to stop a fiesta in the middle of the street long after the situation was completely under control. So in the genuine interest of assessing "threat" accurately here, blanking out on that fact isn't going to improve our accuracy. These threats aren't static through time, they change completely in a matter of seconds. The guy wasn't holding the rifle on his hip anymore. The whole thrust of Thanato's opinion was rendered moot mere seconds after the standoff began.

Why in anyone's wildest imagination dropping a weapon and lying on one's stomach and correctly exercising one's rights and cooperating with everything the officer is telling you goes nowhere in one's mind towards eliminating the "threat", I have no earthly idea. If one can't see how the threat shriveled up before the fiesta even got started, I don't know what someone is missing here. It gets to the point that after these facts are repeatedly pointed out to people and they're still so stubborn that they can't even acknowledge them, then they're not even defending police actions based on threat anymore. They're defending whatever the cops decide to do under a blanket just for the sake of argument.

[preacherman76]

lol, tell that to politicians, they seem to have no problem making laws that contradict it, and than acnowlege it, and still let laws stay. i'm sure you are aware of such examples.

Thats only cause they know folks like you will defend them. If everyone stood up for this mans right, they would back off like the cowards they are.

[aztek]

i defend them??? lmao, how did you figure that? by me pointing out what they do in reality? and by me behaving according to that reality? and how exactly do you stand up? by bringing negative attention to your behavior, and testing cops patience?? and totally ignoring real world consequences, in the name of "rights"????

yea that sure works,, NOT. you don't even realize how much damage you do.

i do not doubt for 1 second, dollars that i send to NRAILA, achieved much much more , than 20 of such idiots "standing up" for their rights that way. so spare me your wisdoms about defending politicians and standing up for our rights.

Edited March 22, 2014 by aztek

[Yamato]

i defend them??? lmao, how did you figure that?

By you just stating what "reality" is and then using that to determine what we do about it, which further according to you is nothing, then yes of course you defend them.

[preacherman76]

i defend them??? lmao, how did you figure that? by me pointing out what they do in reality? and by me behaving according to that reality? and how exactly do you stand up? by bringing negative attention to your behavior, and testing cops patience?? and totally ignoring real world consequences, in the name of "rights"????

yea that sure works,, NOT. you don't even realize how much damage you do.

i do not doubt for 1 second, dollars that i send to NRAILA, achieved much much more , than 20 of such idiots "standing up" for their rights that way. so spare me your wisdoms about defending politicians and standing up for our rights.

YES the fact that you and millions like you accept this as a unfixable reality gives them the green light to continue. BTW you seriously underestemate the power of public unity. If there was no power in it, we would be standing over Assads dead body right now in Syria. Of course 20 isnt enough. But what about 20,000? Or 200,000? Every single civil right gained in this country after its founding was brought about by public demand, and in a place where a black guy couldnt even get a drink from certain water fountains, we have come along way. Grow a pair and stand up for what is right.

[Yamato]

That black guy still couldn't get a drink if aztek had his way. Awesome post preacherman. You get it.

I've really enjoyed a lot of the input here. aztek produced some great discussion from other posters if nothing else.

Tip of the hat to green_dude and Bama13. I wouldn't acknowledge these guys if it was merely because I found something they said agreeable. it's about more than just agreement here. I think we've all got the principle right and moreover we're still standing on solid legal ground here.

I'll give a small qualifier out to the skeptics of US gun rights though. I don't think our position would even be possible in many other countries. I'm sure to many of our friends from Asia and Europe it really does sound foreign to hear some of the things we're oftentimes saying about our 2nd, 4th and even 5th Amendments.

Thank goodness for that black guy who couldn't drink from a white fountain (and couldn't find a black one) that our Constitution is a living, breathing document. It's the central part of our rule of law. It's like our backbone. Government can't write lesser laws that pretend it isn't there. Not forever. Even in very-arguable cases that have been ruled Constitutional by a court, there's always another battle somewhere eventually, should we choose to fight it.

We can't "lol" and "lmao" or yawn and sit on our hands when it comes to defending our rights. I'm pretty sure that if we stop fighting for our rights, we will lose them. Civil rights come from within; people have to suffer physically for them, sometimes for many years. Sometimes they did it all for their children and not for themselves.

I'm not going to stand on the shoulders of giants and pretend like I'm safe now. The struggle between liberty and tyranny is perpetual.

[aztek]

That black guy still couldn't get a drink if aztek had his way.......... Thank goodness for that black guy who couldn't drink from a white fountain (and couldn't find a black one) that our Constitution is a living, breathing document

lmao, so you are so out of argument you have to make sht up????? where the Fck did you get that retarded idea ????????

and another retarded idea that you have is that you fight for your rights. please. you do not. p***ing cops off does not do 1 good thing for them, and if i had my way, i would lock up every "right supporter" that "protects" rights this way. i would lock you for so long, so you and everyone else that knows you would forget that dumb idea. go p*** of bears in alaska, you have that right too,.see where it'll get you. \

you are bigger enemy to my rights than anyone.

YES the fact that you and millions like you accept this as a unfixable reality gives them the green light to continue. BTW you seriously underestemate the power of public unity. If there was no power in it, we would be standing over Assads dead body right now in Syria. Of course 20 isnt enough. But what about 20,000? Or 200,000? Every single civil right gained in this country after its founding was brought about by public demand, and in a place where a black guy couldnt even get a drink from certain water fountains, we have come along way. Grow a pair and stand up for what is right.

lol. what 20 000 people are you taliknig about?? where are they?? please get a "get real pill" and take 2. $20 000 in politician pocket will do exponentially more than 20 000 idiots creating disturbance and negative image about them and their cause. open your eyes and look aronud. there will be no 20000 people protecting, i remember last time pro gunners protested after sandy hook shooting , there was not even few hundreds there. i do not beliveve for 1 second that people that say all the b.s. loud slogans, like you do, will ever actually be outside, protesting, so please spare me your wisdoms again how you preserve our right, and how i bent to authority. lmao, effing hilarious.

Edited March 24, 2014 by aztek

[preacherman76]

Sorry you dont get it az. The Israel lobby paid alot more then that Im sure, to secure their interests in Syria, and 90% of the American public put the breaks on it, for now anyway. That my friend is power. Dont sell yourself and us short.

[aztek]

Sorry you dont get it az. The Israel lobby paid alot more then that Im sure, to secure their interests in Syria, and 90% of the American public put the breaks on it, for now anyway. That my friend is power. Dont sell yourself and us short.

no, not a single american did anything to put brakes in syria, do not full yourself, large protion of americans was against war in iraq, who listened to them??? no one. if it was not for russia taking chem weapons problem in their hands, it would not be that way, do not overestimate yourself, no american public had anything to do with syria none involvment.

i understand that you want to beleive people can do big things, but iti s a myth, i have not seen any examples of it here lately, but examples when money got things done, every single time.

not to mention if there is 20 000 people (hypothetical thing) protesting for 2nd, there will be 100000 people protesting against it. even if public opinopn could do anything, it would not work for you anyway. that is why nra does not fight with rallies and protests, they would lose instantly, they do it in courts and offices with funds that me, and others like me provide. and they get things done. you just can't sway puplic opinon in favor of 2nd, by such "bright individuals" exersicing their right, for no other reason but to stick it to people faces,

"it is my right, ..........".

Edited March 24, 2014 by aztek

[Yamato]

lmao, so you are so out of argument you have to make sht up????? where the Fck did you get that retarded idea ????????

and another retarded idea that you have is that you fight for your rights. please. you do not. p***ing cops off does not do 1 good thing for them, and if i had my way, i would lock up every "right supporter" that "protects" rights this way. i would lock you for so long, so you and everyone else that knows you would forget that dumb idea. go p*** of bears in alaska, you have that right too,.see where it'll get you. \

you are bigger enemy to my rights than anyone.

lol. what 20 000 people are you taliknig about?? where are they?? please get a "get real pill" and take 2. $20 000 in politician pocket will do exponentially more than 20 000 idiots creating disturbance and negative image about them and their cause. open your eyes and look aronud. there will be no 20000 people protecting, i remember last time pro gunners protested after sandy hook shooting , there was not even few hundreds there. i do not beliveve for 1 second that people that say all the b.s. loud slogans, like you do, will ever actually be outside, protesting, so please spare me your wisdoms again how you preserve our right, and how i bent to authority. lmao, effing hilarious.

Yes if you had your way, that black guy still couldn't get a drink because you'd be "loling" in the 1950s that all that civil disobedience from black people for all those years was illegal and "the cops were just going to do what they do anyway hahaha." It's clear after this mess of posts from you that you're constitutionally constipated and you can't support Americans defending their 2nd Amendment rights.

Why don't you find some ways of exercising our 2nd Amendment without spewing inaccurate nonsense about felonies and garbage bags? You've offered no alternatives but you have made some wildly inaccurate statements proving you don't know much if anything about gun rights. I would say you've ruined your credibility beyond repair making so many asinine statements I think we can draw some conclusions.

Rights don't defend themselves, aztek. That's bedrock. You have to be able to cognitively accept that first in order for preacherman or myself to make any sense. Everything you've been so enthusiastic and compelled to weigh in on here so far is just fluff and clutter. Surface nuisances. Troll bait. You don't even touch bedrock.

It is a right to open carry in both videos presented for discussion. Injecting all this irrelevant nonsense about garbage bags and felonies and the fact that you have this much problem with people exercising their rights has exposed you.

You're living in a bubble where rights just fall out of the sky and all you have to do is sit on your hands and laugh about it when it doesn't work out that way.

[W Tell]

no, not a single american did anything to put brakes in syria, do not full yourself, large protion of americans was against war in iraq, who listened to them??? no one. if it was not for russia taking chem weapons problem in their hands, it would not be that way, do not overestimate yourself, no american public had anything to do with syria none involvment.

i understand that you want to beleive people can do big things, but iti s a myth, i have not seen any examples of it here lately, but examples when money got things done, every single time.

not to mention if there is 20 000 people (hypothetical thing) protesting for 2nd, there will be 100000 people protesting against it. even if public opinopn could do anything, it would not work for you anyway. that is why nra does not fight with rallies and protests, they would lose instantly, they do it in courts and offices with funds that me, and others like me provide. and they get things done. you just can't sway puplic opinon in favor of 2nd, by such "bright individuals" exersicing their right, for no other reason but to stick it to people faces,

"it is my right, ..........".

I'm not sure why you're wasting so much time on Aztek. You've layed out an excellent argument for the reason to "express" our Rights and the folly of "surpressing" those very same Rights. He probably still thinks (wrongly) that the Bill Of Rights are gifts from government and he's afraid and he's afraid the government will take them away when people express them.

In the end, what's the purpose of it all if you "don't" use them? You basicly say I don't have any except for when I absolutely need them. When the day comes he needs to enforce his rights, he'll find he doesn't know how to express them. On that day, if he really believes in rights, he'll regret not expressing them as often as he can. Or even backing up indiviuals that do.