open carry black powder pistol detention legal or not ? - Page 2

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m.p. driver

Its fine to push the envelope and demand your rights,but dont be pis*ed

off when it goes bad.Walking through town with a weapon in your

hand?My reaction as an M.P. would have been to draw down on you with my M16 ,

praying that you do something stupid.After i had you on your belly spread

eagled,and made sure you didnt have any more weapons on you,i would

probably accidentally kick you in the bal*s during my search.Thats how

we used to display our displeasure at a troops unwise actions.

Hiking in the desert,out in the woods ,or camping, go ahead and strap it

on your side,strutting proudly down mainstreet with a 1858 in each

hand,just dont be surprised Mr.Josie Wales.This day and age LEO better safe than sorry.

"praying that you do something stupid" So, you can kill me?

"i would probably accidentally kick you in the bal*s during my search" More violent unprovoked behavior?

Carrying an old army or navy black powder pistol open in the hand is the only legal way to carry. You would trample my rights because I choose to obey the law?

Uncle Buck · January 30, 2010, 09:12 AM

Gutting a deer on main street is legal. But it does not help to further the cause of hunting.

There are somethings people just do not want to see. Pushing the limits, just because it is legal, does not always mean it is smart.

I bet one of two things happen:
1) They either try to ignore you, in which case you will be forced to push the limits again.
or
2) They pass a law prohibiting the open carry of any type of firearm.

Either Way, you will continue to paint all gun carriers as nut cases (because that is how the media will portray you). I just do not see how this will benefit anybody, other than the criminals who will feel safer going to work knowing that people will not be allowed to carry guns.

All it will take is one person to call the police because they feel threatened (reguardless of your actions) and you lose the argument and we, the gun owners, lose more ground.

There has to be a more productive way to change the gun laws in your state. How about an open carry picnic. Kinda hard for the media to paint everyone as a nut case, unless the spokes person is in fact a nutcase.

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 09:17 AM

#2 can't happen because ordinances made after April 8, 1986 are preempted by State law.

#1 They will change the law and in the meantime I need the exercise.

**Tom Servo** · January 30, 2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

#2 can't happen because ordinances made after April 8, 1986 are preempted by State law.

Until a local association convinces every business in Belle Meade to post signs banning carry. Signs are legally-binding in Tennessee, so it becomes a de facto ban.

Quote:

#1 They will change the law and in the meantime I need the exercise.

So, back to my original question. This wasn't "activism" at all.

zxcvbob · January 30, 2010, 10:13 AM

mpdriver, you do that and he is within his rights to kill you. (gun is in his hand, remember?) Your partner will probably kill him too, but you'll still be dead.

A more likely outcome is he doesn't shoot you, but *you* are the one who ends up in prison.

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 10:18 AM

Signs worded significantly similar to TCA 39-17-1359 and some posted before July 1, 2000 are legally binding. Cities and municipalities can ban guns by ordinance and not not post too.

I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.

Chaz88 · January 30, 2010, 10:59 AM

Colorado has open carry protected by the state. I am not sure how they did it but Denver managed to receive an exception and prohibit open carry. My understanding is that they way the state law is written it should not have been possible. It seams like you might gust be laying the groundwork for the same kind of thing. Especially when you are doing it in what seams to be a politically powerful place.

I am all for people asserting there rights, but something about the way you are talking about this just seams a bit off.

Uncle Buck · January 30, 2010, 11:24 AM

If you read the links provided by other members and then follow the links within those post, you will see the OP is like a kid looking for approval.

There is nothing responsible in what he is doing. He goes out looking for confrontation and thinks he is doing gun owners a favor by pushing the issue.
He does not see the possible ramifications of what he is doing. There are other and much better ways to get laws changed.

Remember, perception is in the eyes of the beholder and when he pulls a stunt like this, the beholder is usually the public who does not know the laws. They see some nut case walking around with a pistol, or an AK pistol with an orange tip (OK, he did take the orange tip off the pistol, but it was after the fact).

The majority of people here on TFL are responsible gun owners. But like many of them have posted before, it only takes one nut case to ruin it for everyone.

Now I expect the OP to whine about how I have hi-jacked his thread (like he does in the other threads when-ever someone wants to go deeper into the possible effects of his actions) and will refuse to address any other questions asked about his activities. His replies leave me thinking he does not give a darn about what others think and he just wants us to pat him on the back and say good job.

If you received a phone call from your significant other, or a child, and they said "Mom/Dad, there is a guy carrying a pistol, wearing a reflective vest, walking up and down the street!" What would your reaction be?

It is not hunting season, if you saw a guy walking in a state park carrying an AK, wearing a camouflage jacket, what would you think?

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 11:44 AM

I shouldn't have to explain obeying the law. The effects of legally carrying a firearm are something I have no control over. The perception of others is not my concern. Since I am not a "nut case" you don't need to worry about me ruining it for everyone. When I carry I have a purpose. I do not loiter about or pace up and down the street in fr ont of someone's house.

NEWS FLASH ----- ORANGE PAINTED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES ----- ORANGE TIPPED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES -----

Al Norris · January 30, 2010, 11:46 AM

Agreed Uncle Buck.

It is one thing to foster activism. It is quite another to simply be a show-off.

Gary L. Griffiths · January 30, 2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

The perception of others is not my concern.

And therein lies the problem. The perception of others is all of our concern in the gun rights community.

But kwikrnu's actions have brought one thing to our attention. Passing a ridiculous law like this one was one city's way of getting around court decisions striking gun laws on 2nd Amendment grounds. What if the city of Chicago post McDonald passes such a law? :barf:

Food for thought....

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 12:05 PM

The Belle Meade law has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not apply to the States now and it has never applied. In 1871 when the State came out with their "army navy law" cities copied the law. The State changed theirs in the 1980's, but many cities have not. These laws were held to be constitutional in the 1870's by many court cases. Hell, Tennessee banned the sale of all pistols which were not army navy in the late 1800's. The Tennessee State constitution allows the legislature to regulate arms. The legislature has granted authority to cities to regulate arms if their laws were made before April 8, 1986.

NavyLT · January 30, 2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths

And therein lies the problem. The perception of others is all of our concern in the gun rights community.

However, Gary L. Griffiths, just exactly whose perceptions do we concern ourselves with enough to change our behaviors?

Some of the anti-gun crowd has a perception that firearms, by themselves, absent everything else, are dangerous and will magically shoot people. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?

Some of the anti-gun crowd has a perception that anyone with a firearm within reach is dangerous and crazy. Regardless of who that person is, except for police. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?

Some of the anti-gun has a perception than anyone other than a select, elite few who can pay for outrageous lengths of background checks and training courses are not worthy to possess a gun. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?

Some people have a perception that it is magazine capacity, or semi-auto capability, or black plastic attachments that make a gun evil. Do we concern ourselves enough with their perceptions to change our behavior?

At what point do we have any right to judge a LAWFUL behavior as being "bad for our cause", "over the top," or "grandstanding?" When we make judgments like that of others, are we not guilty of the same actions that we accuse those "more anti" than us of?

**44 AMP** · January 30, 2010, 01:47 PM

There are many situations where one can be within the law, but still be irresponsible, socially, and even sometimes morally wrong.

Behaving within the written letter of the law, but well outside societal norms is allowed, but don't whine when you get hassled for it.

Perhaps the police went beyond their legal authority when they searched the inside of the OP's pockets, but that is for a court to decide. It seems reasonable to me, given the situation, simply because anything in the pocket could be a weapon, until the police know otherwise, they do not have control of the situation, and public safety is not assured.

Police do have a degree of latitude beyond what is codified in law, to deal with situations in (hopefully) the best fashion possible. They are allowed to do things they deem needful and prudent at the time, and if later judical review determines that their actions were excessive, the system awards compensation, if it is deemed warrented. No, that doesn't help your sense of personal dignity at the percieved affront to your rights, at the time, but it does give officers better guidelines for similar situations in the future.

No system is perfect, as long as there are humans involved, but ours is self correcting. The degree of correction, and the rapidity with which it happens varies tremendously, because humans are involved, but it does, eventually happen.

Want to be a test case? GO ahead! Just don't whine about it when not everyone passes the test with flying colors every time.

KyJim · January 30, 2010, 01:52 PM

I think kwikrnu is a double agent pretending to be a pro-gun activist while actually working for the anti-gunners by creating ill-will and bad press for responsible gun owners.He has done this sort of stunt repeatedly despite warnings that he is hurting the cause. Perhaps this is his intent.

The alternative is that kwikrnu is a narcissistic, insecure guy who has never had a date and still lives with his mother. Much like someone dressing up as a super-hero and playing pretend crime-fighter, kwikrnu feels compelled to draw attention to himself by donning his super-hero weapon of choice and strut in public.

Hark! I hear the tumblers of the locks beginning to turn on this thread.

NavyLT · January 30, 2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

The alternative is that kwikrnu is a narcissistic, insecure guy who has never had a date and still lives with his mother. Much like someone dressing up as a super-hero and playing pretend crime-fighter, kwikrnu feels compelled to draw attention to himself by donning his super-hero weapon of choice and strut in public.

And the anti-OC concealed carry only crowd say the same things about those of us who carry modern handguns in holsters on our belts.

And the anti-gun crowd say the same things about both the open carry crowd and the concealed carry crowd.

blume357 · January 30, 2010, 04:59 PM

you were a little rough on him.

Okay about the first part... but then the last remarks were out of line for the debates here.

If he wants to make himself the case then so be it. Keep in mind Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus was planned out, not a spur of the moment thing.

Double Naught Spy · January 30, 2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.

Whatever. Just an ordinary guy who keeps having run-ins with the law.

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 06:19 PM

It is almost as if the cops are targeting me because I obey the law. If they treat me this way I wonder how they treat criminals?

**JohnKSa** · January 30, 2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikrnu

I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.

And maybe you forgot what you posted earlier on this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikrnu

Carrying the handgun was political activism along with exercise.

I'm curious, do you also consider painting the muzzle nut on your AK-47 pistol blaze orange so it looks like an "airsoft clone" (in your words) to be activism too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikrnu

It is almost as if the cops are targeting me because I obey the law.

Cops are targeting you for walking around with a gun in your hand in public. Yes, what you're doing is legal, but give the injured innocence routine a rest. The fact that walking around with a gun in your hand is legal doesn't mean it won't attract attention. When it does, it's ridiculous to pretend that you don't understand why you garnered that attention.

Here's your notice.

If you post another ridiculous statement that insults the intelligence of the entire TFL membership like this one does: "It is almost as if the cops are targeting me because I obey the law. If they treat me this way I wonder how they treat criminals?" then it will be your last post on TFL.

If you want to discuss the legal aspects of this topic without pretending that you don't understand why law enforcement keeps stopping you because you're walking around in public with guns then that's fine.

If you persist in playing the wide-eyed innocent who just "obeys the law" and has no idea why he keeps getting confronted by the police then your participation in this discussion and your posting career at TFL are over.

maestro pistolero · January 30, 2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

They had PC to search you because you had a gun in your hand! How were they to know that's the only gun you had?

By that logic, anyone could be searched at ay time, because how are police to know if anyone has weapon in their pocket? The presence of a gun in the hand is no more indication of a weapon in the pocket than the absence of a gun in the hand.

NavyLT · January 30, 2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

If they treat me this way I wonder how they treat criminals?

They provide them with dinner, a shower, a place to sleep, breakfast in the morning and then let them go their merry way.

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 07:26 PM

I never considered myself to be a political activist. However, lately many people have said that I am. Is open carrying political activism? If open carry is activism then I'm an activist. If Activism requires joining a movement and running for office or campaigning for someone running for office then I'm not an activist.

Gary L. Griffiths · January 30, 2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

However, Gary L. Griffiths, just exactly whose perceptions do we concern ourselves with enough to change our behaviors?

We can conceal behaviors which disturb others. This is the bone I have to pick with the whole open carry movement. While I understand and sympathize with the precept that "A right unexercised is a right lost." I think the "in your face" attitude that many in the movement have adopted is counterproductive to the gun rights movement as a whole. I would feel the same way about hunting activists gutting a deer in front of a Humane Association animal shelter. Sure, they have a right to do it, but it isn't going to change the minds of animal rights activists, and the ill will it creates with the general public moves the "consensus of opinion" towards animal rights.

I would have far more sympathy for kwikrnu's plight if he was doing this solely to bring the absurdity of this law to the attention of lawmakers, and if he hadn't acted as a gadfly in the Costco and AK-47 pistol fiascoes.

kwikrnu · January 30, 2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you want to discuss the legal aspects of this topic without pretending that you don't understand why law enforcement keeps stopping you because you're walking around in public with guns then that's fine.

If you persist in playing the wide-eyed innocent who just "obeys the law" and has no idea why he keeps getting confronted by the police then your participation in this discussion and your posting career at TFL are over.

I know why cops stop me, they are ignorant or crooked. Either way I am tired of the harrassment and I am going to take them to task for their behavior.

They shouldn't search inside pockets in a Terry stop w/o PC. They shouldn't run my handgun to see if it stolen on a terry stop. They shouldn't detain me 2.5 hours, search me twice, take my pistol and run it to see if it is stolen, cuff me, point a gun at me after they have seen my ID and determine I am not a threat, etc.

To top it off they code blue my complaints. Some people would put up with it, not me.

January 30, 2010, 09:12 AM	#27
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	Gutting a deer on main street is legal. But it does not help to further the cause of hunting. There are somethings people just do not want to see. Pushing the limits, just because it is legal, does not always mean it is smart. I bet one of two things happen: 1) They either try to ignore you, in which case you will be forced to push the limits again. or 2) They pass a law prohibiting the open carry of any type of firearm. Either Way, you will continue to paint all gun carriers as nut cases (because that is how the media will portray you). I just do not see how this will benefit anybody, other than the criminals who will feel safer going to work knowing that people will not be allowed to carry guns. All it will take is one person to call the police because they feel threatened (reguardless of your actions) and you lose the argument and we, the gun owners, lose more ground. There has to be a more productive way to change the gun laws in your state. How about an open carry picnic. Kinda hard for the media to paint everyone as a nut case, unless the spokes person is in fact a nutcase. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

January 30, 2010, 10:13 AM	#30
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	mpdriver, you do that and he is within his rights to kill you. (gun is in his hand, remember?) Your partner will probably kill him too, but you'll still be dead. A more likely outcome is he doesn't shoot you, but you are the one who ends up in prison. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

January 30, 2010, 10:59 AM	#32
Chaz88 Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2010 Posts: 1,243	Colorado has open carry protected by the state. I am not sure how they did it but Denver managed to receive an exception and prohibit open carry. My understanding is that they way the state law is written it should not have been possible. It seams like you might gust be laying the groundwork for the same kind of thing. Especially when you are doing it in what seams to be a politically powerful place. I am all for people asserting there rights, but something about the way you are talking about this just seams a bit off. __________________ Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.

January 30, 2010, 11:24 AM	#33
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	If you read the links provided by other members and then follow the links within those post, you will see the OP is like a kid looking for approval. There is nothing responsible in what he is doing. He goes out looking for confrontation and thinks he is doing gun owners a favor by pushing the issue. He does not see the possible ramifications of what he is doing. There are other and much better ways to get laws changed. Remember, perception is in the eyes of the beholder and when he pulls a stunt like this, the beholder is usually the public who does not know the laws. They see some nut case walking around with a pistol, or an AK pistol with an orange tip (OK, he did take the orange tip off the pistol, but it was after the fact). The majority of people here on TFL are responsible gun owners. But like many of them have posted before, it only takes one nut case to ruin it for everyone. Now I expect the OP to whine about how I have hi-jacked his thread (like he does in the other threads when-ever someone wants to go deeper into the possible effects of his actions) and will refuse to address any other questions asked about his activities. His replies leave me thinking he does not give a darn about what others think and he just wants us to pat him on the back and say good job. If you received a phone call from your significant other, or a child, and they said "Mom/Dad, there is a guy carrying a pistol, wearing a reflective vest, walking up and down the street!" What would your reaction be? It is not hunting season, if you saw a guy walking in a state park carrying an AK, wearing a camouflage jacket, what would you think? __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

January 30, 2010, 01:47 PM	#39
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	There are many situations where one can be within the law, but still be irresponsible, socially, and even sometimes morally wrong. Behaving within the written letter of the law, but well outside societal norms is allowed, but don't whine when you get hassled for it. Perhaps the police went beyond their legal authority when they searched the inside of the OP's pockets, but that is for a court to decide. It seems reasonable to me, given the situation, simply because anything in the pocket could be a weapon, until the police know otherwise, they do not have control of the situation, and public safety is not assured. Police do have a degree of latitude beyond what is codified in law, to deal with situations in (hopefully) the best fashion possible. They are allowed to do things they deem needful and prudent at the time, and if later judical review determines that their actions were excessive, the system awards compensation, if it is deemed warrented. No, that doesn't help your sense of personal dignity at the percieved affront to your rights, at the time, but it does give officers better guidelines for similar situations in the future. No system is perfect, as long as there are humans involved, but ours is self correcting. The degree of correction, and the rapidity with which it happens varies tremendously, because humans are involved, but it does, eventually happen. Want to be a test case? GO ahead! Just don't whine about it when not everyone passes the test with flying colors every time. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 30, 2010, 09:17 AM	#28
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	#2 can't happen because ordinances made after April 8, 1986 are preempted by State law. #1 They will change the law and in the meantime I need the exercise.

January 30, 2010, 10:18 AM	#31
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	Signs worded significantly similar to TCA 39-17-1359 and some posted before July 1, 2000 are legally binding. Cities and municipalities can ban guns by ordinance and not not post too. I don't consider myself an "activist" I'm just a regular guy. Others have said I am an activist. Maybe I am maybe I'm not.

January 30, 2010, 11:44 AM	#34
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	I shouldn't have to explain obeying the law. The effects of legally carrying a firearm are something I have no control over. The perception of others is not my concern. Since I am not a "nut case" you don't need to worry about me ruining it for everyone. When I carry I have a purpose. I do not loiter about or pace up and down the street in fr ont of someone's house. NEWS FLASH ----- ORANGE PAINTED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES ----- ORANGE TIPPED FIREARMS ARE LEGAL IN MOST PLACES -----

January 30, 2010, 11:46 AM	#35
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Agreed Uncle Buck. It is one thing to foster activism. It is quite another to simply be a show-off.

January 30, 2010, 12:05 PM	#37
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	The Belle Meade law has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not apply to the States now and it has never applied. In 1871 when the State came out with their "army navy law" cities copied the law. The State changed theirs in the 1980's, but many cities have not. These laws were held to be constitutional in the 1870's by many court cases. Hell, Tennessee banned the sale of all pistols which were not army navy in the late 1800's. The Tennessee State constitution allows the legislature to regulate arms. The legislature has granted authority to cities to regulate arms if their laws were made before April 8, 1986.

January 30, 2010, 01:52 PM	#40
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	I think kwikrnu is a double agent pretending to be a pro-gun activist while actually working for the anti-gunners by creating ill-will and bad press for responsible gun owners.He has done this sort of stunt repeatedly despite warnings that he is hurting the cause. Perhaps this is his intent. The alternative is that kwikrnu is a narcissistic, insecure guy who has never had a date and still lives with his mother. Much like someone dressing up as a super-hero and playing pretend crime-fighter, kwikrnu feels compelled to draw attention to himself by donning his super-hero weapon of choice and strut in public. Hark! I hear the tumblers of the locks beginning to turn on this thread.

January 30, 2010, 04:59 PM	#42
blume357 Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2005 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 3,943	I'M glad you added a little 'KY' to that last post jim... because I think you were a little rough on him. Okay about the first part... but then the last remarks were out of line for the debates here. If he wants to make himself the case then so be it. Keep in mind Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus was planned out, not a spur of the moment thing.

January 30, 2010, 06:19 PM	#44
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	It is almost as if the cops are targeting me because I obey the law. If they treat me this way I wonder how they treat criminals?

January 30, 2010, 07:26 PM	#48
kwikrnu Junior member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 37	I never considered myself to be a political activist. However, lately many people have said that I am. Is open carrying political activism? If open carry is activism then I'm an activist. If Activism requires joining a movement and running for office or campaigning for someone running for office then I'm not an activist.