Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.
Does that remind you of anyone?
Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.
Does that remind you of anyone?
I personally feel that while what they were doing is perfectly legal, you have to ask if doing that kind of open carry is a good idea given how the general public responds now.
Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.
Does that remind you of anyone?
As long as it is not in front of my house, so to speak, I really don't care that these fools are exercising their 2A rights. To me, it just gives the anti-gunners more fuel for the fire. I'm pro-gun and if I and many others on this site think these guys are morons, what do you think the anti-gunners think? It has nothing to do with legal or not legal. It is just a bad idea. I'm sure that if you were in a debate you would talk about protecting yourself, family and even the guy standing next to you. You talk about the Constitution and that firearms and freedoms is part of what makes this country great. I doubt you would mention you just want to stand on the street corner with your rifle and prove the police can't do anything about it. And really that is all that they are proving.
Come on. These guys were obviously wanting to make a scene and nothing else.
Ummm, this is exactly why more of us should open carry more! People only fear what they don't know/isn't "normal". more people open carry, the more "normal" it becomes. Personally I OC more and more these days, mostly because I just don't want to have to think about what cover garment to wear, what pants and belt will work with my IWB rig, etc...
On top of that, regardless what some members seem to think, it is a legal activity. I'm not very PC in general, couple that with the fact that I really don't give a damn what people think of me and you have my philosophy on Open Carrying. If I worried about what people might be upset by, I'd probably never leave my home. I'm 6'7" and 350#; I intimidate and scare people by walking in a room; this also negates the whole "tactical advantage" argument of CC fanatics... I will guarantee that if I'm in a situation where a BG is going to be taking out potential threats, I'm already marked just due to my size! The fact that I carry a sidearm probably wouldn't even enter the equation!
Of course if you read my sig, you will see that I am a member of the JFC school of thought, don't care if you OC, CC, or shove it up your arse, just carry!
[/rant]
I agree wholeheartedly that these guys were fools. However I also feel that the officer did, in fact, cross a line.
So, what line did he cross?
Your right. The fact that these guys are just standing there with a rifle and a video camera would have clued me in that the gun is not an automatic and that they are just looking for attention and there was no need or right to just the function of his gun. I'm not arguing the legality of it, I just think there is more productive ways to exercise your rights
No one (or at least I'm not) is arguing if it is legal. If not I'm sure they would have been arrested. You post a video of you OCing and caring on about your daily life i.e. grocery shopping, getting gas, walking you dog or what ever it is you do I will give you a thumbs up. However, purposely evoking a confrontation just to prove you can doesn't make any sense to me. There is no need to get defensive about the situation just because it is a 2A issue. I think if this guy was standing in front of your house you would have a problem with it. Just like if a guy was pacing up and down the sidewalk talking to himself in front of you house you would have a problem with it.
I never said what these two morons did was a good idea, they were obviously trying to cash in. As to the guy standing on the sidewalk in front of my house with a long gun... I'd watch him, but really as long as he wasn't doing anything wrong, I would probably just maintain my SA and go about my day.
I respectfully disagree and hope we get to see the court system look into it.
Saying that you "respectfully disagree" doesn't create evidence or satisfy the legal standard. It doesn't matter how reasonable your assessment thinks it is. The fact is that as long as we still have constitutional rights, the burden is on the state, no matter how "reasonable" it might seem, to produce something more than a hunch that some wrongdoing is going on before interfering with a person's liberty, even for a limited duration.
As I have attempted to detail in my numerous posts, it is apparent from the conduct of all involved in this video, however graceful, that such an allegation was not only based on a hunch, but a false hunch. And that is precisely what the constitution forbids--seizures of persons for which no evidence of criminal wrongdoing exists.
There are plenty of places in the world where suspicionless stops are perfectly acceptable, just as there are places where people are not allowed to own or carry firearms and so the mere possession of one is evidence of crime. The United States is not among them.
No it wasn't. The officer based the stop on reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon in question may have been full auto, based on his experience and training. The detention and temporary seizure and inspection of the weapon was a minimal intrusion, and I don't think there is a court in the nation that would not side with the legitimate government interest in public safety vs. the minimal scope of the intrusion. Heck, the officer didn't even ask for ID.
There are not clear answers, but there is case law, and there are the facts of Terry itself. Terry was casing an establishment and about to commit a robbery when the officer stopped him. It wasn't just that the officer suspected that he was armed, it was that he was armed and that the officer articulated specific facts that suggested that the two perps in that case were about to commit a felony--a robbery. Those were the relevant facts--not the officer's safety. At the time, carrying a firearm concealed in Ohio was a crime by itself, but that wasn't enough to make the stop.
I didn't say that the police aren't supposed to determine whether to make the stop, that's obviously the case.
The determination of the stop's constitutionality is a separate consideration that happens after the fact.
Judge: Why did you stop him?
Cop: Training and experience told me this was a fully automatic firearm.
Judge: But it wasn't fully automatic?
Cop: No
Judge: so your training and experience was inadequate?
Cop: No, Judge, every time I've seen a firearm of that shape it was...
Judge: But it could have been a toy, right?
Cop: Perhaps, Judge, but my training and experience....
In other words, training and experience doesn't have any independent or constitutionally-relevant meaning. All it means is that the cop had a hunch that something illegal was going on, without any specific evidence. And that is precisely what the constitution forbids: seizures of persons based on hunches rather than on specific evidence.
"Training and experience" isn't evidence. It's just reiterating that you're not braindead.
Indeed, it was a seizure. Now, explain how it was illegal. I'll wait...I feel that it was an illegal seizure of property, yes it was only for a moment, but it was still a seizure.
Indeed, it was a seizure. Now, explain how it was illegal. I'll wait...