Interesting

[jimlongley]

I don't think he was hunting. I think he was walking along roads (looking to start controversy). While it is legal to carry a rifle, it seems most that do do so to prove a point. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case here. He was too ready with camera to record it all and his responces were all about oh my god my rights are being violated. I don't agree with how it was handled but I also don't agree with carrying for a point. While it IS legal, all you do is make people nervous and dislike guns more. Whether or not you want to hear it, it is the truth. This guy went out to get attention and he got it. Then to make a site asking for donations immediately on his own?!?
Just my thoughts on this.
Brian

Even if he was, the law is the law, and he was (at least as far as I can tell) doing nothing against the law.

[blackgold]

I agree. I still think we shouldn't be going out of our ways to incite incidents.
Brian

[flechero]

....He was too ready with camera to record it all .....

As is anyone who carries a smart phone... I suspect 95% of us [or more] could record an incident with what we already carry on person.

[blackgold]

Yep, I doubt I'd think to though. I just think most of the I'm going to carry until I get stopped guys aren't giving the image I think should be portrayed and don't do any gun enthusiasts justice, especially in our current climate
Brian

[EEllis]

It"s also fair to note that he was not charged with anything relating to carrying the rifle. If I remember it was for obstruction. When you are carrying a visible weapon and there is no obvious use or need for said weapon I don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to stop and talk to you. If you are angry and confrontational from the start then it's likely you will have issues when if you were calm and matter of fact about it you may very well have gone your own way. Now that doesn't mean I agree because I didn't see the whole encounter and legally you should be able to carry a rifle but if a cop feels there is a need to stop and check you out then you should comply. You don't need to comply with any requests you are not required to by law, but if the cops have a differing view of what's legal you don't start yelling about your rights and physicly resisting. You may state that you do not wish to comply and you do not agree with said actions to get it on the "record" but we don't hold court out in the field.

[Gat0rs]

When you are carrying a visible weapon and there is no obvious use or need for said weapon I don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to stop and talk to you.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Unless you are suspected of committing a crime, the police have no right to stop you, period. It is for this same reason police cannot randomly stop people in the ghetto and interrogate them, or run the license plate of every person leaving a liquor store, they have no reason to suspect you committed any crime.

Under Texas law a concealed carry holder may be disarmed by the police "in the lawful" conduct of their duties if they reasonably feel they need to for their or your protection. If they stop you for no reason, they are not acting lawfully, and therefor cannot legally disarm you, period.

[bdickens]

It"s also fair to note that he was not charged with anything relating to carrying the rifle. If I remember it was for obstruction. When you are carrying a visible weapon and there is no obvious use or need for said weapon I don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to stop and talk to you. If you are angry and confrontational from the start then it's likely you will have issues when if you were calm and matter of fact about it you may very well have gone your own way. Now that doesn't mean I agree because I didn't see the whole encounter and legally you should be able to carry a rifle but if a cop feels there is a need to stop and check you out then you should comply. You don't need to comply with any requests you are not required to by law, but if the cops have a differing view of what's legal you don't start yelling about your rights and physicly resisting. You may state that you do not wish to comply and you do not agree with said actions to get it on the "record" but we don't hold court out in the field.

It is called the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs."

[Paragrouper]

Michael Yon, who is very pro-gun rights, has had a number of interesting articles about this guy Grisham.... I know Yon to be a pretty decent guy

TAM,

Just outta curiosity how well do you know Yon? I can tell you in the SF community, he is pretty much PNG'ed (persona non grata) for selling out Brothers, making false accusations and really stretching the two years of team time he had.

Mr. Yon may write an entertaining story but his former brothers, myself included, have issues with his credibility.

As far as the Grisham cat, from wathcing his videos of the encounter he seemed to be out to make a spectacle of himself. I guess now he'll have something to blog about.

[K.Mooneyham]

Sounds like this is a bad situation all the way around. You've got a potentially liberal-progressive DA in a conservative area, with all that entails and an over-the-top "gun rights" guy who may have gotten mouthy with law enforcement who stopped him because ???? (perhaps some busy body calling in MAWG, oh my goodness, we never had that back where we were living before). This is the kind of stuff that just drives me up the wall.

[C-dub]

Wonder what the odds are of a judge scolding both of them and letting them off with a warning.

[EEllis]

When you are carrying a visible weapon and there is no obvious use or need for said weapon I don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to stop and talk to you.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Unless you are suspected of committing a crime, the police have no right to stop you, period. It is for this same reason police cannot randomly stop people in the ghetto and interrogate them, or run the license plate of every person leaving a liquor store, they have no reason to suspect you committed any crime.

Under Texas law a concealed carry holder may be disarmed by the police "in the lawful" conduct of their duties if they reasonably feel they need to for their or your protection. If they stop you for no reason, they are not acting lawfully, and therefor cannot legally disarm you, period.

Reasonable suspicion is the term and how does that disagree with anything I said? People need to realise that in this case what you think is reasonable has no effect on the legality of what an officer does. It's his belief and and how it's viewed by the courts that counts.

[EEllis]

It is called the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs."

So? There are plenty of things that are absolutely legal and lawful that officers have no right to prevent you from doing that are still suspicious in some circumstances and can cause a lawful stop by police.

[baldeagle]

I know CJ personally. I met him in person at a MilBlog conference in DC back when I had my original blog. We corresponded by email for quite some time before he convinced me to join the milblog ring and come to the conference. He helped me tremendously to overcome my fear of admitting I was a veteran. (Many Vietnam era vets will know exactly what I mean.) He restored my pride in my service and got me to realize that I had nothing to be ashamed of. I can assure you he is not a gun rights nut and certainly is not what he's being portrayed as here. (I don't talk about this much because it's still very emotional for me, but you can read about what CJ and Steve Schippert did for me here.)

For your information, CJ earned his Bronze Star the hard way. His counter intelligence unit was ambushed. He attacked the Iraqis with nothing but a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade and broke the back of the ambush. I wonder how many of you criticizing him now would have the courage to do that?

As a vet I find it disgusting that people who ought to know better would denigrate his service by claiming he didn't earn his medals and besmirch the reputation of every military man or woman who doesn't serve on the front line. Every person in the military serves a purpose. The guys firing the bullets wouldn't survive without the support of the supply chain guys and the mess cooks and the transportation guys and all the rest who honorably serve yet never, or seldom, see combat. Every one of those fine men and women who serve deserves our respect and at least the decency to not speak ill of them from the ignorance of petty disagreements.

Some of you have chosen to criticize a man you don't know for a situation you don't have all the facts about. I'm not going to speculate as to your reasons. I'll simply ask you to stop now. If you don't have something good to say then perhaps you should consider not posting any more on this topic.

Is CJ controversial? Yes, he is. But that's because he doesn't pull any punches about what's going on. The powers that be always hate those kinds of people and do everything in their power to denigrate them. But we, here, ought to know better. If you care enough to find out what's really going on with CJ, read this Army Times article about the troubles caused by his blogging and his wife's blogging.

If you can't stand up for the rights of someone you dislike or someone who is controversial, for whatever reason, then you don't deserve to have any rights.

[Dadtodabone]

Welcome Home BE.

[blackgold]

I know nothing of his service or medals nor does that concern me. I am glad he has helped you. If you are offended by what I said I'm not sorry though. I read a little then watched the video. I saw someone trying to create an incident and involving his son in it. I disagree with that. I also disagree with most of the open carry "educators" on YouTube as they only enforce stereotypes others have about gun enthusiasts. This guy is probably a great guy I just don't agree with this incident as a whole. I do think police handled it poorly at best but I believe he was trolling.
Brian