Well. A guy decided to do an open carry experiment in my town.

[pa28]

He's carrying a loaded AR-15 and the cops decided to stop by and say hello.

This is how a police officer should act IMO. He's a pro.

[ellisonz]

1. Do you support this shit-stirring? n/t

[pa28]

3. Eh. I'm more of a fan of the bill of rights in general.

The author of the video duplicated this in different places and that was the really interesting part. In some places he was totally ignored and in others he wound up facing something like a military response.

I posted this because of the cop. He got it just right IMO.

[ellisonz]

5. The cop thinks he's being a jackass. n/t

[PavePusher]

110. Unless a criminal action is imminent or in progress, the officers' opinion is irrelevent/immaterial.

Nor is mere opinion justification to confront a lawful Citizen.

[Common Sense Party]

121. Being jackass isn't against the law, thankfully.

If it were, DU would be a very quiet place.

[holdencaufield]

10. I am unequivocal about gun rights...

... but I don't believe the constitution gives you the right to be a jerk (without repercussions at least). I myself carry within the restriction of local law. But, even if it were legal to open carry where I live, brandishing a weapon (as opposed to being discreet and defensive) is sure invitation to confrontation -- if not from the cops then from some arsehole spoiling for a fight.

The RIGHT to carry comes with it the RESPONSIBILITY to act in a considerate and safe manner.

I can't see what he is doing in the video -- I think that would be at least as revealing as the video themselves -- but from his tone, he seems to be provoking confrontation and he comes off just a tad crazy. I've known police officers most of my life and the one thing that makes the hairs on the back of their head stand up is a confrontational crazy because you never know what they're going to do.

For example, was his weapon slung, or was it being held at the ready -- one is a defensive posture, the other an offensive posture. Why would his weapons be loaded? I believe I read he was carrying an AR-15 which can be loaded in seconds by inserting the magazine. So, he's carrying loaded not for self-defence, but for provocation. It's basic safety weapons safety to have an empty chamber and an open bolt when walking around. Seeing people walking around suburban streets with a weapon at the ready is unusual and I would hate to live in a town where that DIDN'T attract the concern of the local constabulary. It's also legal for people to walk down the boulevard in a mob with pitchforks and torches -- but I'd be surprised if that didn't at least merit a couple of questions from the local PD. I'm surprised not one of the cops asked him precisely where he was going with his weapon that fine day -- that doesn't sound like a particularly invasive question to me.

"What's all this then? We wouldn't be happening to be headed to the local doctor's castle, would we?"

[Trunk Monkey]

11. RE: I am unequivocal about gun rights

No, actually you’re not.

You’re unequivocal about gun rights as long as they fit into your narrow world view.

I don’t know that I’d walk around town with an AR but if this guy wants to do it and is willing to take the hassle, more power to him.

If what the guy is doing is legal then he shouldn’t be hassled

It's basic weapons safety to have an empty chamber and an open bolt when walking around.

Just curious but when you carry is you're slide locked to the rear on an empty chamber?

[holdencaufield]

14. When I carry in the field...

... with my shotgun -- no shells in the chambers, breech open

... with my lever rifle -- magazine loaded, no round in the breech, lever down OR magazine empty, brass-checked empty and lever up (to prevent dirt in the breech) and hammer half-cock (which locks the trigger on my model)

... with my bolt rifle -- no magazine, bolt open (if the terrain is uneven I will close the bolt after brass checking clear to prevent dirt in the breech)

... with my single action revolver -- 5 cylinders loaded -- no round in the active cylinder, hammer down.

... with my 1911 -- no magazine, no round in the chamber, slide forward



I don't prepare my weapon to fire until I have a target identified. It's proper safety.

In my opinion -- he wasn't be "hassled" he was being asked his business by the officers who sworn to keep public order.

[safeinOhio]

17. Great answer to

A dumb question. Most advocates preach gun safety, but know very little about it.

[Callisto32]

33. There is nothing unsafe about a chambered round in a slung AR pattern rifle.

The selector stays on safe, and your finger stays off the bang switch, same as pretty much any semi-auto handgun with similar controls that is carried for defensive purposes.

If carrying chambered and on-safe were unsafe, the 1911 pattern auto would have fallen out of favor long ago.

[Trunk Monkey]

44. Why was my question dumb?

I have carried a loaded, chambered handgun eight hours a day for four years and it has yet to magically "go off". Actually other than at the range or while being cleaned that particular handgun has been continually loaded and chambers for those four years without an single ND.

I carried a loaded M16 all the way through a war it never magially "went off" either

Holden Caulfied's safety rules apply during a hunting trip, not in the real world

[Callisto32]

95. If there isn't one in the pipe, what the hell's the point?

An empty gun is just an awkward club.

[Trunk Monkey]

97. Ummm, that was kinda my point.

Now if I was going hunting I likely would keep my rifle unloaded on my way to and from my hunting location.

[Callisto32]

127. HAHA

Sorry!

I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have said "RIGHT! If there isn't one in the pipe...."

Inflection is lost in text, unfortunately.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. Concur

Holden is doing exactly the right thing when doing non-defensive carry. However, it is not how to have the weapon when in a defensive carry situation.

When carrying a 1911A for defensive purposes, I do it Condition 1. When I am carrying a revolver, I have the hammer down over a an empty cylinder. Yes I understand the new mechanical safeties, but I am old school

[Travis_0004]

102. I agree 100%.

There are different ways to safely carry a gun depending on what you are using it for.

When I carry my AR-15 to the range, I carry it in two pieces, since thats the way it fits in the case.

If I was carrying it for defensive situations, that would be a horrible idea.

[gejohnston]

32. which single action revolver do you have?

If it is the new model Ruger Black Hawk, it is safe to carry a full cylinder. The new Ruger Bearcat also has a transfer bar even though it functions like a traditional single action.

[holdencaufield]

107. Ruger New Vaquero (blued) in .357 -- a pair with consecutive serial numbers :-)

Which also has a transfer bar to prevent a drop/accidental discharge.

However, I just never ever keep a round in the chamber until I'm prepared to fire at an identified target. I was taught this in the boy scouts and it has reinforced by every instructor I've ever had since. It's a practice I follow hunting and on the range. I don't live in a place where we are allowed to open or conceal carry in public but I frequently carry on my father's farm (critters) and I follow the same rule.

I'm not afraid of an accidental discharge by "magic". I've never seen a weapon discharge by magic. But, I see no reason to walk around ready to quick draw on some "hombre" if there is no immediate threat. Not being loaded gives you time to think, analyze, then act -- if necessary.

[PavePusher]

109. Not being loaded means that an immediate threat can not be dealt with in a timely manner.

Please let me know who's teaching that in self-defense classes, so I can stay well away from them.

[Trunk Monkey]

43. When you say "In the field" I assume you mean hunting.

I was talking more about self defense carry.

In my opinion -- he wasn't be "hassled" he was being asked his business by the officers who sworn to keep public order.

At 1:24 into the video the officer stated "You are free to leave at any time" everything after that was a consensual stop. So, I agree the guy wasn't being hassled.

To be perfectly honest I’m doubled minded about this issue because I’ve seen it backfire.

I think it was around 1997, open carry is legal in Colorado Springs and at the time it wasn’t prohibited in City buildings. Until, a guy named Donald Ortega decided to push the issue by showing up at a city council meeting with a shotgun that he painted canary yellow and put a smiley face on. He carried it around town for a month or so, showed up at a few city council meetings and generally made an ass of himself in an apparent attempt to get arrested so he could sue the city for violating his “civil rights”.

What ended up happening is the city drafted a municipal ordinance barring open carry in city owned or leased buildings and it stuck because the city was exercising their rights as the “owner” of the building to bar open carry.

So, I don’t have a problem with people who open carry just because that works for them but I get a little nervous when I see someone push the issue.

I see people open carry around here fairly often and other than being curious about what brand they're carrying I don’t give it much thought. I only open carry at work.

[ellisonz]

48. The post is full of win. n/t

[HALO141]

69. Firstly, there is a difference between

"openly carrying" a weapon and "brandishing" that weapon. It's normal, even in jurisdictions that recognize a right to carry openly, for there to be laws against brandishing. Brandishing is usually described as carrying the weapon menacingly or with the intent of causing alarm. You're right that we can't see what this individual is doing but it seems obvious by the officers' demeanor that he was not acting at all menacing. And if you watched the video all the way through they did discuss the fact that he had the rifle slung.

As to your various modes of carry...

In general, I would never carry a firearm in the field with the chamber open. It's too easy for dirt/debris to infiltrate the mechanism and cause a failure. Other than that, there are 3 modes or readiness conditions:

Storage Mode - Chamber empty and breach closed, ammunition sources removed, hammer down/strikers forward.

Transport Mode - Proper mode for carrying the weapon under most circumstances. Chamber empty, breach (& dust cover) closed, hammer down/striker forward, Magazine/cylinder charged and loaded into the firearm. It is especially important on the Stoner platforms that the chamber and dust cover be closed as they are particularly intolerant of contamination in the chamber/breach and will fail to extract or go into battery with very little provocation.

Engagement Mode - Weapon is in its highest state of readiness. Chamber loaded, Dust cover (if there is one) closed, Manual Safety (if there is one) engaged, Magazine charged and inserted into mag well.

Modern handguns and military-styled rifles are drop-safe. That is to say that (assuming the firearm is in good working order) it cannot be made to discharge by means other than pressing the trigger to the rear. Bolt action rifles cannot make this claim and neither can shotguns (with the exception of one model of Mossberg produced for the military) so they are always carried in transport mode unless actively engaging a target.

Many people trained in the military have been trained to carry pistols with empty chambers and empty mag wells. There are several reasons for this (some political, some matters of outdated doctrine) but none are valid.

[RegieRocker]

77. I don't prepare my weapon to fire until I have a target identified. It's proper safety.

Then you're obviously not a hunter that is clear. Something smells here. Gun safeties play an important role in weapons.

There are many types of safeties for weapons. Some better than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Whether or not the gun was on safety, is and will not be a concern for most that fear gun violence. Neither will an unloaded weapon.

[pipoman]

116. I've been hunting for forty years,

been through several hunters safety classes as a kid and with my kids. I have never heard anyone advocate upland game bird hunting, duck hunting, deer hunting, or really any other hunting with an empty chamber. I live in one of the pheasant hunting meccas of the world...you would never get a bird..and that's pheasants..partridge, prairie chickens or doves? You'd never even get a shot.

[Hoyt]

36. How do you know he's legal and not another Holmes, Stawicki, Zimmerman, Loughner, etc.

I think walking around with a gun in public with a gun is just begging a confrontation and symptomatic of a right wing jerk, just like these militia idiots --






I'm for changing the image of guns and gun cultists who abuse their so-called "rights."

[Trunk Monkey]

45. Re: How do you know he's legal

Do the words "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

If you're asking how I specifically kno, I'm not a cop it's none of my business

[PavePusher]

59. Lawfully and peacefully exercising Constitutional Rights...

"is just begging a confrontation and symptomatic of a right wing jerk".

Well, that's certainly the mark of liberal thinking... Oh, wait, no it fucking isn't...

[HERVEPA]

73. Exactly Hoyt!

[RegieRocker]

78. Then you're just as dangerous as the ones you're accusing.

[PavePusher]

57. Open carry =/= "brandishing" in law or in a dictionary.

And I've heard of very few people who carry unloaded for defensive purposes. That's not at all what any trainers teach, that I know of.

And no, lawful behavior does NOT merit questioning from police. If they are unsure of his activities, they can, of course, observe him for as long as they want and see if there is RAS/PC to initiate an encounter.

[Missycim]

7. I don't think

its shit stirring to push the bounds of police comfort every now and again, as long as he followed the law I dont have a problem with this and neither should you. If you dont like the law get it changed.

[HERVEPA]

74. Ever hear of using an apostrophe in the three places it's needed in your post?

And don't tell me what I should have a problem with.

[Missycim]

75. When you stop telling me what I can own gun wise

Then I will worry about what you have to say.

[HERVEPA]

79. You missed the hyphen between gun and wise.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

108. and you missed the point.

[HERVEPA]

112. No I didn't. I just have a bit more respect for people with some knowledge of the language.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

113. oh never mind - you are not worth it

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

[pipoman]

119. LOL

You authoritarian, self appointed apostrophe police crack me up...

[RegieRocker]

132. I have more respect for those that have the intellectual

ability of understanding what a person is trying to say, no matter what language, grammatical capabilities or fluency.

[4th law of robotics]

49. Could you provide a definition that can distinguish between defending your rights

and "shit-stirring".

Like if someone organizes a protest that gets kind of rowdy. Is that shit stirring or standing up for the first amendment?

If someone who is clearly guilty still insists on being granted their rights. . . is that shit-stirring?

[ellisonz]

50. No one calls the police about a protest sign fearing for the public safety. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

51. Actually people do call the police on protesters all the time

and the police intervene all the time.

Whenever they do, that must be because the protesters are shit-stirrers right?

[ellisonz]

52. You can spin all you want: the bottom-line is this guy is a shit-stirring nut. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

53. Ah one of those "I know it when I see it" definitions

like with the people who want to ban porn.

They won't provide a definition because they'll end up banning Michelangelo's David by accident and look silly. So instead they keep the criteria a secret and just reveal to us what is appropriate and what is not.

[ellisonz]

54. Walking around the streets with a loaded assault weapon?

Also, you seem very intent on changing the subject.

Have a nice-day.

[4th law of robotics]

55. So provide your definition for shit-stirring

it's so clear to you. Just verbalize it for the rest of us.

[PavePusher]

90. "assault weapon"? He certainly didn't seem to assault anyone with anything.

Was there another part of the video that I missed?

[RegieRocker]

83. Nope. He is a Patriot

[RegieRocker]

81. The corporations do

[ellisonz]

99. Corporations aren't people. n/t

[eqfan592]

124. Haha, HAHAHA!!

My ASS they don't. ellisonz, once again showing his true colors.

[Serve The Servants]

2. A guy did it with an AR-15 in SoCal too

The encounter was similar although fairly awkward and pretty brief.

[indie9197]

4. Yeah we have open carry in my state too and we can even open carry in our vehicles

but we don't walk around town with a AR-15. That is just stupid and a waste of everybody's time. I would even call the cops if I saw some dumbass walking around town with that thing!

[RegieRocker]

84. Sure

but would you call again after the police left and cleared him? Would you still feel it was wrong that they let him go on his way?

[Nostradammit]

6. That cop has had excellent training in how to deal with nut jobs.

He is a very good police officer. Too bad he had to waste his time with an idiot like that.

[Missycim]

8. How is he being a nut job if

he was following the law? So I guess to be considered a nut job you just have to abide by the law?

[Nostradammit]

9. Complete and utter lack of respect for the feelings of his fellow citizens

That's what makes him a nut job.

His obvious solipsism and his belief that he's actually doing something noble and good make him a nut job.

The fact that he can't keep his train of thought makes him a nut job.

One can abide by the law and still be a complete nut job.

[Trunk Monkey]

12. I don't like this post and I think you should delete it

If you don't you're showing Complete and utter lack of respect for my feelings

[Nostradammit]

13. Sterling example of a false equivalency

Exemplary example, even.

[HALO141]

92. How, exactly?

You suggested that failure to modify one's own behavior based on the sensibilities of others present constitutes a "Complete and utter lack of respect for the feelings of his fellow citizens." Trunk Monkey expressed discomfort with your comments yet you refuse to comply with your own standards for behavior and level an accusation of "false equivalency." I concur with Trunk Monkey so now the question becomes how many dissenting opinions are required to trigger this self-subjugation?

[Missycim]

15. ok when they have flamboyant gay pride

parades I am sure you're thinking the same thoughts? what about the feelings of people who are held up in traffic due to an anti-war protest?

I am sure you are just as concerned to their feelings as people who are anti-gun

By the by I dont care either way about parades or protests I just use them to point out the double standards some have for gun rights.

[Nostradammit]

16. Do you think people fear for their lives when a gay parade passes by?

Was there a false equivalency contest today that I didn't hear about?

If so, you definitely have a shot at winning it.

[Missycim]

18. People need to

get over their irrational fears, like yourself for instance.

[Nostradammit]

19. People are afraid of me?

I did not realize that.

It certainly is irrational to fear someone like me.

I don't walk around menacing my community with an armful of loaded weapons.

Idiots who walk around with an armful of loaded weapons because of some hare-brained notions about how a civil society should operate are the ones people need to keep an eye on.

[Missycim]

20. as you well know

I was talking about the people are afraid of seeing armed people exercising their civil rights.


And you should also get over your fear of guns and people that have them, you know what yoda says about fear. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering...

[Nostradammit]

21. I own guns.

I am not afraid of myself.

But if I started walking around with them just to provoke a police reaction I really would start to scare myself.

[Missycim]

23. Seek help please

If following the law and using your civil rights make you afraid.

[holdencaufield]

24. With all respect to Master Yoda...

... I don't think seeing an aggravated man running around suburban neighbourhoods confronting cops with a loaded weapon as the way to help people get over their fears. Just sayin'...


I would never question his right to carry -- I question his wisdom in confronting cops with a loaded weapon and his intelligence for not carrying safely. All it would take is one accidental discharge to turn this Youtube declaration of rights into viral condemnation of gun owners in general. Every accidental discharge does more damage to gun owners than a dozen anti-gun articles in the Village Voice or the Atlantic Monthly.

If responsible gun owners want to be taken seriously, we should discourage unsafe or provocative uses of guns by anyone.

[Missycim]

25. Well just carrying a

weapon doesn't mean its unsafe.


as to the provocative part of your statement, remember that thought when you see anti-war rallies or anthing "provocative" to others, you know the goose and gander part. I just find it mind boggling the double standards of this world. I am a firm believer in being provocative in defense of Liberty no matter what side of the political spectrum you reside.

[holdencaufield]

27. If his liberty was being threatened...

... I would agree with you. I would have relatives alive to day if they had stood up to European and British gun restrictions on Jews in Germany, Poland and pre-Israel Palestine. On a strictly personal note I believe it's the duty of all willing citizens (and especially Jews) to possess and KNOW HOW TO USE firearms.

However, the right to bear arms isn't at risk in the US. There are fewer restrictions nationwide on carry today than there has been in decades. Sure, there are people around who to legislate LEGAL guns out of existence (they don't realize just how many illegal guns there are), but they are losing their battle and losing big. If anything, these videos are demonstration that his rights are firmly intact.

If you're trying to stop a war, be in their face, be provocative, make your point however you can. Fight to make yourself heard.

But, he already HAS the right to bear arms -- no one, especially not the cops in the videos, disputes that.

Be extreme to win your rights -- be responsible with your rights when you've achieved them.

[Missycim]

31. I can't agree

but you are at least civil thats better then most anti gunners here.


I can't believe you said that, dont fight as hard to keep them? YOU MUST, rights once lost are hard to get back. YOU MUST ALWAYS fight hard for all your rights. I am not saying you should break the law to keep them but you should be ever vigilant in defense of all the BOR.


I know this wont be popular but Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

[holdencaufield]

35. That's the first time...

... anyone has ever referred to me as an "anti-gunner". I can only imagine that you meant it ironically.

[Missycim]

37. Well I am sorry for

calling you that but I am a bit shell shocked in here lol

You are pretty fair minded.

[PavePusher]

61. You've contradicted yourself several times in that post.

You really need to make up your mind.

[HERVEPA]

76. What does it mean...

"the duty of all willing citizens". If it's a duty, it wouldn't matter whether you're willing. Please clarifiy.

[RegieRocker]

86. All of you who thinks this is wrong in any fashion

is a profound testament that the right to bear arms is at risk. Damn damn damn. The madness...

[RegieRocker]

85. LOL

I would never question his right to carry

WTF you got to be kidding me. You're questioning is right to carry. Damn it.

[frylock]

94. irrational fear is what drives people to open carry or CCW

[gejohnston]

96. depends on the situation

one is why and when someone is open carrying. When I go backpacking when I go back to Wyoming, I OC a .22 pistol because:
just because. As criminologist James Wright described:

In my journey through this alien turf, I came upon what are called "trail guns" or "pack guns." These are handguns carried outdoors, in the woods or the wilds, for no particular reason except to have a gun available "just in case" one encounters unfriendly fauna,
or gets lost and needs small game for food, or is injured and needs to signal for help. The more I read about trail guns, the more it
seemed that people who spend a lot of time alone in the wilds, in isolated and out-of-the-way places, are probably being pretty sensible in carrying these weapons.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1988912secondthoughtsaboutguncontroljamesdwright.pdf
I don't in Florida because it is not legal unless you are hunting during hunting season and in a hunting area.
In my specific case, me CCW could be loss side of the loss benefit scale. My part of Florida is kind of safe, as long as you are not in the drug trade. In Wyoming, I'm either in the woods or Mayberry. I don't judge others by my situation. I have been in some rough parts of DC and Manila and never thought about even if I legally could. I did have a heightened sense of awareness. There are parts of Coral Gables, FL, I would and not a small pistol. Not because of gangs or even other humans. Because the neighborhoods of foreclosed and abandoned McMansions are now prime habitat to invasive species like Pythons, Boas, and Nile Monitors.

But I think the idea behind hanging out at Starbucks is simply the same tactic as the gay pride parades, larger social acceptance. Notice where you see OC stunts. They don't happen in Kingman, Arizona. I don't call that paranoid. Might be defeating the purpose, maybe not.

As for CCW, depends on the specific case. If I lived or worked in a shitty area, had threats against my life, crazy stalking former lover, or simply being gay in an area with fifty profitable Chick Filaes and lots of "Fred Phelps for president" bumper stickers, CCW would be a prudent thing to do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Not always, and certainly not where I live

[Trunk Monkey]

46. Why do you assume people fear for their lives?

I certainly don't when I see people open carry, it's been my experience that most folks don't even notice

[atreides1]

58. Yes some do

Most homophobes are scared to death of anything Gay...so yes I would say that there are some people who fear for their lives when a gay pride parade passes by.

[Nostradammit]

111. How many people in this country have been killed by gay pride parades?

Do you know the number?

[holdencaufield]

114. Counting being run over by an out of control float? NT

[Nostradammit]

117. Sure, throw all those in the total.

[trouble.smith]

126. I imagine his adrenaline is making it difficult to maintain his train of thought and appear composed

I'm ambivalent on open carry. I like it in principle but I think it could backfire on second amendment proponants and, as such, I don't advocate it if it is alarming to the general public. I have open carried in Arizona however and nobody blinked an eye. Here in Ohio I could but I won't. I don't care to make people aware of it so I just leave it under my shirt. It is probably for the best that the general public not be overly aware of how many of us there actually are.

[CBGLuthier]

28. You are right, he is not a nutjob, he is an asshole.

a rather passive aggressive smartass asshole. There is following the law and being a dick for no good reason other than to be a dick. This man is a dick.

[Missycim]

30. Remember those words

when someone says the same thing about OWS etc. I am sure you wont.

[holdencaufield]

39. I'm glad you brought up OWS...

OWS failed (and make no mistake about it... it failed) because SOME OWS protestors took up a confrontational position with police, local shop owners, and park maintenance -- the very 99%'ers they claimed to represent. They ended up looking like spoiled, upper-middle class twits who didn't even know for what they were fighting.

OWS protestors weren't fighting for rights -- other than the right to defecate in public parks. They were kids with iPads and $300 trainers who tried convincing the rest of the country how bad their lives were and failed.

If you're going to fight for a right I support you -- but, try and make sure it's not a right you already have.

[Missycim]

40. Well i agree

but you should never ever stop fighting, I mean this by using your rights (not just the 2nd)


I was talking more to the point of perception and what one person calls a nutjob another calls a Hero.

I bet the person I replied to thinks highly of OWS (and I do for the most part, except for the rioters)

[holdencaufield]

41. I've never questioned the concept of using your right to use and bear arms...

I use mine all the time. I shoot for fun, I shoot for food and if the situation ever came to it, I could shoot to defend myself or my family. I thank G-d for never putting me in the position to have to do that -- so far. If a law was passed tomorrow to take away my right to bear arms I would break that law because I know what happens to a people when they are stripped of their right to defend themselves.

I only question the wisdom of confronting cops (decent men who acted with tact and professionalism) with a loaded weapon in a public place. So many things could have gone bad and if anyone got hurt it the young man in the video would have to accept all the blame.

My right to bear arms (and I have that right) does not give me the right to put others a risk -- and make no mistake, he was doing just that.

[PavePusher]

63. "confronting cops"?

Ummm, didn't the cops confront him?

[RegieRocker]

87. others a risk

explain how he was doing that?

[Trunk Monkey]

47. I am going to go with Holden Caufield on this one.

He didn't say these words but I think we would do far more good to the cause of RKBA if every gun owner in this country sat down and wrote a letter to their elected Representatives (all of them including the rethugs) express support for the Right to keep and bear arms than all the open carry in the world

[PavePusher]

62. So, peaceful, lawful exercise of Constitutional RIghts now equals "be(ing) a dick"?

Was there a memo?

[aikoaiko]

22. Public demonstrations, even those within the bounds of the law, are often inconvenient.

[randr]

26. Narcissism meets Rights zealot

Interesting personality meld. Would another gun toter who felt threatened by this guy have the right to shoot him in some states?

[Callisto32]

34. I'M HERE I CARRY GUNS, GET USED TO IT!

Yeah, its the same thing.

And your question is ridiculous, if you have even a passing familiarity with SD law.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Nope. Self-defense, in all states, requires more than "feeling" threatened.

Before you can shoot, the person you are shooting has to have a motive to do you harm, the means to do you harm, and the opportunity to do you harm. Absent a demonstration of intent by the agressor, you can't claim self-defense if you shoot him.

Remember, you can be killed by bare hands alone. Do you feel threatened by every muscular person you see? They can kill you just a fast of the guy with the rifle.

[randr]

42. The law has many nuances

If I saw him on my property the question I would ask myself is, head shot or body shot.
So far my experience has been that people with weapons, such as he is carrying, pose an immediate threat. Many lives would have been saved if others took such actions, right?

[PavePusher]

66. A slung or holstered weapon does not equal "immediate threat"....

absent some other indicator such as associated verbal threats or confrontational physical movements.

You would not have a valid self-defense case.

Please study the actual laws and get some training before you decide to shoot someone, because it certainly sounds like you don't know what you are doing.

[randr]

93. My point exactly

Not every one knows what they are doing.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. I legally carry a loaded gun every day.

Would you consider me a threat to you if you saw me on the street?

Self-defense requires much more than the other guy having a weapon. In ALL situations the three basics have to be met. Even if the guy has illegally broken into your home while you are there the three basics are still in operation. The difference is that by his illegal entry he has demonstrated motive and intent, and opportunity is obvious.

[PavePusher]

67. The courts have stated that mere presence of a weapon does not constitute an automatic threat.

You need training/education.

[holdencaufield]

29. On a personal note...

... are you PA-28 because you own a fine Piper Cherokee?

[pa28]

98. Yep. It's a nice forgiving airplane.

That's probably why still I'm still around.

[bluestateguy]

56. I wonder if simarly courtesy would have been extended to him if he were black, Hispanic or Arab

These people are all about gun rights for white men.

[KurtNYC]

60. they did an experiment like this in Florida - a black kid carried Skittles

as per his constitutional right to do so. It didn't turn out so good.

[Gin]

65. Just because you can

Doesnt mean you should.......IMO

[appleannie1]

64. What a jerk. He is asking for trouble. Just because something

is your 'right' does not mean you can go around creating problems with that 'right'. Yes we have free speech but that does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. With rights come responsibilities. And this idea that is being promoted that we are losing our gun rights causes me to boil. We have not lost one gun right in recent history and the people that think we have are fools that are being used by the gun industry for profit.

[HERVEPA]

70. Good job by the cops in not telling this asshole what they really think of what he's doing directly

Though they did so indirectly.

[AlinPA]

71. The policeman is a very well spoken and polite. Impressive. The guy with the gun is a jerk.

[Union Scribe]

72. I just saw this (imo) very reasoned video about open carry

Basically, this fellow TheYankeeMarshall says that open carry stunts (not a guy going about his business, but people who head out with cameras and lawyers on speed dial) often hurt the image of gun carriers, and that it's bad tactics anyway.

[RegieRocker]

88. More B.S. sorry but true

So if someone went without cameras and lawyers on speed dial it would be ok. Damn damn damn

[2Design]

80. Guy is bullshit and trying to cause trouble - these nra people are nuts in your face with danger

[JoePhilly]

82. Ok, so I'm at the movies, and I have a conceal and carry lisence ... and then you arrive

and you have an open carry license, but I don't know that.

For all I know, you might be a nut with a gun, about to replay The Dark Night Returns in Colorado.

Do I wait for you to start shooting, or assume you have an open carry license?

How long do I wait?

Do I sit there, watch the movie and NOT keep an eye on you?

Should we be surprised if a Mom with her kids calls the cops about a guy in the movie theater with a gun?

[RegieRocker]

89. Gets confusing doesn't it

[eqfan592]

125. Not really. Not unless you're trying to make it so.

At least in this particular circumstance.

[RegieRocker]

130. Lol joephilly

asked four questions. That is confusion. Don't try and deny the obvious. Life is complicated.

[Trunk Monkey]

91. What's the big deal?

If a person is just going about his business while open carrying I don’t see the issue. Unless you’re a cop whether he’s licensed or not isn’t your concern, even if you ask he’s not obligated to answer you. If you want to “keep your eye on him” that’s on you. Personally I think the odds of someone open carrying on their way to shoot up any given location are low enough to make it a non issue

[JoePhilly]

101. So when I see a guy holding his gun at a movie

I should assume he is protecting us

[ManiacJoe]

103. Of course not.

But then no one has suggested you should either.

[Trunk Monkey]

118. No one said anything about anyone "holding" a gun

I'm talking about a person going about their lawful business while open carrying.

There's a world of difference between that and someone holding a gun.

[Travis_0004]

104. Most states do not issue open carry liscenses, so I'm going to assume they don't have one.

In most states (I believe CO included), If you can legally own a gun, you can legally open carry it in most places.

Also, most criminals don't want to draw attention to themselves. Why would somebody who is about to shoot up a movie theater submit themselves to extra attention?

Or plan B. If it makes you nervous, why don't you leave, or complain to the manager (who would be within their right to tell them to conceal it or throw them out)

[ManiacJoe]

105. A training class would help you with these questions.

You cannot legally shoot him until you "reasonably think" he has become a threat. "Reasonably think" = Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.

If he is just walking in with a gun on his hip, he in no way comes close to the standard needed. In most circumstances, you will need to wait until he draws the gun from the holster. Even then you may need to wait for the "Jeopardy" part to be satisfied.

> Do I sit there, watch the movie and NOT keep an eye on him?
While I cannot speak to what you would do, what you should do is keep an eye on him.

Should be surprised if "a Mom with her kids calls the cops about a guy in the movie theater with a gun"? Assuming he is doing nothing to raise alarm about, while you might not be surprised by the mom's action, you should be disappointed in it.

[JoePhilly]

122. How many training classes am I required to take?

I some states, you can get a license to carry with rather limited training.

Now, if the training is significant and regulated, then we could discuss the value of training in these scenarios.

But if a state doesn't require much training, or even none at all, oh well.

[ManiacJoe]

123. Training always has value.

You will need to do your research on your state on how much training is required for you.

Here in WA, there is no training required. That said, WA is home to some of the best training you can pay for.

[JoePhilly]

128. The value of training is obvious ... the requirement to have it tends to be missing.

As you note, in WA, no training is required. Which means, we can have two people with no training, seeing each others weapons and concluding that the "other" has dangerous intent.

And God forbid if one of them challenges the other.

[ManiacJoe]

129. That is certainly possible, but

not very likely. Folks are pretty good at figuring out who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are when folks are present from the beginning of the hostilities. On the other hand, the police usually arrive late and have no idea who is who.

[JoePhilly]

136. So in a mobvie theater, in the dark, with some people dresseed up in costume ... people

quickly determine the "bad guy".

Oh, as for the "slow police response" ... the police were at the theater in CO withing 90 seconds.

And fortunately, they did not encounter 5 people dressed like batman all pointing guns in various directions.

[ManiacJoe]

146. You are thinking in the right directions.

> in a movie theater, in the dark, with some people dressed up in costume ... people quickly determine the "bad guy"

Yes, that is how it usually works. The Bad Guy is usually the one shooting into the crowd for no reason.

> the police were at the theater in CO withing 90 seconds.

That would be 90 seconds too late. If you are not there at the beginning of the attack, you are at the disadvantage of not knowing who all the actors are when you arrive during the middle of the attack. This is where folks, including the cops, normally get into trouble. The advantage that the cops have is that they can legally take down everyone at gun point, put them all in handcuffs, and sort out the mess that their leisure.

[PavePusher]

134. If you were to actually think about it....

the "bad guy" would be the person who was actually doing bad things.

God forbid you actually try to apply a modicum of logic.

[JoePhilly]

135. In the situation I described, there was no "bad guy". Just a couple of untrained ...

guys who see that some one else has a gun, and concludes that "the other" may have bad intent.

And that causes one of them to approach the other, and demand to see their papers. To which the other decides to "stand their ground". And the first one to kill the other wins by claiming, "I felt threatened".

Its a brilliant plan. Almost Darwinian.

[petronius]

137. That's a pretty scary scenario, but I don't recall reading of any cases where it actually happened

Do you have some examples?

(And FTR, I favor shall-issue CCW with a training requirement and no significant financial or administrative impediments.)

[JoePhilly]

138. We don't have everyone armed sufficiently yet. But if we work hard enough ...

then everyone will be armed. Both the trained and the untrained.

It will be a perfect world.

[friendly_iconoclast]

143. IOW: "It's bound to happen Real Soon Now. Just you wait and see!"

[PavePusher]

141. Yeah, sure. Whutevah. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Eh, more of the same "friendly fire" horseshit they've been peddling for years...

[PavePusher]

145. Actually, s/he seems to be advocating pulling some vile cross of a 1984/Zimmerman.

Un-freakin'-believable.

[ManiacJoe]

147. In your scenario,

what leads the other gun carriers to concluded that person A has bad indent? This is an important part of your story that you have glossed over. Just having a handgun open-carried in a holster does not come anywhere close to meeting that bar.

> And that causes one of them to approach the other, and demand to see their papers.

Why would someone who is not law-enforcement do that? This action would be so far out of the norm that it would make for a good movie script.

> "I felt threatened"

This is not a valid reason to kill someone. The phrase you are looking for is "I reasonably feel threatened." In this case "reasonable" requires "ability, opportunity, and jeopardy".

[AtheistCrusader]

120. The people who run the theater are within their property rights to ask you to leave

if you are open carrying and causing a disruption for the other guests.

[RegieRocker]

131. In this case they have a right to make you leave

It's their business, their right.

[JoePhilly]

139. And when they approach you and ask you to leave, should they be concerned for

their safety?

How do they know that you are not crazy and about to kill as many people as you can?

[RegieRocker]

140. They

don't and should take the neccessary precautions.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. If they genuinely fear for their safety, they can call the police and ask THEM

to deliver the 'please leave' message, of course.

This is often how it is done.

[PavePusher]

133. What's an "open carry licence"?

Hate to nit-pick, but it seems obvious you don't know what you are talking about, so your hypotheticals aren't going to make a lot of sense.

There is no such thing as an "open carry licence". A licence/permit will either cover both concealed/unconcealed carry, or there will be no licence/permit required for open carry, or open carry will be forbidden by law. Those are the only three options covering open carry amongst the 50 states right now. No state has seperate permits for open or concealed carry.

It is almost unheard of for people with prior criminal histories to carry openly. They are, generally, known to the police and seeing a known prohibited person openly armed will trigger a serious police response.

People without known criminal records, who are planning to commit a crime such as a mass murder, don't seem to carry openly in public prior to their acts. They usually aren't firearms hobbiests, don't do a lot of firearms research/training, and simply want to keep a maximum element of surprise.

If you live in a state where open carry is legal, someone doing so will almost certainly be a person who is legal and lawful, with no criminal intent. The best thing to do would be to observe them for a short period to see if they exhibit criminal behavior and, if not, go about your business.

Or you could contact the police and create a hysterical scene. Your... ummm... call.