another dumb activist. his 15mins

[Mad_River_Firearms]

It's Quite clear that this A$$HOLE was looking for a Confrontation with the Police Officers and trying to Make a Point about his right to "OPEN CARRY" being Legal and NOT Prohibited by Laws or Infringing on his Second Amendment Rights.
It serves NO PURPOSE to ADVANCE our Rights under the Constitution and the 2ND Amendment to do this.:nono:
As the Police Officers explained or at Least ATTEMPTED to Explain to this "DORK" it is their Responsibility and Duty to Respond to the Public's Concerns of whether the Complaints are Valid or NOT.
They don't know if this Person is Mentally Fit, Planning an Illegal Act, In the Act of Commiting a Crime, etc. until after they have Responded and Investigated the Complaint's that had been made about someone Carrying a Gun in a Public Park..............
Imagine the Public's Outcry and Rage if the Dispatcher had taken 5 extra Minutes to Question the Caller's IF the Person was Brandishing the Firearm Threateningly, Pointing the Weapon at anybody or Multitude of other Questions Imaginable prior to Dispatching the Officers in a Timely Manner.......................
It is their Duty to Investigate all complaints and to see if there is a Violation of the Law or Not in order to Protect the Public........:yes4:
I have had the same discussions with some of the Members of "OPEN CARRY.ORG" Regarding the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with Gun Ownership. I appears that they like to BAIT LAW ENFORCEMENT with this same Tactic and attempt to advance their cause of open carry and their interpretation of their 2nd Amendment rights.
"IT IS ASSININE, STUPID AND DETTRIMENTAL to the 2nd Amendment Cause to do this"
There is a Fundamental Responsibility in Gun Ownership including to NOT ALARM the Public, Not Allow a Minor, a Convicted Felon or Incompetent Person access to their Firearms :nono: when exercising this SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rhino]

I'm not sure if watching the whole video is informative or not, but I only got through the first 3.5 minutes before I had to shut that annoying little voice up.

I didn't get anywhere near that far.

Antagonizing the police makes things worse, not better.

 

[SGB]

It's Quite clear that this A$$HOLE was looking for a Confrontation with the Police Officers and trying to Make a Point about his right to "OPEN CARRY" being Legal and NOT Prohibited by Laws or Infringing on his Second Amendment Rights.
It serves NO PURPOSE to ADVANCE our Rights under the Constitution and the 2ND Amendment to do this.:nono:
As the Police Officers explained or at Least ATTEMPTED to Explain to this "DORK" it is their Responsibility and Duty to Respond to the Public's Concerns of whether the Complaints are Valid or NOT.
They don't know if this Person is Mentally Fit, Planning an Illegal Act, In the Act of Commiting a Crime, etc. until after they have Responded and Investigated the Complaint's that had been made about someone Carrying a Gun in a Public Park..............
Imagine the Public's Outcry and Rage if the Dispatcher had taken 5 extra Minutes to Question the Caller's IF the Person was Brandishing the Firearm Threateningly, Pointing the Weapon at anybody or Multitude of other Questions Imaginable prior to Dispatching the Officers in a Timely Manner.......................
It is their Duty to Investigate all complaints and to see if there is a Violation of the Law or Not in order to Protect the Public........:yes4:
I have had the same discussions with some of the Members of "OPEN CARRY.ORG" Regarding the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with Gun Ownership. I appears that they like to BAIT LAW ENFORCEMENT with this same Tactic and attempt to advance their cause of open carry and their interpretation of their 2nd Amendment rights.
"IT IS ASSININE, STUPID AND DETTRIMENTAL to the 2nd Amendment Cause to do this"
There is a Fundamental Responsibility in Gun Ownership including to NOT ALARM the Public, Not Allow a Minor, a Convicted Felon or Incompetent Person access to their Firearms :nono: when exercising this SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you should read the Constitution and learn more about the law before climbing up on that high horse.

 

[SGB]

I didn't get anywhere near that far.

Antagonizing the police makes things worse, not better.

You see someone antagonizing the police and I see the police over stepping their authority and lying about the legality of their actions.

 

[Greggatshack]

I wonder if he is still there waiting for his "girlfriend" to show up?

 

[Bikenut]

It's Quite clear that this A$$HOLE

Really? Is that all you got is insults?

was looking for a Confrontation with the Police Officers and trying to Make a Point about his right to "OPEN CARRY" being Legal and NOT Prohibited by Laws or Infringing on his Second Amendment Rights.

And what is it about his right to "open carry" being legal and not prohibited by laws that bothers you? Obviously the guy's open carry was legal or he would have been arrested so why does his legal exercising of the right to bear arms bother YOU?

It serves NO PURPOSE to ADVANCE our Rights under the Constitution and the 2ND Amendment to do this.:nono:

Are you aware that the right to bear arms also includes the right to bear arms openly? And are you aware that a concealed carry permit is the exact kind of restriction that "shall not be infringed" refers to because it is the government who is in charge of who is, and who ISN'T, given permission?

Do you understand what a "right" actually is? Here is a clue... it is NOT a permission slip.

As the Police Officers explained or at Least ATTEMPTED to Explain to this "DORK" it is their Responsibility and Duty to Respond to the Public's Concerns of whether the Complaints are Valid or NOT.

And the cops could respond... take a look.. ascertain that there is nothing illegal happening.. and go find a parking spot at the donut shop since there is no crime happening. All that was happening was some weenie got his/her panties in a knot because they got "scared". Show me where there is the right to not be "scared".

They don't know if this Person is Mentally Fit, Planning an Illegal Act, In the Act of Commiting a Crime, etc. until after they have Responded and Investigated the Complaint's that had been made about someone Carrying a Gun in a Public Park..............

So.. they respond.. they look.. they don't need to be giving someone who is NOT committing a crime any lectures on how the cops don't like open carry.

It wasn't the legally openly carrying guy who wasted the cop's time. It was the cops who wasted the open carrier's time.

Imagine the Public's Outcry and Rage if the Dispatcher had taken 5 extra Minutes to Question the Caller's IF the Person was Brandishing the Firearm Threateningly, Pointing the Weapon at anybody or Multitude of other Questions Imaginable prior to Dispatching the Officers in a Timely Manner.......................
It is their Duty to Investigate all complaints and to see if there is a Violation of the Law or Not in order to Protect the Public........:yes4:

Oh my... more fear mongering and another attempt to use ... IF's... to sensationalize hoping the shock value will validate the argument. Dude... stick with the facts and the fact is the guy didn't brandish or point the gun or do anything other than be in a public park legally wearing a gun in plain sight.

No matter how much you want to portray the incident as the possible/maybe/could have been/ZOMG! How do we know it's not!!! the beginning of World War III.... nothing terrible happened until the cops tried to use their uniforms and authority to intimidate the legal open carrier!!!!

I have had the same discussions with some of the Members of "OPEN CARRY.ORG" Regarding the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with Gun Ownership. I appears that they like to BAIT LAW ENFORCEMENT with this same Tactic and attempt to advance their cause of open carry and their interpretation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you are referring to folks having the courage to actually exercise their legal right to carry a gun in plain sight as "baiting" then it is no wonder you didn't like your reception on OpenCarry.org because folks there understand that open carry IS the responsible thing to do. They accept the responsibility of educating people that they have the right to carry a gun... and they accept the responsibility of going through the hassle of bringing gun ownership out of the closet where ..umm.. some folks want it to stay hidden.

And they accept the responsibility to require... YES REQUIRE.. the police to follow the law and not hassle people who are not committing any crime. Do you have any idea how much courage it takes to know the law and face down a cop who is on a power trip and demand the cop obey the law......... and win?

Or is it that instead of cowering in front of a cop someone would actually have the courage, determination, and strength of principle to demand the cops obey the law that bugs you?


"IT IS ASSININE, STUPID AND DETTRIMENTAL to the 2nd Amendment Cause to do this"

Please tell me what you think the 2nd Amendment cause is? Open carriers understand that carrying a gun in plain sight in a legal manner shows the general public that there is nothing to fear from ordinary folks legally carrying guns.

Unless you think that a carry "permit", the permission given by the government, is the "right" to bear arms?

There is a Fundamental Responsibility in Gun Ownership including to NOT ALARM the Public, Not Allow a Minor, a Convicted Felon or Incompetent Person access to their Firearms :nono: when exercising this SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRONG! No one has the responsibility to make sure other people are not alarmed! Dude! WTF are you thinking? Should we all not have tattoos or piercings because that "alarms" some people? Should we all drive 20 miles an hour because some people are "alarmed" by speeding cars?

No one is responsible to make sure other people don't get "scared", "alarmed", "upset", or "offended". Don't like to see me legally open carry because it "alarms", "scares", "upsets", or "offends" you? You have the right to look somewhere else! But you don't have the right to require me to behave in a manner that pleases you.

And exactly how does open carry allow access to a minor, a felon, or an incompetent person as you post implies? Do you seriously believe a shirt, that little bit of cloth, has some magical property that would stop someone from taking a concealed gun? Or do you think because your shirt covers it no one knows it is there? Got news for you! See below for a link to follow and learn.

Please explain exactly what the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is. Please tell me what method of carry "bear arms" refers to.

And exactly what is this 2nd Amendment Cause you refer to?

And please show me where the right to bear arms should be restricted by what other people don't like to see.

And a link for those who think "concealed means nobody knows".......

Edward Tufte forum: Megan Jaegerman's brilliant news graphics

 

[AzBanks]

The proper solution to this issue is that the police tell whomever is complaining about "the man with a gun" that open carrying a gun is legal. The police need to educate the public about what is legal and stop harassing people who are not breaking the law. If some sheeple get scared and pee themselves because someone else is legally carrying a firearm, TFB.

Is this the "land of the free" or the "land of the free as long as we don't scare the whiners". The brave need to stand up and tell the whiners to get over their fear.

 

[Rhino]

You see someone antagonizing the police and I see the police over stepping their authority and lying about the legality of their actions.

Did you watch a different video? Nobody lied and the cops were doing their job. The only place you might argue that they overstepped their bounds was when they asked for ID, but they gave him every opportunity to refuse if he had wanted to push that particular isuue. And we've recently discussed court cases on this site where a demand for ID has been ruled legal by the courts even where the citizen was carrying legally. In fact, I believe one of those cases was binding for that locale. I would almost think you didn't watch the video, or maybe didn't pay close attention, because one of the officers went to amazing lengths to explain the situation to the guy. He went way further than most police officers would in explaining the situation, and it's incredibly clear that he has a thorough understanding of the issue, both pro and con. He also made it very clear that they've had a number of such 'challenges' by people open carrying, so it's not like it's something new or unexpected for them, and it's obvious they have developed procedures for it. You might disagree with them, but that's a matter for the courts to decide. It doesn't in any way make them liars or bully cops who are exceeding their authority. This stuff probably does more to increase the chance of meeting such a cop though, because deliberately irritating and antagonizing them for no good purpose like that is likely to create enemies. It sure as hell won't make friends.

But just for the sake of argument, I'll play devil's advocate. What if those officers really WERE overstepping their authority and lying to the gun owner? Could you please tell me what good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing them? I don't see any.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

But just for the sake of argument, I'll play devil's advocate. What if those officers really WERE overstepping their authority and lying to the gun owner? Could you please tell me what good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing them? I don't see any.

I do see a good purpose in requiring... nay DEMANDING!... that the police respect and obey the law just like us lowly common folks have to. After all... if the cops don't obey the law who will protect us from the supposed protectors?

Now... if us lowly common folks don't have the balls to stand up to cops on power trips trying to intimidate folks engaging in legal activities then... who will? Concealed carriers who hide their guns in fear some cop might see it and come talk to them?

And yes, I did watch the video and I saw cops trying to intimidate a legal open carrier to not open carry because people might not like it. Or did you miss all the parts where the cops were overstepping their authority and not adhering to the law but were spouting their opinions about open carry and how some people might be upset when they see it and ... umm... call the cops?

Are you aware of U.S. Code Title 18 (commonly called "color of law") where it is a federal crime for an officer to use the authority of his office (badge and uniform) to intimidate folks who are not breaking the law into conforming to the officer's ... opinions?

From:

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | LII / Legal Information Institute


USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 242

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(bold added by me for emphasis)
----
And those cops WERE using their authority to try to make that guy stop legally!!! dammit!! open carrying just because someone "might" get scared and call the cops.

What part of the cops were the one's who wasted the open carrier's time.. the cops were the one's who overstepped their authority... the cops were the one's who created the disturbance.. and the cops were the one's who broke the law by trying to intimidate the legal open carrier into relinquishing his legal right to carry a pistol in plain sight.... and all the cops had to do was to pedal their asses on by noting there was a guy not breaking any laws by legally open carrying and keep on pedaling...

and what part of if folks keep hiding their rights in fear then they don't have any rights.. all they have is fear.....

is being missed by some folks?

Oh... and unless that particular park happens to be private property.... then the park rule is illegal and unenforceable..
From:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.170

§ 166.170¹
State preemption

(1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

For the sake of Pete... I don't even live in Oregon yet all I had to do was search Oregon's laws instead of ranting and raving that personal opinion trumps the legal exercising of the right to bear arms.

 

[billwot]

I'm not sure if watching the whole video is informative or not, but I only got through the first 3.5 minutes before I had to shut that annoying little voice up.

You didn't miss anything. The rest of the video was just a series of repetitions of the first few minutes.

Probably the only thing you missed by not watching the whole thing was the detached, professional demeanor of the 2 officers.

 

[CharonPDX]

What I can't stand is when these ya-hoos take offense to being called out. Really? You did this (including the video taping) for the sole purpose of being called out to raise a stink.

His whole "I am only doing this under duress" line for the camera just makes him go over the top. Sorry, but saying "I'm only doing it under duress" doesn't mean squat. Either you make your political statement by going whole-hog, refusing to cooperate at all, letting them drag you in, and fighting it in court - or you shut up and comply.

Videotaping your cry for attention then posting it online isn't going to change anything. Allowing yourself to get arrested then testing in court will. (See the guy in Portland who protested the TSA by stripping naked at the security line, whose nudity was declared "protected protest speech".)

 

[SGB]

Did you watch a different video?

Please see Bikenut's post, he pretty much covers it. Then research Terry v Ohio and the 4th amendment of the constitution. Or you could do what I did and go through the Police academy and put a decade on the job doing it the correct way.

 

[Bikenut]

Please see Bikenut's post, he pretty much covers it. Then research Terry v Ohio and the 4th amendment of the constitution. Or you could do what I did and go through the Police academy and put a decade on the job doing it the correct way.

Alas... I doubt any of the folks claiming the cops were the good guys and the so called "activist" who was breaking NO laws was the bad guy ... will expend the effort to read actual laws.

 

[Walther_Fan]

He's an attention whore. Talking about him is just giving him what he wants.

 

[accidentalfelon]

And yet homosexuals can masturbate on stages in public at Folsom Street events with the police standing there to guaranty their right of free expression.

Nice work law enforcement.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dekul34]

The guy is just pushing buttons to push buttons, if he really wanted to change things he'd let them arrest him and fight the case in court. Nothing is going to change short of that, apart from him making himself look like an ass on the internet.

 

[Greggatshack]

He would probably be better served by using his spare time to learn to speak more eloquently so he could express himself in a lucid way.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[borgranta]

What exactly does this do for 2nd amendment rights? Nothing. It's a mockery and wastes police resources. This Dork got his 15mins of fame because my dumbarse is reposting. But, I couldn't resist. It's worth pointing out how foolish these baiting activities are getting. I bet he has never seen a woman naked.

LiveLeak.com - Another 2cent activist wasting the cops time

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

I heard the police refer to his gun as a sidearm multiple times which means he was legally open carrying a pistol or revolver. How many people do they question
for simply carrying a sidearm for personal protection.

 

[msg51]

And if the police did not check it out and something happened, who would be asking why the police did nothing.

 

[Firefighterchen]

And if the police did not check it out and something happened, who would be asking why the police did nothing.

Can police not check it out from a distance? Do police officers not have the intelligence enough to watch someone and come to a conclusion on their own? Could they not have just watched until the activist decided to leave?

By your logic, why not just have police on every corner checking everyone's papers to make sure everyone is safe...because you know if they don't and something bad happens, who would be asking why the police did nothing?