open carry rant

[Streetstar]

I was perusing youtube and came across several videos concerning guys' who seemingly take it upon themselves to make sport of open carry --- I like the idea that I can carry my revolver or pistol on a belt how its meant to be carried sometimes when i'm out doing things where I feel one might be useful without it being illegal
I do however, think its unnecessary to carry an AR-15 slung in a high carry position while you are out on a "nature hike" down a blacktop road ---- its not the right tool for the job and was clearly carried in an attempt to bait a police officer into challenging him

this is just one video I found of many involving similar behavior

Open carry - generally good, Picking the right tool for the job when combined with open carry - also good , carrying in a ready position and then acting like a royal azz when confronted by police (that were obviously baited into this) --- pretty dumb

what the heck is wrong with people these days ---- everybody thinks they are Rosa Parks when they have the iphone filming'

technically , what the gentleman did may not have been illegal, but the manner in which these baiting techniques are performed is not only disrespectful to the officers who may or may not read every syllable of every firearms regulation out there, and its disrespectful to the people that may have a legitimate need for officer assistance while he is busy with a clown

this video is long, but it only takes watching it for 30 seconds or minute to get the gist of it
And there are hundreds of others out there of people doing similar things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah3a7dQqyZI

[El Chivo]

I haven't seen the videos, but tend to agree with you; I think those who are "in your face" with their gun rights aren't helping. That behavior got open carry banned in CA.

I realize there's a certain point of view, such as the July 4th guy carrying in downtown Washington, D.C., that it's heroic and important and all that. Well we already HAVE the right, now let's try not to lose it by being jerks.

That said, I've been surprised by the levelheadedness of the general population after the Newtown shootings, I thought it was going to go the other way.

[AJMD429]

It's one of those things where having the right to do something doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

[bdhold]

I like to call it Lowest Common Denominator, and it's usually the tactic of the left. Like using rape and incest to justify abortion on demand - they have nothing to do with each other, but it's always the answer of the left - what about...
Pick some obscure scenario and then propose it as the exception that justifies everything.
This guy is acting it out - he is making himself the Lowest Common Denominator - something revolting, and we get the credit for it.

[Streetstar]

yes -- lowest common denominator --

I like the fact that our "formal gun laws" have expanded to the point where we now seemingly have more rights than ever ----- even in the old movies, there would be signs posted like "no carrying firearms in town" - or "turn firearms into sheriffs office" etc etc ----

but its not cool to taunt the police,

An overwhelming theme with these guys' is the unwillingness to show an officer their id, or identify themselves in a cooperating manner --- and I know that is not required unless being detained , but heck, -- maybe i'm naïve , I have little problems showing an ID to a legitimate LEO - I'm not a felon, I pay my taxes, etc etc.

I like the fact that I can strap on one of my revolvers when i am doing some fence repair along the roadway , but call me crazy, when I am in town, if I am carrying anything, I keep it concealed as I do not prefer to draw attention to myself ---- I think a lot of people feel the same way, although we appreciate our ability to open carry if we ever wanted to (I hope that didn't sound too much like the naïve hunter who doesn't understand why anyone but the military would need one of those darn semi-autos)

Kinda like when I had my Harley -- I usually wore a helmet, but on a nice fall day, I appreciated the fact that I could go for a cruise without it if I wanted to

[Blaine]

People in Washington have always had the right to open carry, but, up until a few years ago, it would get you put on the ground, and arrested. A few jerks pushed the issue, and after a few lawsuits, and expensive lessons the big city LEOs now have an understanding of the law. In this state Man With A Gun that is being properly carried does not qualify as against the law. Sorry, but "Rosa Parks" is exactly what they were. What is it? A right not used is a right lost? Having said that, I choose not to open carry for exactly the same reasons you stipulate as I would probably not handle the confrontation all that well

[41 Redhawk]

People in Washington have always had the right to open carry, but, up until a few years ago, it would get you put on the ground, and arrested. A few jerks pushed the issue, and after a few lawsuits, and expensive lessons the big city LEOs now have an understanding of the law. In this state Man With A Gun that is being properly carried does not qualify as against the law. Sorry, but "Rosa Parks" is exactly what they were.

Same thing here in PA and in particular Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were they try to have their own unwritten laws

[Streetstar]

. What is it? A right not used is a right lost? :

I can accept that ---- just don't understand the guy who dons an LBE type vest and an AR-15 and goes for an afternoon stroll like its perfectly natural with an I-phone at the ready , and when inevitably he gets stopped acts indignant

[jkbrea]

California is a good example. Instead of trying to educate LE they tried to bait them by open carrying pistols, shotguns and ARs in malls, coffee shops etc. If you're a cop and you see a guy walk into a mall with an AR, would you ignore it? An officer is naturally going to think "why is that guy going into that place carrying a gun?" These guys would video the confrontation and post on YouTube. Well, guess what. You ever see a CA Penal code book. They don't know all of it. They mostly deal with violent crimes, thefts, missing persons, runaways, frauds, gang crimes, and drugs. If something obscure or unfamiliar comes up, they have to deal with it the best they can and hopefully make the right decision. Is it on public or private property? Does the property owner have the right to prohibit open carry? Does the person have the right to own a firearm? Is he exercising his rights or is he going to kill someone? Is he a felon? DA Offices and LE supervisors started giving training on the subject but it was too late. Liberal lawmakers made open carry of handguns and rifles illegal. If they had made efforts to educate LE on the matter it may have saved open carry. No one was trying to repeal it until an issue was made of it.

[bdhold]

Gandhi was a good example for passive resistance - while he may have badmouthed, disrespected, or showed contempt for a magistrate, I haven't read anything about it.

[Blaine]

. What is it? A right not used is a right lost? :

I can accept that ---- just don't understand the guy who dons an LBE type vest and an AR-15 and goes for an afternoon stroll like its perfectly natural with an I-phone at the ready , and when inevitably he gets stopped acts indignant

You are absolutely correct....I hope he's doing it for the greater good.

[Blaine]

California is a good example. Instead of trying to educate LE they tried to bait them by open carrying pistols, shotguns and ARs in malls, coffee shops etc. If you're a cop and you see a guy walk into a mall with an AR, would you ignore it? An officer is naturally going to think "why is that guy going into that place carrying a gun?" These guys would video the confrontation and post on YouTube. Well, guess what. You ever see a CA Penal code book. They don't know all of it. They mostly deal with violent crimes, thefts, missing persons, runaways, frauds, gang crimes, and drugs. If something obscure or unfamiliar comes up, they have to deal with it the best they can and hopefully make the right decision. Is it on public or private property? Does the property owner have the right to prohibit open carry? Does the person have the right to own a firearm? Is he exercising his rights or is he going to kill someone? Is he a felon? DA Offices and LE supervisors started giving training on the subject but it was too late. Liberal lawmakers made open carry of handguns and rifles illegal. If they had made efforts to educate LE on the matter it may have saved open carry. No one was trying to repeal it until an issue was made of it.

(Just stirring the pot) So, we should tacitly eschew our rights predicated on the assumption it will make liberals, and LEOs uncomfortable, or force them to learn their jobs a little better? Get to the back of the bus, you dastardly Gun Owner

[donw]

California is a good example. Instead of trying to educate LE they tried to bait them by open carrying pistols, shotguns and ARs in malls, coffee shops etc. If you're a cop and you see a guy walk into a mall with an AR, would you ignore it? An officer is naturally going to think "why is that guy going into that place carrying a gun?" These guys would video the confrontation and post on YouTube. Well, guess what. You ever see a CA Penal code book. They don't know all of it. They mostly deal with violent crimes, thefts, missing persons, runaways, frauds, gang crimes, and drugs. If something obscure or unfamiliar comes up, they have to deal with it the best they can and hopefully make the right decision. Is it on public or private property? Does the property owner have the right to prohibit open carry? Does the person have the right to own a firearm? Is he exercising his rights or is he going to kill someone? Is he a felon? DA Offices and LE supervisors started giving training on the subject but it was too late. Liberal lawmakers made open carry of handguns and rifles illegal. If they had made efforts to educate LE on the matter it may have saved open carry. No one was trying to repeal it until an issue was made of it.

it will be illegal to open carry long guns, or shotguns, as of jan 1, 2014 in California...handguns are already illegal to open carry...

where it's true that 'educating' LE is important, LE, generally, do NOT take to kindly to being 'educated' by the public. and keep in mind, most LEO's are NOT firearms experts, they're just enforcing a law(s) they may, or may not, agree with, or understand.

the "Issue" was generated in the legislature...fear, panic, irrationality among California legislators is more responsible than most factors involving open carry; open carry was legal in California for many years, IF the firearm was not loaded

LE does legally, and has had the legal right, to stop anyone exercising open carry to make sure the firearm is NOT loaded

as in many cases, fear generates problems and can lead to such legislation that we are now burdened with. we still are able to legally transport firearms when done properly.

[El Chivo]

People in Washington have always had the right to open carry, but, up until a few years ago, it would get you put on the ground, and arrested. A few jerks pushed the issue, and after a few lawsuits, and expensive lessons the big city LEOs now have an understanding of the law. In this state Man With A Gun that is being properly carried does not qualify as against the law. Sorry, but "Rosa Parks" is exactly what they were.

Same thing here in PA and in particular Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were they try to have their own unwritten laws

Well, if you have a situation like that, then it's time to stand up for the right. I think the right should be exercised, but when and how and for what reason. If you just want to play with the cops, that's not a good reason. If you just want to impress the girls at Starbucks, that's not a good reason.

If your grandmother is afraid of guns, would you wear your AR-15 to Thanksgiving dinner, just because you have the right to do so?

[FWiedner]

Personally, I don't see where cops who harrass law-abiding citizens using laws they create in their head on the spot, or based on laws that they lack the knowledge to enforce properly, deserve even the tiniest modicum of respect.

If they are not enforcing the law they are acting as nothng more than street thugs, because they are certainly not acting with the realm of their granted authority, nor are they lawfully representing the community which laws they are employed to enforce.

There is though, a standard of civil behavior, even when dealing with a perfect stranger or the dumbest cop.

No need to be rude or loud if you don't have to be.

But when you have to be, well... rock n' roll.

[AJMD429]

Personally, I don't see where cops who harrass law-abiding citizens using laws they create in their head on the spot, or based on laws that they lack the knowledge to enforce properly, deserve even the tiniest modicum of respect.

If they are not enforcing the law they are acting as nothng more than street thugs, because they are certainly not acting with the realm of their granted authority, nor are they lawfully representing the community which laws they are employed to enforce.

There is though, a standard of civil behavior, even when dealing with a perfect stranger or the dumbest cop.

No need to be rude or loud if you don't have to be.

But when you have to be, well... rock n' roll.

WELL SAID...

. What is it? A right not used is a right lost? :

I can accept that ---- just don't understand the guy who dons an LBE type vest and an AR-15 and goes for an afternoon stroll like its perfectly natural with an I-phone at the ready, and when inevitably he gets stopped acts indignant

Yep. One could make just as effective a 'point' by carrying a single-action revolver or other handgun, or if it has to be a long-gun, a breakopen shotgun or something.

[Model 52B]

This is not really about gun rights or open carry, it's about a belligerent person impeding police officers and then resisting arrest. He really is not someone I want being a gun rights poster child as he is quite frankly a jerk and a moron who makes gun owners look bad. We have enough of that stuff already.

A few thoughts on why I feel that way:

1) The guy in the video is a moron. He had it within his power to consent to the officers request to disarm him until the officer determined that no law was being broken. That request was within the officers rights as an officer conducting a stop.

In a less controversial example, consider an officer stopping a motorist with a concealed carry permit and a weapon. The officer may ask the person to surrender the weapon during the stop. Now, you can argue that it's pretty stupid for a variety of reasons but some officers prefer that approach. Moreover, we'll get to it in more detail, below but requesting the person to surrender a weapon is well within the bounds of what's allowed the law in most states.

2) He adopts a belligerent attitude that does not help his case and he quickly escalates this into impeding the officer. It has an effect on the officer's actions. The guy in the video is belligerent almost from the start, he has the weapon in a high carry position, the officer has no idea if it's loaded or not and the person could use it very quickly. Under those circumstances, the officer's request to surrender the weapon for the duration of the stop is pretty reasonable. The officer was also very upfront about his intent to only maintain control of the weapon until he can verify the person is not violating any laws, does not have any wants or warrants, etc. Had this guy just rolled with that, it would have been a 5 minute stop and he'd have been on his way with the weapon returned to him. At worst, he'd have gotten a further request to maybe not look likes on patrol in Iraq and try a little harder not to scare the neighbors and passing motorists.

3) In the absence of knowing whether anyone called this in to report a suspicious person with a gun, you could potentially argue there was no probable cause for a stop, but it would not hold much weight. Generally speaking some one hiking down the road with an AR-15 in a high carry position with a boonie hat on, warrants a look a meets the definition of a "suspicious person". To put that in a different context for those who may disagree, most of us were ok with the view that Zimmerman was within his rights to follow a black male in a hoody given the recent B&Es committed by black males in hoodies. This guy in the video goes way beyond that on the "suspicious person" meter. It's inconsistent for any of us to suggest the officer here should not have at least stopped and talked to a man walking down the road with an AR-15. At a minimum you'd want to assess what he's doing and his mental state.

4) Which brings us to the point of why he was arrested. He repeatedly failed to comply with numerous requests from the officer and then the supervisor, and at every opportunity he just kept digging himself an ever deeper hole. He displayed a very belligerent and entitled attitude that frankly makes me question his mental state. That happened because of his unreasonable responses to reasonable requests from a law enforcement officer - something that was completely under his control.

5) by the end of the video he's potentially broken several laws. Let's consider the concealed .45 on his left side. If you watch the video you'll notice:

A) he's potentially guilty of what could be interpreted of an unjustified display of a deadly weapon. (Now, that was not his intent, but the display of the AR-15 certainly warranted a stop to determine what was going on.)

B) Not much more than 2-3 minutes into the video, he is clearly impeding enforcement officers in the conduct or performance of their duty or activities, and

C) After advising the officer that he does have a concealed .45 after being asked by the officer and indicating he has a concealed carry permit, he states they do not have permission to dig through his wallet to get the permit. Under the circumstances where he did not disclose the weapon or the permit until he was already cuffed, that refusal could be construed as a refusal to display his permit to any peace officer for inspection upon demand. At least to a sufficient degree to warrant an arrest and let the court sort it out later. Depending on the jurisdiction, he also failed to advise he had a permit and a weapon.

6) My biggest beef with this is that he's doing all this in front of his 10 year old son. Most reasonable people carrying an AR-15 in high carry down a road would expect to be stopped. Most reasonable people would comply with the requests this officer made in a very professional and polite manner. Most reasonable people would have considered the impact on their 10 year old boy of the scene they created and the effects of their arrest on their 10 year old. This guy did none of that.

[jeepnik]

Sadly, my state has taken a giant step backwards (no surprise there). We had open carry. But a bunch of idiots tried to get in the face of the politicians and when the recent shootings occurred, the governor and his cronies made it illegal, except for some very specific circumstances.

Thankfully they didn't change the concealed carry laws to something more draconian (though they tried). I guess they figured that if the top law dog in their jurisdictions wouldn't approve any applications, they could live with the few who would.

I must admit, each time mine comes up for renewal, I sweat it some. But the county that issues mine is rural. In other words conservative and I doubt they'd elect a sheriff that would not issue the permits to upstanding citizens. And if one did, he'd be recalled so fast his head would swim.

[Blaine]

Personally, I don't see where cops who harrass law-abiding citizens using laws they create in their head on the spot, or based on laws that they lack the knowledge to enforce properly, deserve even the tiniest modicum of respect.

If they are not enforcing the law they are acting as nothng more than street thugs, because they are certainly not acting with the realm of their granted authority, nor are they lawfully representing the community which laws they are employed to enforce.

There is though, a standard of civil behavior, even when dealing with a perfect stranger or the dumbest cop.

No need to be rude or loud if you don't have to be.

But when you have to be, well... rock n' roll.

WELL SAID...

. What is it? A right not used is a right lost? :

I can accept that ---- just don't understand the guy who dons an LBE type vest and an AR-15 and goes for an afternoon stroll like its perfectly natural with an I-phone at the ready, and when inevitably he gets stopped acts indignant

Yep. One could make just as effective a 'point' by carrying a single-action revolver or other handgun, or if it has to be a long-gun, a breakopen shotgun or something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Doc, you be da last I'd ever guess would hedge on absolute freedom and liberty....All hat, no cowboy

[AJMD429]

Of course while this thread is running, I come across the same video from another source...

http://lastresistance.com/2906/the-2nd- ... to-arrest/

I still feel that just because something is 'legal' that it may be stupid to do, but after watching the video in question, I am less inclined to reflexively write off the citizen just because he's acting like an idiot. He wasn't breaking the law, and he wasn't acting dangerously.

I guess with incidents like this happening, AND MANY ON THE INTERNET THAT ARE FAR WORSE IN WHAT THE COPS DO to gunowners who are being far LESS 'edgy' and with far more 'ordinary' firearms, it makes me want to go out and get every redneck and hippie I know a belt-fed M-60 to "open carry" just to irritate the little wannabe-dictator cops out there...

Sorry if I just don't feel sympathy for the cops in the video. Twice I see them point the guys own guns at him recklessly, so they aren't exactly models of 'safe gun handling', and they openly admit they "don't care about the law". Why - because they "feel threatened" - - - well so what - - - any citizen could say they "feel threatened" by having armed cops around, since more innocents are killed by police and military from their own country, than by ordinary, if irritating, citizens walking down country roads toting rifles. I'll bet the average speeding-ticket is a more dangerous encounter for a cop than dealing with this guy or others like him. Yes, a cop has plenty of business 'checking out' anything out of the ordinary, and that includes a person in public with a firearm, BUT when they bring that snotty attitude with them it makes it really hard to respect them. Granted, the guy himself develops an 'attitude', but part of being a cop is supposed to include being above that level of behavior. If the idea is just to be a tough-dude with a gun who can prove he's the baddest, they should join a gang instead of being cops.

No doubt the guy was anticipating something of this sort, because he was pretty fast to bring up the 'lawsuit' card, but if it takes some cops losing their jobs and some departments having to take money from the SWAT budget to pay settlements for some of the stuff I see happening, that is a good thing. I'd rather the suits be brought on behalf of the innocents who get shot, or have their belongings stolen or vandalized by rogue cops, than guys like this who are just trolling to see if they can get a 'reaction', but guess what - they should not GET a reaction. Cops should be better than that.

I'm sure there'd be more sympathy for the guy if he weren't fat, weren't wearing that strange bandanna thing under his hat, and weren't so obnoxious - or perhaps if he were carrying a Marlin Guide Gun instead of an ugly plastic AR-15 (probably a 'generic' one no less ). Of course in our other 'survival' thread, we already established that many of us feel the 45-70 is a better killer than a 223, so one has to wonder if that old 'levergun' would be ok, or not.

[olyinaz]

The whole thing makes me ill, but the fact is that cop was not all about de-escalating a situation but instead was all about showing a citizen (who was not breaking the law) who's the boss. Two jerks, but only one swore an oath to serve the people and is held to a higher standard. I hope the citizen sues that department and wins a hefty settlement.

[Streetstar]

I'm sure there'd be more sympathy for the guy if he weren't fat, weren't wearing that strange bandanna thing under his hat, and weren't so obnoxious - .

yes --- fat, bandana, and loud makes him a target much more so than 75 silent illegals traipsing across the border everynight in beds of ancient F-100s with ciudad chihuaha, or Juarez tags

[Streetstar]

The whole thing makes me ill, but the fact is that cop was not all about de-escalating a situation but instead was all about showing a citizen (who was not breaking the law) who's the boss. Two jerks, but only one swore an oath to serve the people and is held to a higher standard. I hope the citizen sues that department and wins a hefty settlement.

I think he's trying to --- but as for me, I hope he gets shot down solidly (no pun intended) --- the world needs common sense much more than it needs self righteous blowhards on either side of the "thin blue line"

[7.62 Precision]

My thoughts:

http://762precision.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -activism/

[El Chivo]

a related Adam Kokesh thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/show ... p?t=801617

[bdhold]

...I hope the citizen sues that department and wins a hefty settlement.

which may have been his original intention

[horsesoldier03]

IMO, anytime they are so FORTUNATE as to have the entire ordeal video'd, I immediately perceive it to be an attempt to lure a cop into an altercation so that it can ultimately end up in court as a lawsuit.

In the event it ends up in court I only hope the JUDGE throws it out.

Another event that irritated me was the guy that was complaining about being told to exit his vehicle during a border patrol search after a dog alerted on his vehicle. This guy had professional video equipment mounted on the inside of the vehicle to ensure all video footage was available. The agent was very patient and requested him to exit the vehicle on several occasions, and eventually brought the supervisor over. After several failed attempts he busted the window and drug the guy out and properly introduced him to the pavement.

[Blaine]

IMO, anytime they are so FORTUNATE as to have the entire ordeal video'd, I immediately perceive it to be an attempt to lure a cop into an altercation so that it can ultimately end up in court as a lawsuit.

In the event it ends up in court I only hope the JUDGE throws it out.

Another event that irritated me was the guy that was complaining about being told to exit his vehicle during a border patrol search after a dog alerted on his vehicle. This guy had professional video equipment mounted on the inside of the vehicle to ensure all video footage was available. The agent was very patient and requested him to exit the vehicle on several occasions, and eventually brought the supervisor over. After several failed attempts he busted the window and drug the guy out and properly introduced him to the pavement.

All of which is unconstitutional....

[olyinaz]

We allegedly have rights, but when another person brazenly tests the scene to see if we really DO have those rights he invariably gets beat down and hammered by The Man, which means we do NOT have the rights we're supposed to have. And given this travesty I find it amazing that rather than congratulate and thank the canary in our coal mine most people want only to lambast the guy for being an azz, scaring the sheeple, and possibly upsetting the apple cart. Dear God help us!

All of which is unconstitutional....

Details...

[FWiedner]

We allegedly have rights, but when another person brazenly tests the scene to see if we really DO have those rights he invariably gets beat down and hammered by The Man, which means we do NOT have the rights we're supposed to have. And given this travesty I find it amazing that rather than congratulate and thank the canary in our coal mine most people want only to lambast the guy for being an azz, scaring the sheeple, and possibly upsetting the apple cart. Dear God help us!

All of which is unconstitutional....

Details...

I'd look at it more as being challenged to compete for the opportunity to exercise those rights, by those with a force advantage.

Read that as "Might makes right".

In the real world, a man can only claim the right(s) which he is able to enforce and defend.

The herd will not follow the weak. This is the world we live in.

[Blaine]

We allegedly have rights, but when another person brazenly tests the scene to see if we really DO have those rights he invariably gets beat down and hammered by The Man, which means we do NOT have the rights we're supposed to have. And given this travesty I find it amazing that rather than congratulate and thank the canary in our coal mine most people want only to lambast the guy for being an azz, scaring the sheeple, and possibly upsetting the apple cart. Dear God help us!

All of which is unconstitutional....

Details...

The Guy was fine....IMO the LEO was unconstitutional (was I not clear?)

[olyinaz]

We allegedly have rights, but when another person brazenly tests the scene to see if we really DO have those rights he invariably gets beat down and hammered by The Man, which means we do NOT have the rights we're supposed to have. And given this travesty I find it amazing that rather than congratulate and thank the canary in our coal mine most people want only to lambast the guy for being an azz, scaring the sheeple, and possibly upsetting the apple cart. Dear God help us!

All of which is unconstitutional....

Details...

The Guy was fine....IMO the LEO was unconstitutional (was I not clear?)

Yes, you were and I agree. My sarcasm didn't take.

"Captain, number one is showing zero gallons of oil."

"Details..."

[Ray Newman]

7.62 Precision: thanks for that link.

Horse soldier03: I too wonder about the video taping and the reason behind it.

After watching the tape, I wonder:

-- How was he acting and/or what was he doing previously when walking down the road?

Does anyone know?

-- What did he do or how did he act to prompt someone to call the local authorities?

It would be interesting to hear the 911 call.

All this reminds me of two things that I learned a long time ago:

-- It is easier to walk around a pile of dog chit then step in it and try to clean off your shoes.

-- Attitude is everything in situations such as this.

[Griff]

I gotta say... that the law officer was polite, while the citizen was being obstinate. I agree that the guy has the "right" to walk down the road with his AR... However, in accordance with Supreme Court rulings the officer also has the RIGHT to disarm the guy and search him for the officer's safety during a contact of ANY sort while the officer ascertains if a law was being broken. If you've not broken any law, then identifying yourself should not be an issue. Frankly, the citizen's conduct and attitude during the whole episode was confrontational and way over-board. Being asked to clear your weapon and if the officer can inspect it ain't any different than when I first moved to Texas and was stopped by EVERY law enforcement officer in the county, every officer from State Troopers, County Deputies and Officers from all 3 city departments just so they could look at my car... seems '55 Chevys with 427 L-88s are rarer than hen's teeth in TX! The two times I took it the Dallas Car Show I had to allow an extra 45 minutes just to handle the car stops. Each and every time, I'd ask, what's the occasion? They'd check my license, & insurance, step back, look at my car and say, "...nothin'... but, wondered if I could look under the hood?" They'd ogle and make noises of appreciation then ask, "is it as fast as it sounds?" I'd ask, "...won't be any tickets if we race will there?" Some would say, nope... others would say there won't be a race. But... I could seldom resist a little wheel spin in 1st and a chirp into 2nd, just to give 'em a taste!

Even my Camaro has a Highway Patrol chip in it so it doesn't shut down at 108mph... and that was courtesy of one of our Troopers... Most of the officers I worked with loved to shoot my Colt SAA while we qualifying... Some of them ARE car and gun guys also.

Nope, I can't say that the citizen was either respectful of either his rights or of the officer. If the officer had been called to the scene because of a call from a concerned citizen... and upon arriving saw a guy walking with a firearm to simply ignore the guy and think, "... hmmm, no law being broken here," he would be derelict in his duties. I don't care who you are, you can't expect the officer to believe you when you say, "but, I'm a law abiding citizen..." Heck after 9 years of not being a badge carrying cop, I wouldn't expect that from an officer that didn't know me. Maybe even from some that did! Now, I'm sure that a convicted felon wouldn't be video-taping his encounter like that, but... does the officer know that the citizen isn't a convicted felon? NO. I do believe, (giving the officer some benefit of the doubt), that had the citizen provided his ID, explained WHY he was where he was, he'd probably have been on his way. No... in this instance John Q. Public has his nose twisted outta joint long before he started that walk. And wanted a confrontation. Many officers are happy to oblige.

[olyinaz]

I gotta say... that the law officer was polite, while the citizen was being obstinate. I agree that the guy has the "right" to walk down the road with his AR... However, in accordance with Supreme Court rulings the officer also has the RIGHT to disarm the guy and search him for the officer's safety during a contact of ANY sort while the officer ascertains if a law was being broken. If you've not broken any law, then identifying yourself should not be an issue. Frankly, the citizen's conduct and attitude during the whole episode was confrontational and way over-board. Being asked to clear your weapon and if the officer can inspect it ain't any different than when I first moved to Texas and was stopped by EVERY law enforcement officer in the county, every officer from State Troopers, County Deputies and Officers from all 3 city departments just so they could look at my car... seems '55 Chevys with 427 L-88s are rarer than hen's teeth in TX! The two times I took it the Dallas Car Show I had to allow an extra 45 minutes just to handle the car stops. Each and every time, I'd ask, what's the occasion? They'd check my license, & insurance, step back, look at my car and say, "...nothin'... but, wondered if I could look under the hood?" They'd ogle and make noises of appreciation then ask, "is it as fast as it sounds?" I'd ask, "...won't be any tickets if we race will there?" Some would say, nope... others would say there won't be a race. But... I could seldom resist a little wheel spin in 1st and a chirp into 2nd, just to give 'em a taste!

Even my Camaro has a Highway Patrol chip in it so it doesn't shut down at 108mph... and that was courtesy of one of our Troopers... Most of the officers I worked with loved to shoot my Colt SAA while we qualifying... Some of them ARE car and gun guys also.

Nope, I can't say that the citizen was either respectful of either his rights or of the officer. If the officer had been called to the scene because of a call from a concerned citizen... and upon arriving saw a guy walking with a firearm to simply ignore the guy and think, "... hmmm, no law being broken here," he would be derelict in his duties. I don't care who you are, you can't expect the officer to believe you when you say, "but, I'm a law abiding citizen..." Heck after 9 years of not being a badge carrying cop, I wouldn't expect that from an officer that didn't know me. Maybe even from some that did! Now, I'm sure that a convicted felon wouldn't be video-taping his encounter like that, but... does the officer know that the citizen isn't a convicted felon? NO. I do believe, (giving the officer some benefit of the doubt), that had the citizen provided his ID, explained WHY he was where he was, he'd probably have been on his way. No... in this instance John Q. Public has his nose twisted outta joint long before he started that walk. And wanted a confrontation. Many officers are happy to oblige.

Griff, as usual you make some good points. I just feel like no effort was made to calm the little bugger down, and in the end he wound up getting hauled off in handcuffs which I think is a ridiculous outcome. I can harrangue and harry an irate passenger enough to get him to swing on me (a federal offense) every time - guaranteed. I've seen hot head pilots do it, and you can almost call the game. It's a failure. No need for it to happen.

Textbook example of how not to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG2VdzWpqIk (Warning - some foul language in that one.)

What I feel happened in that video was a total failure to de-escalate the situation and contain the stop to a simple check into "what are you doing", and maybe a learning/teaching opportunity. The officer got to show who's the big dog and the chihuahua got stomped - what an accomplishment. So many videos like it on YouTube it makes me ill.

Oh well, just my 2¢.

[horsesoldier03]

IMO, anytime they are so FORTUNATE as to have the entire ordeal video'd, I immediately perceive it to be an attempt to lure a cop into an altercation so that it can ultimately end up in court as a lawsuit.

In the event it ends up in court I only hope the JUDGE throws it out.

Another event that irritated me was the guy that was complaining about being told to exit his vehicle during a border patrol search after a dog alerted on his vehicle. This guy had professional video equipment mounted on the inside of the vehicle to ensure all video footage was available. The agent was very patient and requested him to exit the vehicle on several occasions, and eventually brought the supervisor over. After several failed attempts he busted the window and drug the guy out and properly introduced him to the pavement.

All of which is unconstitutional....

Blaine,

I didn't see anything I considered unconstitutional.

What I did observe was an officer that responded to a call of an armed man who was not on his own property and upon initial contact the man presents an attitude and eventually becomes belligerent. The officer has every right and it is his duty to properly secure the scene upon his arrival. Those of us with CCWs are even told that if an officer directs us to disarm we MUST COMPLY. Every Game Warden I have ever ran across will direct hunters to unload their weapon upon his arrival and the weapon will be placed on the ground or out of the control of the hunter. The officer did provide a directive to disarm and the man was still uncooperative. Failure to disarm will get you shot in a lot of places by both COPS or civilians. If he had been on my property with a firearm, he would have been told 1X to disarm and if he provided the belligerent attitude he would likely never have been around to take me to court. Despite the lack of cooperation, the officer escalates the use of force yet still remained reasonably civil; most suspects (which is what he was at this time) would have been eating dirt at this point. The man continually refused to provide identification upon request of the officer. The only argument I have ever heard for not having to present an ID upon request came from ILLEGALS and those who wanted their vote. COPS should have the right to ask for your identification, and in the event you fail to provide it, you should be arrested. Remember, this is Texas, they require ID to be shown at voting booths as well, I don't know the statue but I expect the ID is required to be shown when requested.


I am pretty sure this video is old enough that this case has been to court by now, curious if anyone knows the outcome.

[El Chivo]

COPS should have the right to ask for your identification, and in the event you fail to provide it, you should be arrested.

Well, I don't know about that; we aren't required to have ID to justify our existence to the police. A license might be required to carry a gun around in public, and if so he should show that, but in general we can't be arrested for not having ID.

[horsesoldier03]

So your saying if an individual is creating enough of a disturbance that the COPS are called, it should be OPTIONAL for him to decide to correctly identify who he is. Granted, there can be exceptions provided they lost their license but there are other ways that you can PROVE who you are.

I guess all you bleeding hearts support all the gang bangers out there that don't want to provide an ID because they know they have an outstanding warrant???

[El Chivo]

So your saying if an individual is creating enough of a disturbance that the COPS are called, it should be OPTIONAL for him to decide to correctly identify who he is. Granted, there can be exceptions provided they lost their license but there are other ways that you can PROVE who you are.

I guess all you bleeding hearts support all the gang bangers out there that don't want to provide an ID because they know they have an outstanding warrant???

No, I'm just saying that it's not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia where the first thing they do is demand your papers, and not having them is itself a crime. You mentioned that someone not having ID should be arrested, well, to be arrested you have to commit a crime, and it's not a crime to not have ID.

The cop can ask to see ID, but a citizen can decline or not have any, there's nothing to arrest him for.

This point has nothing to do with creating a disturbance or having cops called on you. It's just that US citizens are not required to have ID.

[Blaine]

Washington is different. Merely having a gun does not meet the standard of being alarmed, or calling the cops. When the LEOs show up and find nothing more than a MWG minding his own business, that's supposed to be the end of it. I find it irritating when authorities decide to add on, or make up their own laws I find it unacceptable when courts allow them to do so (make law from the bench).

[L_Kilkenny]

The guy, the story and the video is a year or two old, already had this "conversation" on another board. What the video doesn't do is show the history leading up the the time they started taping and from what I've read and seen there is plenty. Glen Beck even covered it for a portion of ONE RADIO SHOW until the truths that the video DOESN'T show came to light. Then even he was smart enough to run away from the story. And that's saying something cause I ain't to sure about his smarts someday's. The guy did the wrong thing for the right reasons, I'll toss my support behind fella's that do the right thing for the right reasons. The guy is an idiot and an ***, I in NO WAY want him representing me.

IMO, the cops did a remarkable job, I would of done far worse.

[AJMD429]

What the video doesn't do is show the history leading up the the time they started taping and from what I've read and seen there is plenty.

In all fairness, those of us who have only the video as posted to go on are obviously at a disadvantage, and probably many of our 'differences' in the discussion are due to differences in what we assume may or may not have gone on behind-the-scenes. I'm not terribly surprised that there is "more to the story..."

The guy is an idiot and an ***.

I don't know that any of us would dispute that.

[Streetstar]

Some interesting observations (and some good ones -- even the ones that don't necessarily agree with my original "rant" )

I still have roughly the same opinion of the guy in the original video, and the many other guys that do the same thing, ------- but then I think to myself, -- what did the original bunch of folks act like when they dumped the tea in the harbor and are now considered patriots?

I still feel there is a fine line between "peaceful protest" for the purpose of enlightenment and proving a point -- and just being a weirdo that contributes to getting open carry rights stripped from states like California, who just needed a small amount of prompting to begin with

------ the guy in the original video I posted appears to be roughly in my same age group. He professes to be a vet and that's all well and good ------ I also appreciate that "open carry" is not just for hyper experienced enthusiasts who have a few nice revolvers , break open shotguns and leverguns --- its also for the guy who doesn't know much beyond the M-16/M4 , or M-14, -- a right is there for everybody, but I think that there should be a certain amount of dignity and decorum that goes with expressing one's rights
We are entering a somewhat new era when the police know they are under scrutiny everytime they stop someone because of the proliferation of tiny cameras everywhere- but just the same, we as citizens should continue to act as role models --- and especially so when we are obviously setting out to prove some kind of point
These self produced videos too often portray firearms enthusiasts as self absorbed , and almost comical men, rather than resolute, strong men who are out to make a difference. I truly would like to see the reaction to a group of men having brunch with a nice bbq rig on and a levergun slung muzzle-down across the back --- I almost guarantee it would be a different reception than a guy in a boonie hat with an M=4 copy slung ina ready position across his chest, with a Beretta in a thigh holster -------- but then again - the laws are not there to differentiate between the style of firearms used

I appreciate the exchange of ideas and viewpoints ---- as someone who has considered himself largely a "fiscal republican/social democrat" for a while - I appreciate the viewpoints, whether they are different than mine, or similar

Thanks gents

[L_Kilkenny]

Some interesting observations (and some good ones -- even the ones that don't necessarily agree with my original "rant" )

I still have roughly the same opinion of the guy in the original video, and the many other guys that do the same thing, ------- but then I think to myself, -- what did the original bunch of folks act like when they dumped the tea in the harbor and are now considered patriots?

I still feel there is a fine line between "peaceful protest" for the purpose of enlightenment and proving a point -- and just being a weirdo that contributes to getting open carry rights stripped from states like California, who just needed a small amount of prompting to begin with

------ the guy in the original video I posted appears to be roughly in my same age group. He professes to be a vet and that's all well and good ------ I also appreciate that "open carry" is not just for hyper experienced enthusiasts who have a few nice revolvers , break open shotguns and leverguns --- its also for the guy who doesn't know much beyond the M-16/M4 , or M-14, -- a right is there for everybody, but I think that there should be a certain amount of dignity and decorum that goes with expressing one's rights
We are entering a somewhat new era when the police know they are under scrutiny everytime they stop someone because of the proliferation of tiny cameras everywhere- but just the same, we as citizens should continue to act as role models --- and especially so when we are obviously setting out to prove some kind of point
These self produced videos too often portray firearms enthusiasts as self absorbed , and almost comical men, rather than resolute, strong men who are out to make a difference. I truly would like to see the reaction to a group of men having brunch with a nice bbq rig on and a levergun slung muzzle-down across the back --- I almost guarantee it would be a different reception than a guy in a boonie hat with an M=4 copy slung ina ready position across his chest, with a Beretta in a thigh holster -------- but then again - the laws are not there to differentiate between the style of firearms used

I appreciate the exchange of ideas and viewpoints ---- as someone who has considered himself largely a "fiscal republican/social democrat" for a while - I appreciate the viewpoints, whether they are different than mine, or similar

Thanks gents

IMO this has nothing little to do with the type of gun or the LEO's. The LEO's were only responding to a set up "man with a gun call" and followed the same procedures that any LEO would... they simply asked the "victim" (note the sarcasm) to set down his gun and were land blasted by this idiot and his rights. The LEO's didn't just happen to come along, they weren't waiting around the corner for him to pop out and they did nothing but prefer not to talk to an agitated individual with a gun in his hand. If the idiot would of un-slung the gun and set it down or even turned it around when approached by the LEO and kept a civil head it would of been a 5 min delay (if that) and he would of been on his way.

While i have no time for big headed cops I'm smart enough to know that if one ask me to put down a gun or step outta the car or hand over my license, etc that the best way to be on my way quickly is just do it. If the idiot had complied with the LEO and then was detained for any length of time or had his guns confiscated he'd have a beef..... A MIGHTY BIG ONE. He didn't have any beef in this case.

There's certain things in this day and age that you're gonna have to deal with in most areas if you open carry. And frequent 5 min delays by LEO's is one of them. In many areas I wouldn't have it any other way either.

[olyinaz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30TagPCNE4

Pretty good example of the other way it could have gone. The citizens were just as idiotic, but no one went to jail because it's just not necessary...unless....