thoughts on this video???

[RHenriksen]

Those are great, thanks

Guy was obviously within his rights to carry - far as we know (I'm no expert in Maine law). But I agree this seems like a "stunt" - maybe not preplanned, but he definitely rehearsed how he would respond if/when this happened. More power to him, but previous posts are correct that this does little to push RKBA rights forward and can and will turn some folks against "those crazy gun nuts"

That said, after watching I stumbled upon this series of videos and while I know nothing about this group and don't necessarily agree with all their opinions, they come off in this video as much more reasonable and willing to have honest give-and-take with police in a reasonable setting. The officer also comes off as very reasonable, willing to listen, and shows respect for these citizens. Overall much better vibe.


Vid 1
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 2
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 3
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 4
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 5
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MrShootert]

After giving the guy back his gun, follow him to his car get his plate number, and then give him tickets for failing to signal or driving 36 in a 35 zone. If he wants to be a jerk about the law...

[recaffeination]

Some people called Kng and Gandhi troublemakers for their "stunts" to draw attention to civil rights violations.

[steveincowtown]

After giving the guy back his gun, follow him to his car get his plate number, and then give him tickets for failing to signal or driving 36 in a 35 zone. If he wants to be a jerk about the law...

I don't agree with how some people use the 1st Amendment, but would not ever try to keep them for exercising.

Whether the guy was a jerk or not is moo point. The cop was wrong and his supervisor knew it has soon as he arrived.




" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

I'm with Steve and The Frog on this one...

The guy was not breaking any laws. I'll bet the LEO (who I thought handled a difficult situation very professionally) and his department got busy pretty quick revising their SOP's for MWAG calls...

If OC is legal, it's not RAS.

Yes... OC Dude could have been more polite. I'll bet he was pretty nervous about becoming a test case, as I would be in his shoes. Nervous translates to being a bit more confrontational in this case.... But OC Dude was not breaking any laws.

Breaking barriers takes gumption. Sometimes the folks with gumption aren't the most polished. I think he did the OC community a favor by making LE think more carefully about how to legally and properly handle OC.

The notion that a LE can demand your papers when you have done nothing illegal (making an anti "nervous" ) is DEFINITELY something to push back against. Yes, I would have been nicer about it, I think.

[harrycallahan]

Apparently he broke not one law. However, He is the poster child for gun control. When that state changes their laws for open carry and make it more restrictive then he will have gone from a completely irrelevant person to a relevant one, only for the wrong side.

[jimlongley]

I see a lot of this as being exactly what we CHLers get accused of by the anti-rights anti-gun nuts. "They are walking around armed, just waiting to kill someone."

If I'm walking around with a camera prepared to video and a cop stops me for open carry where it's legal to do so and I video the confrontation, I haven't done anything more than I am prepared to do to some miscreant who causes me to use my carry gun.

[Jumping Frog]

Finally, got the opportunity to view the video. I have no problem with anything the guy said or did and commend him for exercising his rights. If it was me, I believe I could have been slightly less abrasive, but I still would not have consented to detention, seizure, or requiring ID.

Any of you have never lived in an open carry state probably cannot appreciate what the lifestyle implications are. If he is an everyday open carrier, there is no doubt in my mind that he was not "trolling". I carried every day too, and 80% of the time it was open carry. I was also prepared to record any interaction for one simple reason. I have had people that I knew from online and subsequently met in real life get arrested and face trial for bogus charges from bullying policeman. Bogus charges like "Inducing Panic" or "Disorderly Conduct", when the plain language of the statute in that state stated the charges did not apply to lawful activities.

I've sat in courtrooms with other concerned 2A supporters as these people that were charged subsequently prevailed at trial.

With that in mind, of course I was ready to record any interaction. To not be prepared would have been crazy. It isn't "trolling", it is simple prudence. If you think he is a troll because he is aware of Terry v Ohio, or Brown v Texas, then I would point out that every citizen should be aware of those cases. When it comes to providing identification, I'd also point to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada that held even under circumstances where the officer reasonably suspects the person of a crime, all they can ask for is his name. Not address. Not DOB. No drivers license. Name only.

Back to the activism, the net result is these people made a fundamental change in that state. Lawsuits were filed and settled with the net results being the city agreeing to train the police force and pay attorney fees. City and prosecutors have written guidance to their police departments outlining the stop and seizure issues. Volunteers sat down and drafted documents outlined that legal case for open carry under state and federal law, along with some of the prosecutor opinions. Then volunteers mailed these packets to every police chief for every police force in the state.

The next step is introducing state legislation that mandates change in the police officer training curriculum for that state to deal with lawful carrying of firearms, concealed and unconcealed.

You may be uncomfortable with other people exercising their rights, but I have seen profound, positive change in the last 10 years brought about in this manner.

[smoothoperator]

Apparently he broke not one law. However, He is the poster child for gun control. When that state changes their laws for open carry and make it more restrictive then he will have gone from a completely irrelevant person to a relevant one, only for the wrong side.

Like someone said, that would be like passing laws to discriminate against Blacks because of MLK.

[A-R]

Apparently he broke not one law. However, He is the poster child for gun control. When that state changes their laws for open carry and make it more restrictive then he will have gone from a completely irrelevant person to a relevant one, only for the wrong side.

Like someone said, that would be like passing laws to discriminate against Blacks because of MLK.

Oh puh-LEEZE! The guy in the OP video is no MLK. Not even close, and I agree with him.

Takes more than a few snide YouTube videos to equal Dr. King, and comparisons to the man are about as overused and ignorant as the rampant overused comparisons from both sides of the partisan divide to their opponents as Nazis or Hitler.

[smoothoperator]

Stealing a candy bar is not the same as stealing a diamond ring but they're both theft.

But that's not the point because I wasn't commenting about him. I was commenting about the hypothetical legislators who would use this as an excuse to deny the civil rights of people a million times more decent, moral and beneficial to society than those hypothetical legislators.

[The Annoyed Man]

Guy was obviously within his rights to carry - far as we know (I'm no expert in Maine law). But I agree this seems like a "stunt" - maybe not preplanned, but he definitely rehearsed how he would respond if/when this happened. More power to him, but previous posts are correct that this does little to push RKBA rights forward and can and will turn some folks against "those crazy gun nuts"

That said, after watching I stumbled upon this series of videos and while I know nothing about this group and don't necessarily agree with all their opinions, they come off in this video as much more reasonable and willing to have honest give-and-take with police in a reasonable setting. The officer also comes off as very reasonable, willing to listen, and shows respect for these citizens. Overall much better vibe.


Vid 1
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 2
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 3
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 4
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vid 5
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just got done watching these videos and they were interesting. Thanks for posting them. I have a few reactions....

1. The Lt is a mensch, a heck of a good cop. I was impressed with him.

2. I very much appreciated the respect he showed his interviewers, and the respect they showed him.

3. This series of videos really only peripherally had anything to do with open carry, and were actually a promotion for a set of strongly libertarian economic policies, ranging over many other issues than simply the right to carry a firearm. There was much talk about victimless crime, the war on drugs, and the interlocutor's forays into privately owned roadways and letting the free market create competing police agencies for hire, and so on. Can't say I agree with some of it.

4. Specifically, the officer gave a good defense of drivers license requirements:

• If the mob doesn't want them, we won't have them.
• We do have them because that is what the majority of people want.
• Beyond that, they're a good idea.
• Therefore, he has no problem enforcing it.

5. The questions about whether or not he would enforce a morally reprehensible law were interesting, but his answer was more interesting yet: "To date, I've never encountered a law that was so reprehensible that I just couldn't enforce it." Despite that, he thought that the war on drugs was stupid.

6. I admired the young folks idealism and commitment to their libertarian beliefs. I think that their beliefs are impractical and don't take into either A) human nature, or B) the impossibility of converting millions of miles of existing public roadways to private ownership.

[jmra]

I said IMO he was trolling. Still believe that to be the case, but could be proved wrong if I had a full description of his actions prior to the police being called.

Bottom line, he seems overly prepared IMO for a police confrontation. He was belligerent in his responses, spouting case law. As a former LEO, I will tell you attitude is everything on a stop. If a person is very polite and cooperative, it sets the tone of the encounter much better than if the person sounds like a jail-house lawyer. I do not know the laws in Maine, so as to the officer confiscating his weapon before ascertaining if there really was a threat may have been improper. But had he just said 'Sorry, didn't mean to cause any alarm. Just heading the coffee shop...' instead of taking the 5th there on the street and refusing to politely contest the detention, he would have been on his way quickly IMO. The old adage you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar goes with this one.

Its not often that I disagree with you but I have to on this one.

1. Everyone should know their rights and be prepared with the knowledge to defend those rights (after watching this video I am embarrassed that I am as uniformed as I am).
2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This officer was obviously wrong and broke a number of laws. He also stated that this illegal activity is common practice in his department. As far as I'm concerned he should be relieved of duty.
3. It is not my legal responsibility to be polite and cooperative when my legal rights are being trampled upon by someone who is charged with protecting said rights.
4. You stated that the victim should have stated that he was "sorry". For what? He didn't violate any laws or do anything wrong. Are you suggesting that because he was speaking to someone "in authority" that he should cower and be submissive?
5. You stated he took the "5th". The only thing that came anywhere close to that was when he stated that he did not want to state his name because it would be included in a report. The rest of the video he simply refused to answer questions until his own legitimate questions about why he was being stopped where answered. He never received a proper (legal) answer from the officer. If this encounter went south, it lies directly on the shoulders of the officer and his illegal actions.
6. The old adage you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar... - fact is you catch a lot more flies with manure than honey.

Could this have been handled differently? Maybe. Will this officer ever be this foolish again? I doubt it. I would be willing to bet that this department receives additional training that will benefit all those who choose to legally open carry in that city. All because this guy, I'll call him Rosa Parks, choose not to quietly go to the back of the bus.

I do commend him for taking the time that we should all take to learn our rights. As was stated previously, rights not exercised are rights lost.

Don't mean to sound disrespectful in any way, but too many people are rolling over and we are all paying the price.

[jimlongley]

I said IMO he was trolling. Still believe that to be the case, but could be proved wrong if I had a full description of his actions prior to the police being called.

Bottom line, he seems overly prepared IMO for a police confrontation. He was belligerent in his responses, spouting case law. As a former LEO, I will tell you attitude is everything on a stop. If a person is very polite and cooperative, it sets the tone of the encounter much better than if the person sounds like a jail-house lawyer. I do not know the laws in Maine, so as to the officer confiscating his weapon before ascertaining if there really was a threat may have been improper. But had he just said 'Sorry, didn't mean to cause any alarm. Just heading the coffee shop...' instead of taking the 5th there on the street and refusing to politely contest the detention, he would have been on his way quickly IMO. The old adage you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar goes with this one.

Its not often that I disagree with you but I have to on this one.

1. Everyone should know their rights and be prepared with the knowledge to defend those rights (after watching this video I am embarrassed that I am as uniformed as I am).
2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This officer was obviously wrong and broke a number of laws. He also stated that this illegal activity is common practice in his department. As far as I'm concerned he should be relieved of duty.
3. It is not my legal responsibility to be polite and cooperative when my legal rights are being trampled upon by someone who is charged with protecting said rights.
4. You stated that the victim should have stated that he was "sorry". For what? He didn't violate any laws or do anything wrong. Are you suggesting that because he was speaking to someone "in authority" that he should cower and be submissive?
5. You stated he took the "5th". The only thing that came anywhere close to that was when he stated that he did not want to state his name because it would be included in a report. The rest of the video he simply refused to answer questions until his own legitimate questions about why he was being stopped where answered. He never received a proper (legal) answer from the officer. If this encounter went south, it lies directly on the shoulders of the officer and his illegal actions.
6. The old adage you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar... - fact is you catch a lot more flies with manure than honey.

Could this have been handled differently? Maybe. Will this officer ever be this foolish again? I doubt it. I would be willing to bet that this department receives additional training that will benefit all those who choose to legally open carry in that city. All because this guy, I'll call him Rosa Parks, choose not to quietly go to the back of the bus.

I do commend him for taking the time that we should all take to learn our rights. As was stated previously, rights not exercised are rights lost.

Don't mean to sound disrespectful in any way, but too many people are rolling over and we are all paying the price.

Me too Keith. We don't know what transpired before he started videoing, and the cop was asking an awful lot of questions that sounded to me like he was trying to build a case where he had none. The facts at the beginning appear to me to have been that Rosa Parks was legally carrying a handgun in the open, and that the cop responded to a MWG complaint. The cop, instead of informing dispatch/original complainant that the MWG was legally carrying according to the laws of the state, instead chose to hassle, illegally disarm, brandish that gun (for the lack of a better term when a cop violates rule #1), and trample all over the rights of Rosa.

Once again, lots of us go out every day "overly prepared" for a bad guy confrontation, and I don't see any difference here, particularly if, as the officer stated, that's the way the commonly handle such things.

As this thread goes on, I am amazed at the number of people who say they would just meekly submit to this administrative harassment. The cop had no legal right to ask for ID, the cop had no legal right to detain, the cop had no legal right to disarm, IMO, the cop should be in jail.

[WildBill]

Thanks to ixslr8 for the OP of the video.

My thoughts:

First of all I don't care whether the OC Guy was on a stroll or a "troll" for an encounter with the police. I also don't care if he is an internet lawyer, law student or member of the Maine bar.

He knew the law, his rights and had all of the citations memorized. He did a good job of defending himself. IMO, he was not belligerent towards the LEO. He did not call him a pig or Nazi or a facist or threaten a lawsuit. He stood his ground and asked for the LEO to call his supervisor, which he did.

I think the encounter went as well as possible under the circumstances. The OC Guy didn't get a free ride downtown and the LEO [properly] backed off without presenting an attitude.

Is this the way I would have handled it? No. I would have been compliant and answered the questions and shown my ID. Not because OC Guy was wrong, but because that is my personality. I admire and applaud Mr. OC Guy. I wish I had the nerve to do what he did.