The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 8, 2014, 06:19 PM   #26
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans
Although, I think perhaps he should have had his own camera running and called for backup. Three armed, one with an AR against one cop with a sidearm - I wouldn't like those odd if things turned ugly.
There was back-up there & I'm sure they were video recording. At the 7:20 mark you can clearly see the other police car over the officier's left sholder.
BumbleBug is online now  
Old January 8, 2014, 08:52 PM   #27
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 4,948
Wonder if you’re going to see this video used as advertising for the Brady bunch to promote stronger gun control.
Morons
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.” – Thomas Jefferson.

Politician's are like diapers.
You need to change them often,,,,, for the same reason!
Ozzieman is offline  
Old January 9, 2014, 10:01 AM   #28
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
Also, thinking about this a little more, what would they do if the police, unbeknownst to the people filming, had gotten a call about a store in the area being robbed?

Description: A guy with a rifle. (As most LE and lawyer types know, in crisis situations everyone is not always able to tell the height, weight, color, what he was wearing, etc...)
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old January 10, 2014, 11:26 PM   #29
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 382
Wasn't there a law when a peace officer asked for your ID you must produce it? If no ID or refuse to produce it you get taken in for vagrancy?

I think these doorknobs should be taken in for stupidity.

It is their right.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 10:58 AM   #30
Hiker 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 501
That cop was outstanding. In today's world those fools are lucky they weren't staring down the business end of about 20 AR's.
Hiker 1 is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 05:54 PM   #31
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,988
Not sure exactly what the law says where this video was taken but in TN the CCW laws state that if an officer asks you must show your permit and, again if he asks, you must momentarily surrender your weapon. I would assume the same applies to long guns.

These two guys were really only out to seek a conflict, more of a "Yeah! Lets stick it to the man!" gesture than anything else. Certainly not gaining any ground for the 2A cause. Kudos to the officer though, I only hope I could have that much patience and restraint when dealing with a situation like this.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:12 PM   #32
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
I have no idea about Oregon law. In Virginia, open carry is constitutional carry. Concealed carry is a privilege in Virginia.

In my state, the police response is supposed to be dictated by the behavior of the person carrying the weapon. Police officers have overstepped their authority in the past with regard to this issue, but by now all agencies are informed about open carry by Virginia citizens. There have been violations of these rules and associated corrections issued by the state attorney general and the courts.

Safely openly carrying a gun does not require a response from the police and gives them no justifiable reason to stop the person. They have no authority to stop a person open carrying for the purposes of lecturing them. Any stop is voluntary so long as the person has not committed a crime. The police have no authority to take, check, handle the gun or demand ID. This is exactly how it should be because expression of a constitutional right is not a crime. This is how it is in Virginia; Oregon likely has significant differences in its laws.

Open carry does not set gun owners back because it is a lawful expression of a constitutional right. If you believe it sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege. Your belief, despite any protests you say you have, is that the state and/or government can revoke the privilege and that you do not want to upset them. I hope this makes you reconsider your thought process on the issue of bearing arms as a right that cannot be revoked without constitutional amendment.

Last edited by tomrkba; January 11, 2014 at 06:30 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:15 PM   #33
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Wasn't there a similar incident somewhere in Texas a while back? A man and his son? I beleive they got taken in. What was the outcome of that?
gyvel is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:16 PM   #34
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Quote:
Wasn't there a similar incident somewhere in Texas a while back? A man and his son? I beleive they got taken in. What was the outcome of that?
I believe the courts sided with the defendant.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:40 PM   #35
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,280
Quote:
Wasn't there a similar incident somewhere in Texas a while back? A man and his son? I beleive they got taken in. What was the outcome of that?
He was convicted of interfering with the duties of an officer.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=536572
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:45 PM   #36
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Yikes...really? He was convicted of a POP charge because a cop didn't like what he was doing.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:48 PM   #37
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,280
A fine but no jail time. He's appealing which means that his guns are still in custody pending the end of legal proceedings.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:49 PM   #38
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Hopefully, he'll get his gun back. Here in Northern Virginia, that gun would be long gone.

Last edited by Vanya; January 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM. Reason: invective.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 11, 2014, 06:55 PM   #39
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,280
I am completely confident that he will get them back. I am also completely confident that he will NOT get them back until the matter is completely resolved, one way or the other.

As far as the video (and this kind of thing in general) is concerned, I have a very simple assessment.

Any plan that involves intentionally attracting police attention and then arguing with the responders isn't well thought out, to say the least.
Quote:
If you believe open carry sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege that may be revoked without a constitutional amendment.
Open carry CAN set gun owners back. We know this because we've seen it happen in the recent past. We've seen additional legal restrictions levied on residents of CA as the direct result of open carry demonstrations. We've seen private companies (Starbucks and Peet's) impose restrictions on firearms carry on their premises as the direct result of open carry demonstrations.

VERY simple and undeniable cause and effect. Denying that open carry can set gun owners back is denying reality.

In like manner, those who don't believe that the bearing of arms can be restricted without constitutional amendment are also denying reality. In the real world, there are all kinds of "extra-constitutional" retrictions on the bearing of arms.

The quoted comment, restated very succinctly is:

"If you believe in reality then you are agreeing with the position that reality exists."

If this were a perfect world, I could leave it at that. Since it's not, I'm going to have to clarify the HECK out of my position or I'm instantly going to be accused of being anti-second amendment.

So here's the clarification.

1. I am not against open carry.

2. I AM against gun owners doing stupid things in public. Clearly not all instances of open carry fit the definition of "gun owners doing stupid things in public" but just as clearly some instances of open carry do fit that description.

3. The fact that I am against gun owners doing stupid things in public does NOT mean I'm in favor of creating new laws against gun owners doing stupid things. I don't think we need new lfirearm aws--there are enough firearm laws already.

It DOES mean that I REALLY wish gun owners wouldn't be stupid and it also means that I REALLY hope that when gun owners do stupid things, that the public can overlook those stupid things instead of using them as a rationale for increased limitations on the right to bear arms.

4. I do NOT believe that open carry MUST set gun owners back, nor that ALL open carry sets gun owners back. But some of it can, and some of it has--there's simply no denying it.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 10:18 AM   #40
Hiker 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 501
JohnKSa - excellent assessment.

These guys wanted a confrontation. They were open carrying to intentionally provoke a confrontation not to practice their right to OC.
Hiker 1 is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 09:49 PM   #41
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Quote:
Open carry CAN set gun owners back. We know this because we've seen it happen in the recent past. We've seen additional legal restrictions levied on residents of CA as the direct result of open carry demonstrations. We've seen private companies (Starbucks and Peet's) impose restrictions on firearms carry on their premises as the direct result of open carry demonstrations.
There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution.

(citation: http://saf.org/constitutions.html)

Open handgun carry was banned and long guns had to be unloaded. Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place. Claiming otherwise denies the fundamental set of rules in California law.

Furthermore, California citizens possess guns at the whim of the legislature. Ammunition is next up on their chopping block with their background checks for ammo purchases. If California citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, then why are they oppressed in this manner? Don't the current laws, and newly proposed laws, prove that there is no right to keep and bear arms in that state? If not, please explain it to me.

As for the stores, those are private property. The whim of the owner dictates carry. If anything, correct constitutional law would not side with the owner in a public store; at a minimum, it would require the owner to provide equivalent physical protection to visitors.

As for the rest of it:

Open carry is a direct confrontation with the power, and perception of power, of the government.

Some people are inclined to stand against government, take risky actions, and generally be obnoxious about the topic. Others are inclined to lay low, go with the flow, and hope the government won't bother them. The vast majority of posters in this thread are in the latter group. Unfortunately--and I think ObamaCare and the NSA scandal support my position--the government won't leave people alone.

Think about what that means. If you have a concealed carry permit, then you are an "activist" or "zealot". You are head and shoulders above the rest of gun owners because you're willing to take immediate action to save your life. This is a very different attitude than the average hunter who shoots 10 rounds a year. The concealed carry permit holder is high on their priority list should it come to that. They know exactly who you are because you self-registered for the privilege of carrying a handgun.

Last edited by tomrkba; January 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 10:02 PM   #42
dmanisgnarly
Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2013
Posts: 28
I don't understand why these guys want to intentionally draw negative opposition from the public's view. Walking around with a pistol at your side is one thing but to boast a rifle across your back is asking for unnecessary attention. I know we have rights but we shouldn't put any negativity toward what little rights we have left. This is the reason we are being harassed as gun owners.
dmanisgnarly is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 10:49 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,217
Quote:
Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place.
That's not true. For example, hunters had at least some provision to carry a sidearm under the old scheme. The True Believers ruined that for them.

Quote:
If anything, correct constitutional law would not side with the owner in a public store; at a minimum, it would require the owner to provide equivalent physical protection to visitors.
We've never seen a decision along those lines, and I doubt we ever will. It pits the right to self-defense (which has only recently and narrowly acknowledged) against property rights (which the courts have long acknowledged).

Quote:
Others are inclined to lay low, go with the flow, and hope the government won't bother them. The vast majority of posters in this thread are in the latter group.
That's inaccurate and a bit insulting to many people. Those of us who aren't "obnoxious" are somehow less valuable to the cause than those who are? What about those who work within the system, who do the boring work that most of the zealots won't? Who really gets more done, Alan Gura or Ted Nugent?

I get it, folks want to stomp around and make a big splash. Let's not get that confused with effecting real change.

Quote:
If you have a concealed carry permit, then you are an "activist" or "zealot". You are head and shoulders above the rest of gun owners because you're willing to take immediate action to save your life.
I know plenty of folks with carry permits who don't lift a finger to do anything for the RKBA. Once again, dividing us into tribes is really disingenuous.

Quote:
This is a very different attitude than the average hunter who shoots 10 rounds a year.
Ah, yes. Let's all call them Fudds, shall we? You want to know who some of the most powerful advocates for our rights are? Those very same guys.

So let's lose the broad and false generalizations. They create the very division within our ranks the other side loves to pounce on.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 12:39 AM   #44
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,280
Quote:
Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place.
People in CA used to be able to legally open carry loaded guns. As a result of open carry demonstrations by an activist group many years ago, they lost the ability to open carry loaded guns.

But they could still legally open carry UNLOADED guns. Now, as a direct result of more recent open carry demonstrations, they can no longer legally open carry at all.

To say that nothing was lost is clearly a false statement. To say that they had nothing is equally and just as obviously false.
Quote:
There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution.
This is a red herring. The content of the CA constitution has no bearing on the statement I responded to.

The statement I responded to was this:
"If you believe open carry sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege that may be revoked without a constitutional amendment."
1. Losing the ability bear arms is a setback and in the cases listed above, the setback was caused by open carry demonstrations.

Therefore the first part of the statement can be true. We have examples that we can rely on from history--some of it very recent. It doesn't mean open carry ALWAYS sets gun owners back, but it definitely demonstrates that it CAN.

Notice that the truth of the first part of this sentence is not dependent on the content of the CA constitution.

Since the first part of the statement can very clearly be true, it would be foolish, it would be a denial of reality not to believe it.

2. CA did not change amend its constitution nor did it amend the federal constitution and yet it revoked the ability to bear arms.

Starbucks and Peets did not amend the constitution (state or federal) and yet they revoked the ability to bear arms on their premises.

Therefore the second part of the statement is also true. Clearly the ability to bear arms can be revoked without a constitutional amendment. That is true regardless of what the CA constitution does or doesn't say because no constitutions were changes and yet people's ability to legally bear arms was restricted anyway.

Since the second part of the statement is true, it makes no sense to do anything other than agree with it. Agreeing with it doesn't mean one must endorse it, or advocate it, but it doesn't make sense to disagree with the truth or to deny reality.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 01:41 PM   #45
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
The content of the California constitution has everything to do with it. The legislature should not have the power to pass any of those laws. You understood exactly what I meant and decided to play games.

But at the end of the day, people are going to openly challenge government authority through open carry. Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government.

And when they ban carry in all states, you can be satisfied knowing that you supported the government's position.

Last edited by tomrkba; January 15, 2014 at 01:49 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 02:04 PM   #46
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
...Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government...
And you continue to demonstrate your complete failure to understand the political process and the mechanisms of social change.

The reality is that we, as a community of gun owners and advocates for the Second Amendment, must come to recognize the vital importance to the furthering of our interests of influencing public perception, increasing public understanding and acceptance of the issues from our perspectives and winning broader based pubic support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
...The legislature should not have the power to pass any of those laws...
That may be your belief, but your belief is beside the point. The reality is that they do have the power to pass those sorts of laws, and they will continue to do so as long as that is what the people who elect the member of the legislatures want.

Whether or not that power will be supported by the courts is another question, but no doubt some of those laws will be. That is another reality.

We pick the government. It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Alienating people whose support we may need won't help us.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 02:26 PM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,217
Quote:
But at the end of the day, people are going to openly challenge government authority through open carry.
That's certainly a romantic interpretation of it. In reality, nothing positive seems to come of it. I've seen situations in which open carry made things worse, notably California and many private businesses. I've never seen a situation in which open carry made things better for gun owners.

Quote:
Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government.
Frank's already provided a rebuttal to this, but since you're pointing fingers, please educate us as to what you've done to reverse the rising tide of unAmericanism we supposedly support.

Quote:
And when they ban carry in all states, you can be satisfied knowing that you supported the government's position.
At this point, you owe the forum a succinct, coherent explanation as to how we support a ban on carry.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 02:58 PM   #48
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Quote:
At this point, you owe the forum a succinct, coherent explanation as to how we support a ban on carry.
Adam Kokesh went into DC to demand his right to keep and bear arms in the face of an unconstitutional law that overrides the Second Amendment. Smarmy as he may be (I have no interest in him beyond gun rights), very few gun owners expressed any sort of support for him. I did so publicly on "The Chris Plante Show" on 630 WMAL prior to the original proposed open carry event. His actions were correct in the face of an unconstitutional law.

How many of you have expressed support for Kokesh?

It is because of our lack of action (writing a letter or sending money to the NRA does not count) as gun owners that the law in DC stands. Until gun owners DEMAND our rights, we will not get them. When I go to gun rights rallies, I see only 50 or 100 people. Why is this? This is exactly how you support bans: do nothing and/or shame those who take any action that challenges the status quo.

Quote:
The reality is that they do have the power to pass those sorts of laws, and they will continue to do so as long as that is what the people who elect the member of the legislatures want.
A do-nothing gun owning population is the root cause of this problem. 50,000 armed Americans protesting in front of the capitol building would change the legislators' tune quickly. Americans have forgotten that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.

Last edited by tomrkba; January 15, 2014 at 03:15 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 03:14 PM   #49
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,217
So, you called a radio show to support a man who co-opted our cause to get attention for his website and committed multiple felonies in the process. That really doesn't do much to turn the tide.

Kokesh doesn't care about our cause other than how it benefits him, and he could cause us harm. He's not worth supporting.

Quote:
It is because of our lack of action as gun owners that the law in DC stands.
One historic Supreme Court win and several supplemental cases hardly count as lack of action.

Quote:
Until gun owners DEMAND our rights, we will not get them.
Define "demand." What concrete action do you suggest that's not already being done? What exactly is it you think folks working for the NRA, the SAF, and numerous state and local organizations are doing?

Quote:
This is exactly how you support bans: do nothing and/or shame those who take any action that challenges the status quo.
Here's where we come to the salient point: if we don't support things in the exact same way you do, we're traitors to the cause. That's poisonous and inapt rhetoric that does nobody any good.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 03:16 PM   #50
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 608
Quote:
So, you called a radio show to support a man who co-opted our cause to get attention for his website and committed multiple felonies in the process.
Tom,

You just made my case for me. Thank you.
tomrkba is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14064 seconds with 7 queries