No, You Can't Slap Cuffs on Peaceful Gun Owners

[ScooterSissy]

Pretty mad after watching this video [abbreviated profanity deleted] a guy in Oregon legally open carrying a rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhSH928N9b8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was ultimately released and the weapon was returned to him, but I'm sure it was a very stressful situation to be drawn down on by multiple officers while they detain and disarm you.

His hair might of caused him to look like he was up to no good. He might of been profiled.

That guy was absolutely trolling for cops to rouste him. He was not "just minding his own business"; his business on that day was luring cops into a confrontation. Why else have his barely articulate girlfriend recording his walk like that? Normal people don't run a videolog of their walk down the street - unless they are doing something highly unusual and entertaining, or, unless they expect to have to record a police encounter.

Now, that is a separate issue from whether or not the cops behaved correctly, but he was looking for trouble, and the cops gave it to him.

No sympathy from me. I don't care about open carry, but I do care about deliberately trying to draw police out as if LEOs are our enemies.

His wife started recording when he saw the cop car coming towards him. Actually pretty smart because then the police know that they have to tread carefully.

That's not what I saw at all. She started the recording, and 7 cars passed them (oncoming, I didn't count the ones going the other way), the red light about 2 blocks up from them cycled at least once, and then at around 2:08 he turns around and tells her about the police car. She asks "where", and he starts his phone recording, and stated what they were doing and what happened.

Not everyone open carrying is trolling. Some people want to engage in conversations with people. Some people do it because it's their right to do it. I find it appalling that you're defending the officers for detaining someone who has not committed a crime. This is a 4th Amendment violation. Without reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress or about to be committed, a police officer has no authority to detain someone or seize their property. It doesn't matter if the guy was expecting police to show up. Police can absolutely engage in a consensual conversation with the man, but by no means should be detaining him without reasonable suspicion. I know it's National Police Week, but this is just ridiculous. You're blaming the open carrier for the way the encounter went instead of the police who were actually in the wrong by detaining someone who had not committed a crime.

Again, it's not about your views on openly carrying a rifle. Remember Black v. US. A firearm, where legally carried, does not create reasonable suspicion. Unless the officers had knowledge that this guy was a felon, they had no reasonable suspicion to detain him. Personally, I hope this guy sues the department for civil rights violations and unlawful detainment.

And, as was already stated, we don't know how the 911 MWAG call went either. What I find appalling is that anyone would judge a situation as if they have all the facts, when there was only one side presented here.

[ScooterSissy]

Pretty mad after watching this video [abbreviated profanity deleted] a guy in Oregon legally open carrying a rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhSH928N9b8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was ultimately released and the weapon was returned to him, but I'm sure it was a very stressful situation to be drawn down on by multiple officers while they detain and disarm you.

Sorry, as much as I'm a proponent of gun rights, I think the notion of "I'm going to strap on a mean looking weapon, get my 7 months pregnant wife to follow me recording, and walk down a busy road trolling to get stopped" is not the height of good sound judgement.

What, pray tell, makes a weapon "mean looking"?

It was a deliberately snarky comment, but with a grain of truth. We all know that AR 15's are commonly called assault rifles, and mistaken for machine guns. They're not, just just "scary looking". I have little doubt in my mind that this guy picked that weapon because of its visual effect.

But in this case he was wearing a holstered handgun.

Quite frankly, and possibly because I know a little about guns, I consider someone carrying an '03 Springfield to be carrying a much "meaner looking" weapon than an AK or AR. You won't see a gang banger in Ferguson carrying one, but you might see a SWAT sniper carrying something that resembles it, and therein lies the rub. In my eyes, the meanness of the weapon is a function of its effectiveness, a function of its true firepower. If that gangbanger stands at the end of the block and sprays a whole magazine up and down with no effect, and that SWAT guy takes him out with one well placed shot, which one had the more effective weapon?

But in any case, I guess I just don't get this societal thing of reacting to some imagined meanness, particularly when it is just that, imagined.

Multiple links to videos. The video I was talking about was not someone wearing a holstered handgun, it was someone with an AR-15 slung in a near-ready position.

[VMI77]

I wish I could find the video again, but I once saw a video of a guy taken out of his car with three policemen around him. He had both hands barely in his pockets. Suddenly, he whipped out a pistol, shot the officer standing next to him the chest (he survived because of his vest), and a second officer who fell after stumbling backwards (he died). The third offier pursued him shooting as the did so. None of the shots hit. They eventually caught him.

It happened in a split second, and two officers were shot and one lost his life.

The guy in the video had the gun slung in very nearly a ready position. It would probably take less than a second to bring it up firing. A police officer coming up to him doesn't know what his plans are. I can understand the cop drawing on him. At the same time, I feel the guy probably should have been let go a lot sooner.

The only argument you're making here is an argument against not just open carry, but ANY non LEO carrying a gun or a potential weapon of any kind, and concealed carry, since someone with a CHL could do exactly what was done in the example you give. And since a criminal doesn't need a CHL the justification you give for an officer stopping, detaining, and drawing his weapon applies to ALL people, not even just concealed carriers. From the police perspective you give, since: 1) someone could draw from concealment in a split second; 2) an approaching police officer doesn't know what anyone's plans are. So why not draw down on everyone, just in case? A kid walking down the street with a baseball bat might take a swing at an officer's head....better draw down on him too.

And why stop there? An officer could just be sitting in a Starbucks drinking a cup of coffee and someone could come up behind him and shoot him in the back...that's happened before too, and on more than one occasion. So why should anyone but a LEO be able to legally carry a gun under any circumstances? Your argument here essentially boils down to "out of sight out of mind." Someone with a rifle over their shoulder is dangerous because you can see the gun, but if he's concealing a gun, no worries...unless the police are going to treat every single contact by drawing down on the person.

I used to walk around with long guns openly carried all the time when I was a teen, including down neighborhood streets and into the local convenience store. Not once did a LEO draw down on me. I was stopped once while out hunting by a game warden who asked to see my shotgun and then checked to see if it was plugged. He didn't unload it...just screwed off the mag cap to see if the plug was there. No one called the police about a teen with a gun....and therein lies the problem. No one called the police because it wasn't unusual to see people with a rifle or a shotgun walking down the street, or in a store, or in a parking lot. Never saw anyone carry into a restaurant but then I didn't go to restaurants that much.

So it's sort of a chicken an egg thing. The culture has made carrying a gun unusual, and hence, scary to a lot of uninformed people, and even the police. But the less it happens the more unusual it becomes and the scarier it is to more and more people. That's the way you lose your gun and self-defense rights like people have in Europe, the UK, Canada, and Australia. I posted recently about a British TV series called "Fortitude." It takes place on an arctic island where people routinely carry rifles over their shoulders everywhere they go, including into restaurants, banks, grocery stores, and the police station. No one breaks a sweat. Too bad it's fiction because I like that culture.

[VMI77]

Pretty mad after watching this video [abbreviated profanity deleted] a guy in Oregon legally open carrying a rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhSH928N9b8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was ultimately released and the weapon was returned to him, but I'm sure it was a very stressful situation to be drawn down on by multiple officers while they detain and disarm you.

Sorry, as much as I'm a proponent of gun rights, I think the notion of "I'm going to strap on a mean looking weapon, get my 7 months pregnant wife to follow me recording, and walk down a busy road trolling to get stopped" is not the height of good sound judgement.

What, pray tell, makes a weapon "mean looking"?

It was a deliberately snarky comment, but with a grain of truth. We all know that AR 15's are commonly called assault rifles, and mistaken for machine guns. They're not, just just "scary looking". I have little doubt in my mind that this guy picked that weapon because of its visual effect.

But in this case he was wearing a holstered handgun.

Quite frankly, and possibly because I know a little about guns, I consider someone carrying an '03 Springfield to be carrying a much "meaner looking" weapon than an AK or AR. You won't see a gang banger in Ferguson carrying one, but you might see a SWAT sniper carrying something that resembles it, and therein lies the rub. In my eyes, the meanness of the weapon is a function of its effectiveness, a function of its true firepower. If that gangbanger stands at the end of the block and sprays a whole magazine up and down with no effect, and that SWAT guy takes him out with one well placed shot, which one had the more effective weapon?

But in any case, I guess I just don't get this societal thing of reacting to some imagined meanness, particularly when it is just that, imagined.

The more effective weapon wasn't the gun, it was the guy using it.

[The Annoyed Man]

Pretty mad after watching this video [abbreviated profanity deleted] a guy in Oregon legally open carrying a rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhSH928N9b8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was ultimately released and the weapon was returned to him, but I'm sure it was a very stressful situation to be drawn down on by multiple officers while they detain and disarm you.

His hair might of caused him to look like he was up to no good. He might of been profiled.

That guy was absolutely trolling for cops to rouste him. He was not "just minding his own business"; his business on that day was luring cops into a confrontation. Why else have his barely articulate girlfriend recording his walk like that? Normal people don't run a videolog of their walk down the street - unless they are doing something highly unusual and entertaining, or, unless they expect to have to record a police encounter.

Now, that is a separate issue from whether or not the cops behaved correctly, but he was looking for trouble, and the cops gave it to him.

No sympathy from me. I don't care about open carry, but I do care about deliberately trying to draw police out as if LEOs are our enemies.

His wife started recording when he saw the cop car coming towards him. Actually pretty smart because then the police know that they have to tread carefully.

Not everyone open carrying is trolling. Some people want to engage in conversations with people. Some people do it because it's their right to do it. I find it appalling that you're defending the officers for detaining someone who has not committed a crime.

You evidently missed my follow up post. I'm not defending the police. I AM saying that the person's actions were provocative. I did not say illegal. I did not say immoral (except for the part where he puts his 7-months pregnant wife in harm's way.....that is immoral). I agreed with cb1000r that the police behaved poorly. But I still maintain that only either a stupid person, or a deliberately obtuse person, would fail to understand that strolling down the street with a barely slung AR with a magazine in place might cause other citizens who also have some rights to be alarmed at the sight.

And I LOVE AR15s and have owned several of them and currently own two.......along with a FN SCAR 17 and a tactical shotgun. I'm not against people having or using these things. I'm not EVEN against people carrying them or having them in their car. But CONTEXT is everything. If you're walking down a country road or out in a field, nobody is going to care, including the police most of the time. All I'm saying is that you have to be some kind of dummy not to understand that it will freak some people out if you OC an AR15 down what appears to be a busy street, and those people will call the police, and the police have to respond to see what's up. In any state where OC of a long gun is legal - including Texas - there are two possible police interactions. In one, the police show up, ask you a couple of questions, determine that this is much to do about nothing, and they leave you alone. In the other, the police show up in heart attack mode like the guy did in this video, and they don't handle it well. But it starts with someone carrying an AR15 down a busy thoroughfare, and only a complete knucklehead would deny the possibility that it might freak some people out, and that their freakout would elicit a police response. That's just plain denial.

And let's be honest here......it WAS trolling, because the husband was walking for a good long time, being video recorded by his wife, before the cops showed up at the far end of the street. The first cop doesn't come through the intersection until 2:18 into the video, and it's after that that he and his wife start communicating specifically about the police. Before that, it was more generalized conversation. And by the way, nobody I know in their right mind walks around recording all of their actions unless they are expecting trouble. THAT's how I know it was trolling.

Yes, the police behaved poorly. Yes, they executed a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. But he was aware that his actions might result in a police confrontation.

Here's an analogy. You have every right to sleep in the nude. You also have every right to go commando under your clothing while walking around in public. You have every right to walk around naked out in the middle of the country where you won't bother other people with your nudity. But if you think you can walk around Southlake Town Center in the nude in the middle of the afternoon and NOT have a police encounter, then you are delusional. Even in cities that made the mistake of becoming lax about public nudity (San Francisco, for instance), where it is pretty much no longer a crime, it still disturbs enough people that police get called, they show up, and the nekkid man gets rousted. That is the equivalent of what happened in this video.

It reminds me of that old story about the Texas Ranger who was invited to attend a luncheon of local spinsters to talk about neighborhood crime watch. One old biddy siddled up to him, looked disapprovingly at his sidearm, and asked "are you expecting trouble, officer?" "No Ma'am" he replied. "If I was expecting trouble, I would have brought a rifle." And that's at the heart of this. In the grand scheme of things, people carry sidearms for self-defense, and they carry long guns when they are expecting trouble. That's why it freaks some people out to see someone else carrying a long gun down the street. It looks like he's expecting trouble. I understand that it's his right. I understand that others don't have an informed reason to be afraid......but that doesn't change the fact that they are afraid, and that is a reality you have to deal with, particularly if a failure to deal with it ends up costing you a violation of your 4th Amendment protections.

[mr1337]

The more effective weapon wasn't the gun, it was the guy using it.

I am the weapon. All else are just tools.

[jimlongley]

The more effective weapon wasn't the gun, it was the guy using it.

I am the weapon. All else are just tools.

Exactly, thus there are no "mean looking weapons."

[treadlightly]

I find myself strangely conflicted.

A right that can't be used for reasons of social correctness is a lost right. I've carried a Mini-14 in a gun rack in my pickup window. Later I moved the gun rack to the back of the seat for better security, but not out of bashfulness. I never got harassed for carrying the rifle around, and it never crossed my mind I would be - a rifle in a gun rack in a pickup in Texas? In better days it was commonplace. My rifle, for what it's worth, was never loaded. When it was in the gun rack, it was like a bumper sticker. I supported gun rights.

I think if these open carry folks really wanted to further the dialog, they would seek the equivalent of carrying a holstered pistol. I wouldn't carry an AR-15 on a sling, but I'd be very skeptical of anyone who would say I couldn't walk from one place to another with a rifle "holstered" in a gun bag.

Open gun, loaded at the ready - that's threatening, and disturbing the peace. A firearm carried in a way that demonstrates it's being carried safely - in a holster - that's a different story.

On the other hand, the right must not be infringed.

Hence, I feel conflicted and a little icky for any opinions in harmony with open-carry doofuses.

[The Annoyed Man]

I find myself strangely conflicted.

A right that can't be used for reasons of social correctness is a lost right. I've carried a Mini-14 in a gun rack in my pickup window. Later I moved the gun rack to the back of the seat for better security, but not out of bashfulness. I never got harassed for carrying the rifle around, and it never crossed my mind I would be - a rifle in a gun rack in a pickup in Texas? In better days it was commonplace. My rifle, for what it's worth, was never loaded. When it was in the gun rack, it was like a bumper sticker. I supported gun rights.

I think if these open carry folks really wanted to further the dialog, they would seek the equivalent of carrying a holstered pistol. I wouldn't carry an AR-15 on a sling, but I'd be very skeptical of anyone who would say I couldn't walk from one place to another with a rifle "holstered" in a gun bag.

Open gun, loaded at the ready - that's threatening, and disturbing the peace. A firearm carried in a way that demonstrates it's being carried safely - in a holster - that's a different story.

On the other hand, the right must not be infringed.

Hence, I feel conflicted and a little icky for any opinions in harmony with open-carry doofuses.

Bingo.

[VMI77]

Here's an analogy. You have every right to sleep in the nude. You also have every right to go commando under your clothing while walking around in public. You have every right to walk around naked out in the middle of the country where you won't bother other people with your nudity. But if you think you can walk around Southlake Town Center in the nude in the middle of the afternoon and NOT have a police encounter, then you are delusional. Even in cities that made the mistake of becoming lax about public nudity (San Francisco, for instance), where it is pretty much no longer a crime, it still disturbs enough people that police get called, they show up, and the nekkid man gets rousted. That is the equivalent of what happened in this video.

My understanding is that it is now legal in Austin for women to be topless in public. So, not "nude" but sort of:

Austin is the only city in Texas to pass the "topless test," according to gotopless.com, where topless women can walk through the town without being arrested.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/ ... 623514.php

So we've got a little San Fran in Texas.

[ScooterSissy]

I wish I could find the video again, but I once saw a video of a guy taken out of his car with three policemen around him. He had both hands barely in his pockets. Suddenly, he whipped out a pistol, shot the officer standing next to him the chest (he survived because of his vest), and a second officer who fell after stumbling backwards (he died). The third offier pursued him shooting as the did so. None of the shots hit. They eventually caught him.

It happened in a split second, and two officers were shot and one lost his life.

The guy in the video had the gun slung in very nearly a ready position. It would probably take less than a second to bring it up firing. A police officer coming up to him doesn't know what his plans are. I can understand the cop drawing on him. At the same time, I feel the guy probably should have been let go a lot sooner.

The only argument you're making here is an argument against not just open carry, but ANY non LEO carrying a gun or a potential weapon of any kind, and concealed carry, since someone with a CHL could do exactly what was done in the example you give...

Actually, that's not "the only argument" I'm making, but I'm about done making my point. Folks can choose to accept a difference of opinion or not, but I will give it one more shot.

This is not like a CHL holder carrying, and the police forcing him to disarm. First of all, we have absolutely zero knowledge of what type of MWAG call the police received. It very well may have been what was mentioned prior, someone calling in saying a man and his pregnant wife are having an altercation, and he's got a rifle in his hand. Policeman rolls up, and sees the guy carrying the way he was, I might have approached him the same way. Especially in light of the fact that when the armed man saw the policeman, he reached for his phone and started it recording.

If handgun open carry were legal in Texas, and I walked around with my hand on the butt of my gun (which is the nearest equivalent to the way the guy in the video was carrying his AR semi-ready), and a cop got a MWAG call, saw me fiddiling with something else in my other hand still keeping my hand on the butt of the gun, I would understand if he approached me at the ready, depending on what was said at the call.

If this whole thing had played out differently, with the same visuals, and the cop pulled up casually asking what was going on, and the guy ripped up with the AR spraying his wife and everyone around, I'm sure we'd be hearing about the incompetence of the police.

I once got a post-2am knock on the door at my home. By the time I got dressed with my gun to answer the door, the "visitor" was already walking away. He was in the shadows of my tree, so I couldn't see him well. The gun was in my hand behind my back.

Finally, the guy walked into the light, and I could see he was a policeman. I held my position, gun behind my back, and announced that I had a CHL, and my gun was behind my back, and I was going to put it down slowly. 2 minutes later we were both laughing about it (he came to my house because my daughter's GPS had just been stolen, and recovered), he said he would have answered the door the same way.

I was 100% within my rights to have my gun in my home, and in my hand. I was under no obligation to explain to him why I had my gun. But I wanted a good story instead of a bad one.

Wonder what would have happened had I come out with the gun out instead of behind my back, on my front porch, and started fiddling with my phone (also known as an unknown object, to the policeman). Keep in mind, I would have been within my rights to do all of that.

In the video, the police over-reacted in my opinion. As soon as he was disarmed, they should have let him up.
The gun toting guy was trolling though, he just got a bigger catch than he anticipated.

He was lucky. Often, when you get two people overplaying their hands, it comes out much worse.

[The Annoyed Man]

So we've got a little San Fran in Texas.

But we all knew that already.

[VMI77]

I wish I could find the video again, but I once saw a video of a guy taken out of his car with three policemen around him. He had both hands barely in his pockets. Suddenly, he whipped out a pistol, shot the officer standing next to him the chest (he survived because of his vest), and a second officer who fell after stumbling backwards (he died). The third offier pursued him shooting as the did so. None of the shots hit. They eventually caught him.

It happened in a split second, and two officers were shot and one lost his life.

The guy in the video had the gun slung in very nearly a ready position. It would probably take less than a second to bring it up firing. A police officer coming up to him doesn't know what his plans are. I can understand the cop drawing on him. At the same time, I feel the guy probably should have been let go a lot sooner.

The only argument you're making here is an argument against not just open carry, but ANY non LEO carrying a gun or a potential weapon of any kind, and concealed carry, since someone with a CHL could do exactly what was done in the example you give...

Actually, that's not "the only argument" I'm making, but I'm about done making my point. Folks can choose to accept a difference of opinion or not, but I will give it one more shot.

This is not like a CHL holder carrying, and the police forcing him to disarm. First of all, we have absolutely zero knowledge of what type of MWAG call the police received. It very well may have been what was mentioned prior, someone calling in saying a man and his pregnant wife are having an altercation, and he's got a rifle in his hand. Policeman rolls up, and sees the guy carrying the way he was, I might have approached him the same way. Especially in light of the fact that when the armed man saw the policeman, he reached for his phone and started it recording.

If handgun open carry were legal in Texas, and I walked around with my hand on the butt of my gun (which is the nearest equivalent to the way the guy in the video was carrying his AR semi-ready), and a cop got a MWAG call, saw me fiddiling with something else in my other hand still keeping my hand on the butt of the gun, I would understand if he approached me at the ready, depending on what was said at the call.

If this whole thing had played out differently, with the same visuals, and the cop pulled up casually asking what was going on, and the guy ripped up with the AR spraying his wife and everyone around, I'm sure we'd be hearing about the incompetence of the police.

I once got a post-2am knock on the door at my home. By the time I got dressed with my gun to answer the door, the "visitor" was already walking away. He was in the shadows of my tree, so I couldn't see him well. The gun was in my hand behind my back.

Finally, the guy walked into the light, and I could see he was a policeman. I held my position, gun behind my back, and announced that I had a CHL, and my gun was behind my back, and I was going to put it down slowly. 2 minutes later we were both laughing about it (he came to my house because my daughter's GPS had just been stolen, and recovered), he said he would have answered the door the same way.

I was 100% within my rights to have my gun in my home, and in my hand. I was under no obligation to explain to him why I had my gun. But I wanted a good story instead of a bad one.

Wonder what would have happened had I come out with the gun out instead of behind my back, on my front porch, and started fiddling with my phone (also known as an unknown object, to the policeman). Keep in mind, I would have been within my rights to do all of that.

In the video, the police over-reacted in my opinion. As soon as he was disarmed, they should have let him up.
The gun toting guy was trolling though, he just got a bigger catch than he anticipated.

He was lucky. Often, when you get two people overplaying their hands, it comes out much worse.

I didn't watch the video and don't really care about that particular incident. I'm only addressing the logic implied by the incident you cited. Also, I'm not suggesting that an open carrier shouldn't expect to be hassled or that the caution you describe above is wrong or unwarranted. What I will say is the fact that we all have to be concerned and the well justified need to exercise that caution you felt is a problem and a symptom of the degeneration of our culture and society. I didn't think like that when I was a teen. It would never have occurred to me to be the least concerned about being approached by a LEO because, frankly, I'd never heard of a cop drawing on or shooting a teen or anyone else just walking around with a gun and not committing a crime.

It's more chicken and egg. We can debate why things are the way they are, but the plain fact is that 40 some years ago I had not the slightest concern about being shot by a cop, whether or not I was carrying a gun. I do now. I also walked around taking photographs of anything and everything without the slightest concern I'd be questioned or detained. In fact, the prevailing consensus was that worrying about taking photographs of something was what people did in the Soviet Union and Communist China. It was a textbook example of a totalitarian State....an actual example in my high school text book. Something good has been lost in this country and I find that troubling.

I'm not blaming the police for it.....they're probably primarily reactive to various elements of social deterioration. And given the current reality, I don't feel it a personal affront if a cop wants to disarm me --though none have. But when I was a teen there was much less of the prevailing police mentality that everyone is a potential enemy or threat. Some people clearly weren't and weren't treated as they were. And while the current policing attitudes may well be largely reactive, "officer safety" was not the prevailing mantra either. It was public safety first, officer safety second. These days that too often seems to get reversed.

[mr1337]

It seems that proponents of the 2nd Amendment aren't necessarily proponents of the 4th.

[ScooterSissy]

It seems that proponents of the 2nd Amendment aren't necessarily proponents of the 4th.

Really? Who on here did you see say anything even close to advocacy that the police should have been able to violate anyone's 4th amendment. What I (and others) have said is that the police acted poorly.

We frankly don't know whether or not the seizure was unreasonable, since we don't know what information the police received. The gun was returned, and the man was sent on his way.