The PO had several valid points, in my opinion. 1.) Because of citizen reports that someone was walking down the highway with a firearm, it was necessary that they check it out to see if anything to cause concern. The PO stated, since this guy refused to answer, they had no way of knowing if he was planning on pulling it to shoot them or cars.
Citizen reports of a legal activity warrants this response? What about someone driving their car on that same freeway? Should that be responded to as well? What difference does it make between a firearm and a car? Why do you put so much emphasis on an inanimate object? Is not like it's going to jump out if it's holster and start shooting people on its own.
2.) The police simply asked why he was walking down the highway with a firearm on his hip. That is not prohibiting him from carrying but is seeking information that can resolve the issue when others call about someone with a gun. A quick logical reason would have resolved this quickly. I felt the PO's were very patiently trying to get answers. The person posting this video was, in his own words, "a Second Amendment activist", and apparently only interested in proving some point.
It's my legal right is a perfectly good answer. What was the officers response to that? "Are you going to keep being an ***hole?" I guess those who believe in the constitution are just ***holes now. You know what would have been quicker than answering the officers? If the officers knew the law and left him alone to begin with. If you consider that officers attitude patient, i can't imagine what it would take to be angry. Possibly ex officer harless is the minimum it takes to be considered angry?
3.) Since the poster took so much time, refusing to answer questions or resolve the basic question, the PO was correct that it was possible other calls were having to be answered by someone that would take longer to respond. That could cause someone else to be injured or worse while this guy was trying to make a point. Only at the very end, after all his comments did he say he was going to get something to eat.
the officers could have left at any time, no one was keeping them there but their own free will. They were not arresting him, nor did they do anything else productive, they were questioning someone who broke no laws, so there is no obligation to stay.
My son is a PO in the Kansas City metro area. While he fully supports the Second Amendment and concealed and open carry, if his dispatch received numerous reports of someone walking down the highway with a firearm, he would have to respond. if his PD ignored the calls and did not check it out and the person started shooting at cars, who would be made the scapegoat? I know of numerous cases where a PO found out a person was carrying and simply told them to "Be safe." when they could tell there was no cause for concern. Most of the time, the Police support our right to carry, as long as we do so responsibly (with exceptions like Chicago, DC or New York, etc.).
should the police then also stop each car passing by to question where each individual is going? because no one knows if they are going to go run over a bunch of kids in the park in 5 minutes.
Carrying a firearm is not only a right, there is a responsibility that goes with carrying, open or concealed. My opinion is this guy was exercising his right without being a responsible gun owner. In short, his actions and lack of sound judgement, just to make a point, is irresponsible. If I had shot this video, I think I would not want to post it on the internet to show my lack of common sense, just to "prove" some point. This exercise does not promote Second Amendment rights in my opinion, it only shows the anti-gunners that one gun owner does not seem to use good judgement. So, to them, all gun owners are idiots. This is just my 2 cents.
