another dumb activist. his 15mins

[SR40c]

Both are in the wrong.

The activist is clueless. I have no problem with what he is trying to do, but he needs to be much better prepared. Why these people try to pull off this nonsense as individuals is beyond me. If he really wanted to help the cause, he would organize a group and select a location that would better prove the point without becoming nuisance. He also lied to the cops as well. Not smart. He would make a lousy criminal.

The police are just being the police. Good little storm troopers. "Just following orders." I love how they use some little nuisance clause to shred the guy's right to carry in what is a legal manner. They harass the guy for a call that has not been made? What's next? "Oh, you have a gun and walking by a bank. We are detaining and questioning you about a potential bank robbery that has not happened".

 

[Nightmare45]

Innocent until proven guilty, educate dispatcher when call comes in, is he doing anything or just sitting with weapon on hip, just got back from open carry Arizona, only comment I received from law enforcement was "nice piece" while fueling in Sedona and getting coffee. Store owner in Sedona told me he used to be concerned when he wore his weapon openly for what visitors thought, but realized the problem was theirs not his.

 

[borgranta]

He was was surrounded by 3 or 4 cops and several more were within walking distance

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

He was was surrounded by 3 or 4 cops and several more were within walking distance ahead of him which totals more than half a dozen all for one guy with a pistol. Also it is possible the guy has a speech impediment in which case it s not his fault that he can not speak perfectly.

 

[borgranta]

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.

passing through a park while legally open carrying a pistol and does not violate the law but cops intimidating someone into not exercising their right to open carry should realize they are violating the color of law which is a federal crime as well the state law by enforcing park rules in direct violation of the states pre-emption on gun laws. If everyone throws people like this under the bus for exercising his rights and documenting police interference with that right than we could all suffer the affects we have to stay united or be destroyed seperately.

 

[Hoganbeg]

The cops lied by saying that the open carrier was disrupting the normal activities of the park. The caller disrupted his own activities willfully. That is understandable but it doesn't make the open carrier responsible for it or trump 2nd amendment rights.

Regarding showing ID under duress not meaning squat, you are wrong. It is a defense against the possible police claim that they weren't in violation of his rights because he gave them the information willingly. He did not give it willingly, but under the duress of police intimidation.

I agree that he was looking for a confrontation and I'm glad the cops remained cool.

The question is, How does one fight back against encroaching government restriction? Educating the sheep is required as is legislative pressure. A well-funded campaign would involve TV spots; much more effective, but not for the thin of wallet. Ultimately, people must exercise their rights as groups and individuals.

 

[Bikenut]

Judging from the posts in this discussion there are two different perspectives involved....

There are the folks like the open carrier in the video who have the courage to stand up for the right to bear arms by actually.... bearing arms in the face of opposition from police and nay sayers.

Then there are..

The nay sayers who think that hiding your gun so it is "out of sight and out of mind" will protect the right to bear arms by keeping it a secret. And the nay sayers attack anyone who "rocks the boat" by drawing attention to the right to bear arms by actually... bearing arms. Sadly the nay sayers do not understand that a right not exercised due to the fear of exercising it... is a right they already lost because they were too afraid to exercise it anyway.

The really annoying thing is the nay sayers want everyone else to be afraid to exercise the right to bear arms too. And when they expend efforts to stop other folks from bearing arms by insulting and ridiculing them... they join ranks with the anti gunners who use the very same tactics. They become just like the anti gunners clamoring for the right to bear arms to be restricted with the only difference being what/which restrictions are wanted.

And just like the anti gunner the nay sayers want to be the one's who get to tell everyone else what is NOT "allowed".

But the bottom line is quite simple.. if no one dares to stand up and fight for the right to bear arms because of fear.. in the end there won't be any right to bear arms and all that will be left is.................. fear.

 

[Bikenut]

Another thing I've noticed from the posts in this discussion....

There are those who know and understand the law...

and ..

There are those who think the cops ARE the law...

Also...

There are those who understand what the right to bear arms is...

and..

There are those who think their opinions of what the right to bear arms "should be" trumps the actual right to bear arms..

 

[Rhino]

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.

Excellent, but that wasn't what I asked. I asked what good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing those cops. I'm not going to repeat your entire post because it was overly long, but they weren't trying to intimidate him, they didn't overstep their authority and they weren't breaking the law. One of the cops went out of his way to present both sides of the story in a reasoned and logical argument for the guy. Not just the cop side. BOTH sides. You don't have the slightest clue what police intimidation is if you think that qualifies as it. You may not have agreed with his arguments, and quite frankly I'm not sure if I agree with all of it either, but he presented it both calmly and reasonably. Disagreement with it does not make it intimidation.

I'm quite familiar with the US Code, but in this case I don't need to be. They didn't deprive him of any rights.

"Why do I have to change my ways?"

"I didn't say you have to change your ways.......We know you have the right to do it."

You must have missed that part.

And I'm sorry you spent time looking up Oregon laws, but preemption didn't apply to this incident because the rule he referred to wasn't about firearms.

And all this brings me back to my original question. What good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing those cops? Even if they had intimidated him, overstepped their authority or broken the law as you thought, what would this guy have accomplished? Nothing, really, besides making a video. There were no charges filed. There was no lawsuit brought. The ACLU isn't investigating. He did manage to irritate two cops and create a pretty negative impression of gun owners in general though, and not just among cops. Anybody else who views the video is pretty likely to take a dim view of it.

And that was my whole point. Even though you may be righteously indignant over what you see as a crusade against corrupt cops, what this guy did served absolutely no good purpose for that crusade, other than give you something to rant about in an internet forum. In the meantime, those of us without that chip on our shoulders are wondering why idiots like that have to be around to give gun owners a bad name.

 

[accidentalfelon]

The cops lied by saying that the open carrier was disrupting the normal activities of the park. The caller disrupted his own activities willfully. That is understandable but it doesn't make the open carrier responsible for it or trump 2nd amendment rights.

Regarding showing ID under duress not meaning squat, you are wrong. It is a defense against the possible police claim that they weren't in violation of his rights because he gave them the information willingly. He did not give it willingly, but under the duress of police intimidation.

I agree that he was looking for a confrontation and I'm glad the cops remained cool.

The question is, How does one fight back against encroaching government restriction? Educating the sheep is required as is legislative pressure. A well-funded campaign would involve TV spots; much more effective, but not for the thin of wallet. Ultimately, people must exercise their rights as groups and individuals.

That is a great point. Our tax dollars are confiscated to pay advertisers hundreds of millions of dollars each year to tell us what we can't do, like litter or wash our cars on the streets. Knowing what a problem this is with public and police perception why can't the government spend money presenting the facts? If that isn't promoting the general welfare then what is?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rhino]

"...am I being detained or am I free to go?" possibly followed up with "I do not submit to any searches."

He did.

Innocent until proven guilty, educate dispatcher when call comes in, is he doing anything or just sitting with weapon on hip......

That is an idea that is long overdue in almost every jurisdiction in this country. Dispatchers need to be taught that the mere presence of a gun is not indication of foul play. Once the call goes out, officers have to respond, so their hands are tied. But the dispatcher can have the discretion as to the nature of that call, or to not make a call at all.

The cops lied by saying that the open carrier was disrupting the normal activities of the park. The caller disrupted his own activities willfully. That is understandable but it doesn't make the open carrier responsible for it or trump 2nd amendment rights.

Regarding showing ID under duress not meaning squat, you are wrong. It is a defense against the possible police claim that they weren't in violation of his rights because he gave them the information willingly. He did not give it willingly, but under the duress of police intimidation.

I agree that he was looking for a confrontation and I'm glad the cops remained cool.

The question is, How does one fight back against encroaching government restriction? Educating the sheep is required as is legislative pressure. A well-funded campaign would involve TV spots; much more effective, but not for the thin of wallet. Ultimately, people must exercise their rights as groups and individuals.

Which brings us back to how. I think it will ultimately come down to court cases. It's really sad that it needs to go to that level, but the reality of our modern day legal system pretty much makes it a necessity. What makes it worse is that it will probably take a lot of court cases. Unfortunately, except for the unlikely possibility of a few isolated incidents, street confrontations by activists are not going to solve the problem. And they'll very likely paint us in a negative light with both law enforcement and the public alike. Innocent encounters are one thing. You should absolutely stand up for your rights whenever they are threatened. But people that go looking for a confrontation like this guy are definitely not reflecting well on gun owners.

 

[Bikenut]

Excellent, but that wasn't what I asked. I asked what good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing those cops. I'm not going to repeat your entire post because it was overly long,

If no one challenges the status quo, deliberately or not, then nothing changes. And since when did standing up for yourself equal "antagonizing" the cops?

Oh... and your post wasn't exactly a short one so I did a bit of a -snip-............ :smile:

-snip-

And all this brings me back to my original question. What good purpose would have been served by this guy deliberately challenging and antagonizing those cops?

Even if they had intimidated him, overstepped their authority or broken the law as you thought, what would this guy have accomplished? Nothing, really, besides making a video. There were no charges filed. There was no lawsuit brought. The ACLU isn't investigating. He did manage to irritate two cops and create a pretty negative impression of gun owners in general though, and not just among cops. Anybody else who views the video is pretty likely to take a dim view of it.

Yep, some who viewed the video did have a very dim view of how the cops attempted to assert that not frightening other people who aren't familiar with guns is reason enough for not exercising the right to openly carry in a legal manner.

And that was my whole point. Even though you may be righteously indignant over what you see as a crusade against corrupt cops, what this guy did served absolutely no good purpose for that crusade, other than give you something to rant about in an internet forum. In the meantime, those of us without that chip on our shoulders are wondering why idiots like that have to be around to give gun owners a bad name.

You might think that the only good that came of that video is that I "ranted" or that I'm being righteously indignant when all I'm doing is pointing out that in this instance.. and in every instance where the cops use their authority in an attempt to get someone to stop engaging in a legal activity... the cops were in the wrong.

Now you asked what good came of all that when all that resulted was a video? Well...I quoted U.S. Code Title 18.. and now those who didn't know about how cops can't use their uniform and badge to deny someone their rights (and had the cops arrested the guy then they would have been denying him is rights) so that other people are aware that there even is such a thing...

And although Oregon preemption law wasn't what the cops were trying to jam the guy up on the fact that there IS a preemption law (again, that some folks might not have known about but do now) the preemption law makes the cops attempt to use an entirely different park rule as a way to intimidate the guy into not exercising his legal right to openly carry a rather thin and obvious attempt to try to find something... anything... to jam the guy up on.............. in order to intimidate him into not exercising his rights. Which brings us right back to U.S. Code Title 18.

So even though there wasn't any court case (how could there be? the guy wasn't arrested and, as you so kindly pointed out, since he wasn't arrested his rights were kept intact) that video does do a great deal of good since..........

You and I (and many others) are discussing it and folks are learning about the law from that discussion ... are they not?

Just because the guy didn't do it the way someone else wanted it to be done doesn't negate the good that is coming from the way he did it. Not to mention at least that guy had the balls to actually do it and that video (and many others available on the 'net) showed that people can legally open carry and not get arrested... as it should be.

 

[Bikenut]

He did.

That is an idea that is long overdue in almost every jurisdiction in this country. Dispatchers need to be taught that the mere presence of a gun is not indication of foul play. Once the call goes out, officers have to respond, so their hands are tied. But the dispatcher can have the discretion as to the nature of that call, or to not make a call at all.

Agreed, dispatch can be trained to ask pertinent questions to ascertain if sending an officer is warranted or not. More on this later. **

Which brings us back to how. I think it will ultimately come down to court cases. It's really sad that it needs to go to that level, but the reality of our modern day legal system pretty much makes it a necessity. What makes it worse is that it will probably take a lot of court cases. Unfortunately, except for the unlikely possibility of a few isolated incidents, street confrontations by activists are not going to solve the problem. And they'll very likely paint us in a negative light with both law enforcement and the public alike. Innocent encounters are one thing. You should absolutely stand up for your rights whenever they are threatened. But people that go looking for a confrontation like this guy are definitely not reflecting well on gun owners.

First off... I'm not arguing with you Sir. I'm discussing so please don't read any extra meaning into my typed words.

Street confrontations by activists most certainly have gone a long way to solving the problem of overzealous cops confronting legal open carriers in Michigan. There have been several high profile open carry incidents that resulted in the Michigan State Police issuing Legal Update #86

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

and distributing it to all the police depts in the State.

And it did come down to lawsuits brought forth by open carriers. Some lawsuits brought against police depts were settled with the requirement the dept be trained in the legality of open carry and for them to develop procedures to handle "man with a gun" calls involving open carriers plus many individuals took it upon themselves to attend municipal council meetings.. open carrying of course... and require illegal ordinances that banned guns (all guns open or concealed!) from parks or cemeterys or any public property be removed, repealed, or reworded to comply with State law.

But without the folks being willing to open carry regardless of if someone might call the cops... or even open carrying in a sensitive place (like legally open carrying in a school and some folks thought legally exercising the right to bear arms was confrontational just because it was school) knowing someone might call the cops and bring the issue to a head... none of those lawsuits would have happened and no progress would have been made.

And all that happened because of the few activists who actually confronted the problem.

Now as to being concerned that the general public might view gun owners in a bad light because of these open carrier incidents...

In Michigan.. all those lawsuits and videos were enthusiastically covered by the media as they tried to sensationalize the whole thing... And the end result was despite their best efforts to demonize open carry the media educated the general public that open carry not only was legal but anyone who isn't a felon or a nut could do it... and no permit was necessary.

So instead of folks viewing gun owners in a bad light people started asking why the cops were hassling people who weren't breaking the law. And people started asking what they needed to know in order to legally open carry too (there are restrictions that apply so I always caution folks to learn the applicable laws before just having a go at it).

And it all happened because of a few street confrontations by open carry activists.

 

[fearhd]

Dumb Ass

I open carry a pistol all the time, although I own several shotguns and rifles, I personally wouldn't carry them around just to bring more attention to myself. He's young and dumb and asking for trouble if you ask me

 

[BluesStringer]

I get why a poster like Otis would call the activist dumb etc., but for the life of me, I don't get "regular" gun folks following his lead. It occurs to me that the biggest problems with the activist are his obvious nervousness, expressed with a voice that (admittedly) is somewhat irritating, and a kind of jump-all-around, disjointed argument, and frankly, simply talking too much. But as obvious as those problems might be, it is also fairly obvious to me that he's new at this. He views the relevance of manufacturing an incident as being active in a movement, which I see as a noble endeavor, even if rather clumsily-implemented. Being an activist takes only the initiative to go out and do it, whether in concert with a group of people, or individually like this guy. The greater good is served by this guy's involvement, and willingness to sacrifice if that's the way it had gone down, which, to the cops' credit, it didn't, but to their discredit, it went on for much longer than they had any legal business making it go on for. They aren't there to opine and lecture citizens on what they think about the citizen's perfectly legal activities, they're there to enforce the law, and the only one in that video in need of law enforcement was the activist, who needed the cops to show whoever did call them (if anyone indeed did) that they would uphold the activist's civil rights since the law was on his side, just as they would enforce laws of which he ran afoul, if he had, but which he didn't.

If cops were more concerned with not "deliberately challenging and antagonizing" a law-abiding citizen, there would be no video to post at YouTube or LiveLeaks or wherever, unless of course, the activist posted a video to show a "good cop" encounter.

The overreaction against the activist in this video is really appalling coming from the gun community. One doesn't have to be "anti-cop" to be pro-law-abiding-citizen. One day, you might be that law-abiding citizen facing a cop lecturing and opining about your perfectly legal activity, and maybe then you'll get why videotaping these encounters is important in educating the general public about both the issues and your own rights to question cops who are overstepping their authority.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

You might think that the only good that came of that video is that I "ranted" or that I'm being righteously indignant when all I'm doing is pointing out that in this instance.. and in every instance where the cops use their authority in an attempt to get someone to stop engaging in a legal activity... the cops were in the wrong.

They weren't trying to get him to stop. They never asked him to stop.

Now you asked what good came of all that when all that resulted was a video? Well...I quoted U.S. Code Title 18..

Which didn't answer my question and doesn't really apply.

...and now those who didn't know about how cops can't use their uniform and badge to deny someone their rights (and had the cops arrested the guy then they would have been denying him is rights) so that other people are aware that there even is such a thing...

And you really think people didn't know that? Sorry, but I'm not buying that argument.

And although Oregon preemption law wasn't what the cops were trying to jam the guy up on the fact that there IS a preemption law (again, that some folks might not have known about but do now) the preemption law makes the cops attempt to use an entirely different park rule as a way to intimidate the guy into not exercising his legal right to openly carry a rather thin and obvious attempt to try to find something... anything... to jam the guy up on.............. in order to intimidate him into not exercising his rights. Which brings us right back to U.S. Code Title 18.

It doesn't bring us back to the US Code at all because they quite obviously weren't looking to "jam the guy up" on anything. If they wanted to intimidate him they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to explain and discuss both sides of the story, and the reasoning behind them. If they had wanted to intimidate him, their actions would have been far more aggressive and the discussion would not have been in such calm and reasonable tones. If you think that was police intimidation then apparently you've never seen it before, because that doesn't even come close. And educating us on the Oregon preemption law is a specious argument at best. There is very little chance that anyone here is affected by that law, and anyone that is would probably already be aware of it. And promoting the antagonizing of police on the street as a means to educate people on preemption laws doesn't exactly sound like serving a good purpose.

So even though there wasn't any court case (how could there be? the guy wasn't arrested and, as you so kindly pointed out, since he wasn't arrested his rights were kept intact) that video does do a great deal of good since..........

You and I (and many others) are discussing it and folks are learning about the law from that discussion ... are they not?

That's like saying killing people serves a good purpose because it gets people to learn about and discuss the murder statutes. The statutes on open carry, concealed carry, Terry stops and preemption can be learned about and discussed without being confrontational and adversarial with the police, particularly when you consider the goals of that education and discussion. We want the laws to be just, we want the police and politicians to be aware of what is right and what is wrong when it comes to issues involving firearms and our 2nd amendment rights, and we want them to both respect those rights and treat us accordingly. That's the ultimate goal of education and discussion of these statutes and of the treatment of gun owners by police, both pro and con, when the two have 'exchanges' with each other of a law enforcement nature. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we're far more likely to get such treatment from the police if we don't create an adversarial atmosphere with them. Yes, there will be times when some officers will cross the legal line and aggressive action will be necessary, but that action should be in the courts, not in the street. Any, I repeat, any, confrontational, adversarial or aggressive attitude towards police officers in the street works against that ultimate goal. It creates an us vs. them mentality that makes it much more difficult to ever reach that day when all law enforcement will understand and respect our 2nd amendment rights.

If you think all of this means laying down and taking it when your rights are violated or when you are genuinely intimidated under color of law, then you haven't been listening. We absolutely must defend ourselves in those instances. But guess what? Acting like an a$$hole won't help you and it isn't in any way a defense of your rights. Do you really think someone will win an argument with a cop that way? It isn't going to happen. The street isn't the place to argue those rights. The courts are where you argue them. The cop is just doing his job. Pissing him off just reduces any sympathy he might actually have for you or your rights. Even if what he's doing as part of his job does turn out to be a violation of a statute or precedent somewhere, that job still won't change on the street because the cop doesn't have the authority to make that decision. You still have to go through the courts for that, or at least through a prosecutor or similar official way above that officer's head. But I don't discount the possibility that you can educate an officer on the street when it comes to the way a statute reads. That can and does happen. I carry a copy of our statutes with me for just such a purpose, and I have clarified some nuances for LEOs in the past, though not for anything I was suspected of. But the guy in the video wasn't arguing the wording of a statute. And even if he had been, what kind of attitude do you think would be more likely to get a cop to pay attention to such 'educational' materials, and adversarial attitude or a helpful one?

Just because the guy didn't do it the way someone else wanted it to be done doesn't negate the good that is coming from the way he did it. Not to mention at least that guy had the balls to actually do it and that video (and many others available on the 'net) showed that people can legally open carry and not get arrested... as it should be.

No good came of it. He likely alienated two cops against gun owners, or at least against those who open carry anyway, and there's a fair chance he set back the day when all cops viewed gun owners fairly, and respected the rights of those gun owners in public. The educational value you claim really doesn't exist, and it wouldn't come close to justifying his behavior even if it di

 

[Rhino]

First off... I'm not arguing with you Sir. I'm discussing so please don't read any extra meaning into my typed words.

Street confrontations by activists most certainly have gone a long way to solving the problem of overzealous cops confronting legal open carriers in Michigan. There have been several high profile open carry incidents that resulted in the Michigan State Police issuing Legal Update #86

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

and distributing it to all the police depts in the State.

And it did come down to lawsuits brought forth by open carriers. Some lawsuits brought against police depts were settled with the requirement the dept be trained in the legality of open carry and for them to develop procedures to handle "man with a gun" calls involving open carriers plus many individuals took it upon themselves to attend municipal council meetings.. open carrying of course... and require illegal ordinances that banned guns (all guns open or concealed!) from parks or cemeterys or any public property be removed, repealed, or reworded to comply with State law.

We've had much the same here, though I don't recall one from the State Police. It was the Attorney General, prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs mainly.

But without the folks being willing to open carry regardless of if someone might call the cops... or even open carrying in a sensitive place (like legally open carrying in a school and some folks thought legally exercising the right to bear arms was confrontational just because it was school) knowing someone might call the cops and bring the issue to a head... none of those lawsuits would have happened and no progress would have been made.

And all that happened because of the few activists who actually confronted the problem.

Not the case here. We filed suit based on the signs or statutes alone.

Now as to being concerned that the general public might view gun owners in a bad light because of these open carrier incidents...

In Michigan.. all those lawsuits and videos were enthusiastically covered by the media as they tried to sensationalize the whole thing... And the end result was despite their best efforts to demonize open carry the media educated the general public that open carry not only was legal but anyone who isn't a felon or a nut could do it... and no permit was necessary.

So instead of folks viewing gun owners in a bad light people started asking why the cops were hassling people who weren't breaking the law. And people started asking what they needed to know in order to legally open carry too (there are restrictions that apply so I always caution folks to learn the applicable laws before just having a go at it).

And it all happened because of a few street confrontations by open carry activists.

We're not communicating here. I have no problem with people standing up for their rights. But there's a big difference between a simple confrontation and a confrontational or adversarial attitude. You don't seem to be getting that difference. This guy wouldn't have won you any friends in Michigan. I'm glad your lawsuits got good PR, but I wasn't arguing against lawsuits. On the contrary, I promoted them. What I take objection to is a$$holes with a bad attitude out looking for a fight with the cops. And I guareantee you, if anyone in the non-gun owning public in Michigan had seen a video of a guy like this being a jerk to Michigan cops, it would not have gotten you any good PR at all. It wouldf have hurt your cause.

Congrats on winning though.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Blue's, bike, and SGB...you guys give me hope. Good luck to the MarkedGaurdian with his endeavor against Eugene PD...I concealed there during my time in that city for good reason...had I had the knowledge and confidence to open carry then I would have, but life didn't take me down that road till I moved to WA. Luckily there had all ready been a "MarkedGaurdian" (there is a bit of irony in this name for anyone who lives here and knows the whole story) in my area that did EXACTLY this and I have had ZERO problems with police in my area.

I open carry a pistol all the time, although I own several shotguns and rifles, I personally wouldn't carry them around just to bring more attention to myself. He's young and dumb and asking for trouble if you ask me

He didn't carry a rifle or shotgun on that day. What is amazing, is 15 miles in ANY direction from that exactly location would be completely normal to carry a firearm, even a long gun (Creswell, Veneta, Junction City, Springfield and beyond). I lived everywhere from Leaburg (30 miles east of Eugene), to Springfield (10 miles east of springfield), to directly in the middle of Eugene, up to Corvallis, Albany, Lake O, Portland, Happy Valley, etc. There are 3 big reasons and many more small reasons which add up, for me having a bad attitude towards police forces (specifically towards OR police forces, more specifically Eugene PD, OR State police, and Clackamas PD), 2 of the big reasons coming from officers in the Lane County area.

As another person has stated, the brave need to step it up. I only have seen 2 brave individuals from that area come onto youtube, below is the other one. More police lying and coming up with reason to try and ID them. Only this time the officer is the one that had the nervous voice (it seemed he was new and maybe in a probationary phase with his partner?) and after discussing with the other officer realized their mistake would take them nowhere and "released" the "not detained" individual.

 

[Firefighterchen]

And just for giggles here is Marked Guardian in Medford OR.

 

[JimPage]

"You can't fix stupid!"

 

[Rhino]

I get why a poster like Otis would call the activist dumb etc., but for the life of me, I don't get "regular" gun folks following his lead. It occurs to me that the biggest problems with the activist are his obvious nervousness, expressed with a voice that (admittedly) is somewhat irritating, and a kind of jump-all-around, disjointed argument, and frankly, simply talking too much. But as obvious as those problems might be, it is also fairly obvious to me that he's new at this. He views the relevance of manufacturing an incident as being active in a movement, which I see as a noble endeavor, even if rather clumsily-implemented. Being an activist takes only the initiative to go out and do it, whether in concert with a group of people, or individually like this guy. The greater good is served by this guy's involvement, and willingness to sacrifice if that's the way it had gone down, which, to the cops' credit, it didn't, but to their discredit, it went on for much longer than they had any legal business making it go on for. They aren't there to opine and lecture citizens on what they think about the citizen's perfectly legal activities, they're there to enforce the law, and the only one in that video in need of law enforcement was the activist, who needed the cops to show whoever did call them (if anyone indeed did) that they would uphold the activist's civil rights since the law was on his side, just as they would enforce laws of which he ran afoul, if he had, but which he didn't.

Yeah, he definitely sounds like he needs to practice his arguments. But according to LiveLeak he has done this many times, so maybe practice isn't helping him. I don't think the cops made it go on that long. The guy kept wanting to interject his arguments, so the cop went to great lengths to explain the whys and wherefores of both sides of that argument. I think they would have been happy to drop it earlier. If anything, I have to give the one cop credit for taking so much time to give an in depth explanation of the other side of the coin. They have problems they have to deal with too, and some people don't always see that.

If cops were more concerned with not "deliberately challenging and antagonizing" a law-abiding citizen, there would be no video to post at YouTube or LiveLeaks or wherever, unless of course, the activist posted a video to show a "good cop" encounter.

If a cop gets a call, he has to respond. It isn't his choice not to. And individual cops for the most part don't get to decide procedures. They mostly have to follow them, right or wrong. And a cop who spends that much time explaining his side of the story and how his hands are tied hardly qualifies as deliberately challenging and antagonizing.

The overreaction against the activist in this video is really appalling coming from the gun community.

Because they don't want someone representing gun owners to act like a jerk? How on earth is that appalling?

One doesn't have to be "anti-cop" to be pro-law-abiding-citizen. One day, you might be that law-abiding citizen facing a cop lecturing and opining about your perfectly legal activity, and maybe then you'll get why videotaping these encounters is important in educating the general public about both the issues and your own rights to question cops who are overstepping their authority.

You appear to be missing the same point Bikenut was. I haven't seen anyone argue against these encounters or against recording them. The arguments I've seen, ceratinly what I've put forth, were about the attitude he presented. Nothing more. And to be completely fair, most of that was circumstantial. Had this been a happenstance occurrence, most of my objection would be gone. But this guy was blatantly cruising for a confrontation, he'd done it numerous times before, the cops knew it, and he refused to admit it. That tainted everything that followed.