The Problem With Some People Who Open Carry.

[Gordon Shumway]

Link Removed

Read this story.
His open carry is in violation of both state and federal school campus laws.
Do you think that he should have been ignored because of the 2nd?
What do you think should be done to him?

Unfortunately WE ALL must live with the consequences of people like this who are either ignorant or just stupid.

What would YOU have done if you had witnessed this situation?
Even if you had been just driving past?

Seriously think about it.
I would like to know.

 

[redboneshadow]

A few items on this:

1. Common sense dictates that you do not do this in the first place.
2. Most schol zones are not no gun zones if you read the law. Just no guns on school property.
3. Open carry and concealed carry are bot part of the 2nd Amendment.
4. I have open carried in a school zone with no problem. Just a sidearm. Not rifle.
5. When in doubt about anything like this, check it out with the authorities first.

 

[disneyr]

Shows how freaked out people have become about guns. I probably would have cased the weapons and double parked to shuttle the weapons into the residence like the police LT suggested because I know how schools freak out now.

In comparison I was on the high school trap shooting team so I brought a Remington 870 pump action shotgun to school and stored it in my locker on practice and match days. By the way, I went to high school in California in the mid 1980's.

 

[NavyLCDR]

First, he did NOT violate New Hampshire state law.

Second, he should be arrested and tried for any crimes that he did commit (violating 18 USC 922 (q)) which would require the charges to be brought by Federal authorities and tried in Federal court. Hopefully, it would open the door to a court case that would strike down 18 USC 922 (q) as unconstitutional.

Third, given the TOTALITY of the circumstances: near the school, at the time of school dismissal, and carrying firearms/ammo not normally associated with or in a manner consistent with self-protection, I would probably have called 911 and continued to observe the guy, especially since I would more than likely be armed myself. Also, since I would likely be in the area to pick my daughter up from school, I would call her, tell her exactly where I was, and to come immediately to the car without stopping to talk to friends.

Now.... if it's just a person carrying a handgun in a holster... no problem, I wouldn't look twice, especially since I would be exhibiting the exact same behavior myself.

Also, I would not consider this guy to be an "open carrier" based on the description of this incident. To me an "open carrier" is a person who normally carries a firearm the exact same way a "concealed carrier" does, except their shirt is tucked in behind their gun rather than in front of their gun.

Finally, since you posted this in the open carry forum vice the general gun discussion forum, and given the title of your thread, it is apparant to me, at least, that you only bring this discussion up as an excuse to push your anti-open carry sentiments and rhetoric.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The Problem With Some People Who Carry Concealed.

The Problem With Some People Who Carry Concealed.

Link Removed
Read this story.

His concealed carry is in violation of state laws.
Do you think that he should have been ignored because of the 2nd?
What do you think should be done to him?

Unfortunately WE ALL must live with the consequences of people like this who are either ignorant or just stupid.

What would YOU have done if you had witnessed this situation?
Even if you had been just driving past?

Seriously think about it.
I would like to know.

 

[S&WM&P40]

Link Removed

Read this story.
His open carry is in violation of both state and federal school campus laws.
Do you think that he should have been ignored because of the 2nd?
What do you think should be done to him?

Unfortunately WE ALL must live with the consequences of people like this who are either ignorant or just stupid.

What would YOU have done if you had witnessed this situation?
Even if you had been just driving past?

Seriously think about it.
I would like to know.

Why are you trying to up your post count by posting something that is already on the forums. As I said in the OP under the New Hampshire boards. He did nothing WRONG!!! They had no grounds to stop him! I love how people who don't live in NH and know nothing about the laws(other then what they hear,are told or read ON THE INTERNET) like to play armchair commando!.

 

[S&WM&P40]

Why are you trying to up your post count by posting something that is already on the forums. As I said in the OP under the New Hampshire boards. He did nothing WRONG!!! They had no grounds to stop him! I love how people who do not live in NH and know anothing about the laws(other then what they hear,are told or read ON THE INTERNET) like to play armchair commando!.

As for what I would have done if I drove past. I would ask him what kind of weapons he has and how he likes them. Then ask him if the day at the range was fun.

FYI, Per state law you can Open carry a fully loaded ak-47/ar-15 into the court house and turn it over to the rent a cops and pick it up on the way out. You can carry said weapons into the state house with out having to turn them over.

Another FYI, He was on PUBLIC PROPERTY the whole time! He never set foot on the school grounds with said firearms.

If you have a permit issued by your state that does a background check, does that not exempt you from the GFSZ?

 

[santa]

First, he did NOT violate New Hampshire state law.

Second, he should be arrested and tried for any crimes that he did commit (violating 18 USC 922 (q)) which would require the charges to be brought by Federal authorities and tried in Federal court. Hopefully, it would open the door to a court case that would strike down 18 USC 922 (q) as unconstitutional.

Third, given the TOTALITY of the circumstances: near the school, at the time of school dismissal, and carrying firearms/ammo not normally associated with or in a manner consistent with self-protection, I would probably have called 911 and continued to observe the guy, especially since I would more than likely be armed myself. Also, since I would likely be in the area to pick my daughter up from school, I would call her, tell her exactly where I was, and to come immediately to the car without stopping to talk to friends.

Now.... if it's just a person carrying a handgun in a holster... no problem, I wouldn't look twice, especially since I would be exhibiting the exact same behavior myself.

Also, I would not consider this guy to be an "open carrier" based on the description of this incident. To me an "open carrier" is a person who normally carries a firearm the exact same way a "concealed carrier" does, except their shirt is tucked in behind their gun rather than in front of their gun.

Finally, since you posted this in the open carry forum vice the general gun discussion forum, and given the title of your thread, it is apparant to me, at least, that you only bring this discussion up as an excuse to push your anti-open carry sentiments and rhetoric.

While I am not sure of Gordon's reasons or motives for starting this thread I do have to agree with NavyLT that while no STATE laws were broken FEDERAL law does come into play. Perhaps this could have been the start of a case in court to overturn the FEDERAL law. I do hope that if Natioal Reciprocity does happen the FEDERAL LAW will be changed or eleminated. I also agree that the person carrying the firearms was not 'open-carrying' as I think of open carriers. In this case I would have called 911 and prepared myself to take action IF NO OTHER OPTION WAS AVAILABLE AND I SAW THE PERSON TAKING AIM. I know this opens up a 'what would you do' scenario but I lived only 2 blocks from the school in Stockton Ca where Patrick Purdy killed those children. I was nearby and in a position to act and if armed I would have acted. Please no 'second-guessing' as the circumstances were unique. But back to this particular scenario. NavyLT is also correct in that the manner in which the individual carried tthe guns was something that needed to be watched. At the very least this individual is guilty of 'NO COMMON SENSE". In a way it is the same thing as talking about bombs on a plane, not a good idea. Oh and while I for the most part carry concealed I have carried openly and have no problem with it. Good post NavyLT. And NavyLt my small Papillion dog will lick your big dog to death and then I will sik all of his 10 pounds on you unless I get my hat back. I need it by Christmas. Santa

 

[NavyLCDR]

And NavyLt my small Papillion dog will lick your big dog to death and then I will sik all of his 10 pounds on you unless I get my hat back. I need it by Christmas. Santa

To be honest with you, Daisy, the Shar Pai-Lab mix would put up a big braking front when confronted with someone she didn't know, but if you said "boo" to her while she was doing it, she would run and hide. We used to say, "Yeah, some Chinese fighting dog you are!" I lost both my dogs and about 13 firearms in the divorce.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you have a permit issued by your state that does a background check, does that not exempt you from the GFSZ?

Yes, however our subject in the story did not have a permit.

 

[S&WM&P40]

Yes, however our subject in the story did not have a permit.

Not yet that is ,LOL. The commie police on the sea coast(most who moved up here from MA or Boston and think MA laws follow them up here.) Will try and use this as a reason for denying his future permit application.

 

[B2Tall]

The gentleman in question needs to invest in a gun case or two. You'd think that anyone carrying a Benelli would want it cased to begin with. Those things aren't cheap.

Then, after he's bought the cases, he should stop by the Common Sense Store and see what they have in his size.

 

[S&WM&P40]

The gentleman in question needs to invest in a gun case or two. You'd think that anyone carrying a Benelli would want it cased to begin with. Those things aren't cheap.

Then, after he's bought the cases, he should stop by the Common Sense Store and see what they have in his size.

I see your back at it. Wishing to restrict a citizens rights. Hope to god you never travel to New Hampshire, good god all the freedoms we have up here might give you a heart attack.

 

[FN1910]

Lets just talk about rights, laws and common sense for a minute concerning the OP. What he did was within his rights as far as I know and the police said that he broke no laws. But as for common sense walking in front of a school, while school is letting out, carrying a shotgun or rifle on your shoulder, a handgun on your side and an ammo belt slung over your chest is DUMB. There is not a single one of you on here seeing that scenario would not stop and take some kind of action even if it is nothing but to watch. If you say that you wouldn't pay him any attention and just keep on driving then your situational awareness it severely lacking. I suppose you would not have paid Cho any attention when he chained the doors at VT but rather waited until he actually started shooting. This was a case where the police had every right and need to stop and question the man which is what they did. After questioning they said he didn't break any laws, all proper procedure. If he had only been carrying a handgun in a holster things may have been different but walking in front of a school with a long gun and ammo belt is not a common practice and I hope is investigated. I amy be in the minority but I would much rather they stop someone before the shooting starts than waiting until after it does to take action.

 

[S&WM&P40]

Lets just talk about rights, laws and common sense for a minute concerning the OP. What he did was within his rights as far as I know and the police said that he broke no laws. But as for common sense walking in front of a school, while school is letting out, carrying a shotgun or rifle on your shoulder, a handgun on your side and an ammo belt slung over your chest is DUMB. There is not a single one of you on here seeing that scenario would not stop and take some kind of action even if it is nothing but to watch. If you say that you wouldn't pay him any attention and just keep on driving then your situational awareness it severely lacking. I suppose you would not have paid Cho any attention when he chained the doors at VT but rather waited until he actually started shooting. This was a case where the police had every right and need to stop and question the man which is what they did. After questioning they said he didn't break any laws, all proper procedure. If he had only been carrying a handgun in a holster things may have been different but walking in front of a school with a long gun and ammo belt is not a common practice and I hope is investigated. I amy be in the minority but I would much rather they stop someone before the shooting starts than waiting until after it does to take action.

Chaining the doors(illegal act,fire regs) carrying of firearms openly(legal ACT!) You can't really even try and compair an illegal act with a lawfull one.

 

[B2Tall]

Lets just talk about rights, laws and common sense for a minute concerning the OP. What he did was within his rights as far as I know and the police said that he broke no laws. But as for common sense walking in front of a school, while school is letting out, carrying a shotgun or rifle on your shoulder, a handgun on your side and an ammo belt slung over your chest is DUMB. There is not a single one of you on here seeing that scenario would not stop and take some kind of action even if it is nothing but to watch. If you say that you wouldn't pay him any attention and just keep on driving then your situational awareness it severely lacking. I suppose you would not have paid Cho any attention when he chained the doors at VT but rather waited until he actually started shooting. This was a case where the police had every right and need to stop and question the man which is what they did. After questioning they said he didn't break any laws, all proper procedure. If he had only been carrying a handgun in a holster things may have been different but walking in front of a school with a long gun and ammo belt is not a common practice and I hope is investigated. I amy be in the minority but I would much rather they stop someone before the shooting starts than waiting until after it does to take action.

There are a handful of people on these boards that are determined to defend their (and others) rights to act like a complete idiot as well as their right to act without common sense and to behave like paranoid buffoons.

 

[S&WM&P40]

There are a handful of people on these boards that are determined to defend their (and others) rights to act like a complete idiot as well as their right to act without common sense and to behave like paranoid buffoons.

ephi 2:27--Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all
things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free
to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all
men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and
power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable
like unto himself.

2 Nephi 10:23--Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye
are free to act for yourselves?-to choose the way of everlasting death
or the way of eternal life.

Gods greatest gift to his children was the gift of FREE WILL!

How they chose to use said free will is left up to them. I defend all rights both man made lawful rights and human rights. I don't just defend the rights I like/use.

It's not just members on these forums who defend peoples rights to act however they want (right or wrong). The highest court in the land also does the same thing. Point in case they protected the right of that church to protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers. However wrong it may be for them do do such a disgusting thing, the court up held their right under the law to do such a thing. They ruled on fact of law, not on their personal feelings.

If you don't like the laws CHANGE THEM! Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over someone following the law. If someone is committing an unlawful act it's one thing, but getting worked up over a lawful act. Take a valium and chill.

 

[FN1910]

Chaining the doors(illegal act,fire regs) carrying of firearms openly(legal ACT!) You can't really even try and compair an illegal act with a lawfull one.

If you had seen Cho chaining the doors how would you have known it was an illegal act? There action of chaining doors shut in itself is not illegal and it done quite often. To know whether or not it was an illegal or legal act you would have had to have more information about his action such as time of day, if other people were in the building, if he was authorized to do it,........

The mere fact of chaining the doors shut was not in itself illegal just like his walking down the street with a shotgun on his shoulder. It was the surrounding factors that caused alarm. The two acts can be compared very easily and correctly.

 

[FN1910]

There are a handful of people on these boards that are determined to defend their (and others) rights to act like a complete idiot as well as their right to act without common sense and to behave like paranoid buffoons.

I also defend a person's right to act like and idiot however I do not defend their right to act like an idiot without consequences. Just like the show "jackass", I defend his right to do stupid things but only if his stupidity does not affect and harm others. A person climbing a mountain knowing the dangers and does not take the proper precautions before starting out should not expect others to place themselves in great danger by trying to rescue him when his stupidity gets him in trouble.

People do stupid things all the time and I say let them do it as long as it only involves the idiot. If someone is walking around holding an AK-47 in their arms it may be legal. If they start pointing it at people then it becomes illegal. What is the difference if they do not intend to shoot anyone? What about if it is fake gun? The problem is that we do not know what the intentions of the idiot are and cannot automaticly assume that he is not going to harm anyone if his actions are far from normal. There is nothing wrong with verifying the intentions of the idiot. There are guidelines and laws about how you have to prepare before climbing a mountain and no one complains about these restrictions on free travel.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

What about the 1,000 ft school campus law?
The feds could still come in and charge him with multiple felonies, couldn't they?