Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying

This is a discussion on Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by SmokinFool sgb, I respect you and your opinion, but I must disagree with you here. As I see it, this thread and ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 102
Like Tree55Likes

Thread: Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    sgb, I respect you and your opinion, but I must disagree with you here. As I see it, this thread and others like it aren't about constitutional rights per se. They are more about being STUPID with our rights. I will sing the mantra one more time. Everybody say it with me:
    WITH RIGHTS COMES MUCH RESPONSIBILITY!
    If that responsibility is that in exercising my rights I do not hurt others I agree. If it means that my responsibilities include not hurting their feeling I do not. The idea that we should ban or outlaw something just because people are offended or troubled by it is hogwash. I am not hurting anyone by legally carrying a weapon. You cannot prevent a crime without taking away the liberties of the citizens.

    Michael

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    If that responsibility is that in exercising my rights I do not hurt others I agree. If it means that my responsibilities include not hurting their feeling I do not. The idea that we should ban or outlaw something just because people are offended or troubled by it is hogwash. I am not hurting anyone by legally carrying a weapon. You cannot prevent a crime without taking away the liberties of the citizens.

    Michael
    You forgot what I have said about the responsibility of not hurting our cause. I feel this is a big one. I'm not talking about carrying a legal weapon just as a normal part of your day, without any antagonistic intent. I'm talking about the idiots with chips on their shoulders.

    I believe this will be my last post in this thread. It's alright if you disagree with me. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree.

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,514
    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    ... but fact is, he carrying a weapon that clearly has the common armed citizen out gunned and for what reason, rule of law hasn't broken down ...
    The rule of law certainly breaks down on the instant an innocent is unjustifiably attacked by an assailant. Try telling the innocent otherwise. At that moment, it's a good thing the person has a suitable weapon beyond mere rocks, to that we'll all agree, I'm sure. Good thing to have a 9mm instead of a .22LR, or a .45ACP instead of a .380ACP. In short, it's a good thing to have a smaller caliber portable round capable of quickly stopping a criminal assailant.

    It's just that we commonly see pistol-caliber rounds being commonly carried, but that doesn't make other rounds unwarranted. The goal's the same: justifiable defense against violent crime.

    The Israelis, by and large, survive such small-arms attacks because of the devastating return fire they're able to bring to bear on assailants who attempt such things.

    Too bad in the USA we're not 90% armed in just such a manner. It's all but certain the overall rate of such attacks would plummet, if it were all but certain nearly all of them would utterly fail with the utter destruction of the assailant(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    Regarding the AK, it's a tool meant to be used for for a totally different reason ...

    If he's toting a glock openly and he catches grief, I'd be totally on his side in the matter ...
    Seems to me being able to defend oneself is justification ... whether for a Glock "meant" to be carried on a hip, or for an AK/AR/lever rifle "meant" to be carried elsewhere. They're all small arms, meant to be carried by one person, and in the hands of an upstanding citizen equally not a criminal weapon used in offensive assailing of innocents.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    WITH RIGHTS COMES MUCH RESPONSIBILITY!
    What ... responsible for making others feel good? At what cost?

    Seems to me that being upstanding, self-sufficient, able to defend oneself and others against crime is responsible.

    Seems to me that bowing to fears of an armed upstanding populace merely because some fear it doesn't equate to being responsible. At best, it's reactionary. At worst, it's no longer being free.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,514
    Quote Originally Posted by SCXDm9 View Post
    I am going to go out on a limb and assume something, if I am wrong I will be the first to admitt it.... I'm betting if he were black, had on hoodie and baggie pants you would have been the first to call 911???
    That's exactly the sort of knee-jerk reactionary response that has gotten us into this whole mess.

    When it comes right down to it, a citizen has a right to bear arms just like any other citizen ... up to the point when he/she dares harm another. Unless that occurs, the person hasn't committed a crime. Not because of pigmentation, nor clothing choice.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #80
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,834
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    sgb, I respect you and your opinion, but I must disagree with you here. As I see it, this thread and others like it aren't about constitutional rights per se. They are more about being STUPID with our rights. I will sing the mantra one more time. Everybody say it with me:
    WITH RIGHTS COMES MUCH RESPONSIBILITY!
    Do you look over people's shoulders in the voting booth? Talk about irresponsible behaviour while using ones rights.....just saying. One can vote for whomever they want as long it is within the voting laws and a person can carry how they want as long it is within the law. And I can say with certainly the idiot OC'ing causes less damage to this country than the millions of people who vote every year.
    Badey likes this.

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ...And I can say with certainly the idiot OC'ing causes less damage to this country than the millions of people who vote every year.
    True dat, lol!

  8. #82
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad View Post
    "Stop him, measure the barrel, and send him on his way".

    That's not what Lenny is looking for.
    Even so, why give it to him? Do what's necessary for the law and be done with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    While as usual, your point is well made, with that said..... Open carrying a Glock handgun and supporting our right to bear arms is one thing. Open carrying a pistol grip assault weapon that has come in on the cusp of the "definition" of what makes it a pistol is entirely different IMO. There's the "letter of law", but IMO, that needs to run hand and hand with many factors that society dictates during the course of time. The acts of mass shootings used to be far and few between, but nowadays it seems like there's one every few weeks or so. Just this morning I see where another mass shooting happened in a PathMark and the guy was wearing body armor. Personally I think the guy is a jerk for doing what he's doing and I'm glad he's is being inconvenienced.




    Regarding the AK, it's a tool meant to be used for for a totally different reason, not a means to cost tax payers money defending and prosecuting his butt. Baiting is WRONG. It's wrong when law enforcement does it and it's wrong when the public does it, simple as that. If he's toting a glock openly and he catches grief, I'd be totally on his side in the matter, but fact is, he carrying a weapon that clearly has the common armed citizen out gunned and for what reason, rule of law hasn't broken down, a thousand bucks says, he doesn't have a bounty on his head. Bottom line, he's doing it for all the wrong reasons and crushing the common sense factor for the rest of us. Like it or not. The (not armed crowd) is much larger than the armed crowd, and there will always be the "oh my God, he's gotta gun" folks. Some idiot thrusting it into the court system over and over will not better the situation, or cause. We don't have to convince the masses we're normal law abiding folks, we have to convince the law makers that we the people put in office. Getting um all jacked up with crap like this slows the process JMO.
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that the AK was originally designed as a defensive rifle for the Soviets. Seems like it's always been a weapon of choice for decades when it comes to protecting life and limb. Why is it so much different here? I see people talking all the time about how all handgun calibers are underpowered and one of my favorite sayings around here, "If I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle!" Well, why not bring a rifle? We spend so much time and money training to be the best prepared that we can, yet we chastise a man for doing EXACTLY that. Being prepared. Since OC'ing a rifle is illegal where this guy lived, he went with the next best thing. A smaller version of the AK that is classed as a pistol.

    I will admit that painting the tip orange was a dumb thing to do, but it may well make this guy's case. He could easily argue that he painted the tip orange to AVOID a confrontation, by making people think it was merely an airsoft gun or something similar. This may very well be the case, and I CAN see why someone would do it. What I can't see is why people feel the need to rip this guy a new one for staying well within the boundaries of the law. It's ridiculous, and it makes me sick to see so many people separated by something so stupid. Especially in this day and age, when we need to stand united more than ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I'm going to look at this from a different perspective.


    If his actions are not illegal, then why was he detained?

    Are there varying degrees of "legal"? I think not.
    Was he endangering anyone? Clearly not.

    He was just a guy walking around with a pistol being openly carried... nothing more, nothing less.

    Going back and reading some of the responses and original orignial posts, it's become painfully aware to me why we gunowners are in the the quandary that we are in. Most of us have been led into believing that if someone behaves in a way that we dont approve of, then it must be wrong.
    Most of us have been brainwashed into accepting silly regulations of a right, a second amendment right,a right that is specifically outlined in the Constitution, as being perfectly acceptable.

    We are used to being fed crumbs and accepting it as the norm, from our all knowing,enlightend masters that take care of us and "protect" us, because we are too simple, to uneducated and in many cases, too stupid to understand the big picture.

    Some facts...
    A Draco pistol, is in fact a short AK. The barrel is 11.5 inches long, well short of the legal minimum for it to be classed as a rifle.
    It doesnt have a stock,the barrel is below the minumim 16" required length for a rifle, and by Federal standards it is a legal handgun. As such, it meets the criteria for a handgun in most states.

    It may be that the man in question is in fact trolling for some attention. It may be that he is trying to make a point, one that goes all the way to the top, so that certain things may be clarifed by law. What ever his motive is, does it really matter?

    If he was walking in the park, where open carry is legal, with a gun that is legal to do so, then why all of the excitement?

    Lets look at what should have happened in an ideal world.

    Mr. Embody is out for a stroll, and some soccer mom freaks out because this ugly dude is walking around with an even uglier gun. She calls the cops.
    Cops get the dreaded "man with a gun" call. Its dreaded because you never know what's going on until you get there and sometimes it gets ugly. When an officer gets that call, they realize that they may be minutes away from having to kill someone.

    Cop gets there,searches around and either finds the man with a gun or someone points him out. He approaches that individual in a maximum state of readiness.

    He secures the gun and then interviews the owner. Within minutes, it should become apparent that Mr. Embody is acting in a legal manner, that the gun is legal, and that no breach of the law exists. He is given back his gun, and sent on his way.

    It should have been a non issue. The reason that is became an issue is because of ignorance displayed at every level.


    It was displayed by whoever made the call. They just saw a man with a gun. All he was doing was walking.
    The dispatcher got the call and dispatched it to the police, in this case the park ranger. They just put out the info that they get.
    The ranger got there and secured the gun.
    He either didnt know it was legal,he was confused about it or he didnt care.
    He arrested him, and utlimatley let him fight it through the courts.

    In a court of law, personal feelings, like the many displayed here, arent supposed to color the facts,only the facts should matter.

    Wheter we beleive it to be stupid foolish,dangerous,whether we mistakenly beleive it to be something that it is not, whatever feeling we may have, it should not matter if the issue was legal to begin with.

    If the man was simply walking in the park with an openly displayed handgun and it was a legal activity, then there should be repercussions,no fines, no legal hassles,nothing at all.

    Now,we get every people of every internet gunboard on the world wide web, talking about this issue for months on end. They talk and speculate and discuss about this thing, this very thing that was common place is most of this country, not so long ago, in a day when most people had enough common sense to know that it wasn't the gun that was the dangerous thing, it was the man that knew how to use it and in that day if someone called law to report that someone was wearing a gun and it was legal act, they would have been the ones that were chastised and ridiculed for being foolish.

    It's weird how it all pans out. Here we are, most of us on this board pride ourselves in being pretty well versed when it comes to self defense and the law, ragging on some guy that was doing something legal....but we dont like it because of the gun that he is wearing and using much of the same arguments that the anti's use to limit our rights and freedoms.

    And we wonder why things are the way they are.
    Interesting.
    Excellently put, sir. Best response of the thread.

  9. #83
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    As I said before, this guy is an idiot! He walked out of his door with the intent of causing trouble. Look at his website. No reasonably sane person could conclude otherwise. Like I said before, with rights comes much responsibility. He wants to exercise his rights, but he certainly doesn't want to be responsible for his actions. Meaning he doesn't care whether his actions hurt the larger cause (and it does). People like him set us back quite a bit. Because of him, and people like him, we as gun owners will be forced to work even harder to overcome the negative stereotypes that people hold about us. And don't say it doesn't matter what other people think. Of course it does. In order to win the war, we need to change people's perceptions. His stupid acts fall right into the hands of the anti's.
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    And that is the problem. Who gets to say what your intent is. Until we develop our own version of Spok's Vulcan mind probe for side of the road brain scans the problem will exist.

    Michael
    No mind meld needed, just read any of his posts. If you can find a discussion board he hasn't gotten himself banned from. Seeking confrontation is what he lives for.
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
    Jeff Cooper

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Spidey2011 View Post
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that the AK was originally designed as a defensive rifle for the Soviets. Seems like it's always been a weapon of choice for decades when it comes to protecting life and limb. Why is it so much different here? I see people talking all the time about how all handgun calibers are underpowered and one of my favorite sayings around here, "If I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle!" Well, why not bring a rifle? We spend so much time and money training to be the best prepared that we can, yet we chastise a man for doing EXACTLY that. Being prepared. Since OC'ing a rifle is illegal where this guy lived, he went with the next best thing. A smaller version of the AK that is classed as a pistol.
    I call Hogwash! Simply HOGWASH. He wanted to bait and draw attention to himself and that's what he got... Don't try to muddy the water with what you think his intentions were; he had the brush and painted his picture pretty clearly and it leaves little to the imagination, or speculation. One thing to keep in mind. This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion and it's clear that we as a group (more so than not) think the guy was baiting and trying to stir the pot of opinion in a bad way....

    Quote Originally Posted by Spidey2011 View Post
    I will admit that painting the tip orange was a dumb thing to do, but it may well make this guy's case. He could easily argue that he painted the tip orange to AVOID a confrontation, by making people think it was merely an airsoft gun or something similar. This may very well be the case, and I CAN see why someone would do it. What I can't see is why people feel the need to rip this guy a new one for staying well within the boundaries of the law. It's ridiculous, and it makes me sick to see so many people separated by something so stupid. Especially in this day and age, when we need to stand united more than ever.
    How in the world can you or anyone for that matter read this thread and seemingly not understand the point behind what's wrong about what this guy did...... Are you just ignoring the fact, or has it literally alluded you completely? I'm not trying to be condescending in anyway to you or anyone else, but it's puzzling me as to why this guy deserves any support for his actions. Personally, I believe you as well as others know full well what the problem is but somehow feel the need to stand staunchly on the letter of law regarding the legality of the firearm in question like that in itself means a hill of beans. All that stand can do is fule the powers that be to amend the law under the guise of clarity, the whole time removing sections that will actually limit our carry rights. I mean, just what in the heck is so wrong with the vast majority of carry laws already? I know it varies from state to state and some are more restrictive than others, but from what I understand the state that this guy lives in is pretty good about its carry restrictions. For the more restrictive ones I would somewhat understand the reason to make a point and act in this manner, but IMO there's really no need for this clown to do what he's doing. For the record, I couldn't care any less about this guy personally, but what I do care about is this. When idiots like this guy go around and single handadly try to wreck the rights of others to openly carry by painting a pretty nasty picture of gun ownership to the general public.

    This will be my last post on the subject as I don't want to derail the thread. While I do respect the opinion of others on just about any subject, this is one that I just can't get my head around and I'll just agree to disagree on the subject and this guys actions in particular. It's still my opinion that he's a terrible spokesman for gun ownership and carry due to his decision to flaunt his "pistol" in such a flamboyant manner. I understand that he has since lost his carry permit and I think that is funny as hell! I guess now if he tries something like this, he'll find a special room with his name one it and free of charge, along with time to think on just how good his decision making skills are.


    Good day all!
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  11. #85
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,130
    I've been skimming through this post and maybe I'm missing something. The guy does something perfectly legal, knowing it would attract due attention. The park ranger disarms him (perfectly legal and prudent), verifies the firearm is carried legally, and releases the individual. No where in the article does it mention any arrest or ride to jail, saying only that he was "detained." No mention of any frisking.

    So what's the big issue, other than the guy wants attention? So does the person with tattoos all over. So does the guy who drives the fancy car with big wheels. So do a lot of people who...

    Would this be any different, as to "violations" of 2A and 4A, if an LEO disarmed and detained any of us until we produced the required CC license (if required by law)?

    Was this guy's actions smart? NO, but legally carrying a firearm doesn't require one to be "smart," or many of us on the forum might be banned from carrying. But maybe sometimes it takes something viewed as stupid to press home a point: Legal is legal and to disallow someting legal because we think it's stupid is the first step in disallowing something that's legal. And then--where does it stop? What legality is stripped next?

    Maybe dumping tea into Boston Harbor was stupid. Maybe standing boldly in the face of an armed force was stupid. Sometimes it takes something stupid to accomplish something important.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,834
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I've been skimming through this post and maybe I'm missing something. The guy does something perfectly legal, knowing it would attract due attention. The park ranger disarms him (perfectly legal and prudent), verifies the firearm is carried legally, and releases the individual. No where in the article does it mention any arrest or ride to jail, saying only that he was "detained." No mention of any frisking.

    So what's the big issue, other than the guy wants attention? So does the person with tattoos all over. So does the guy who drives the fancy car with big wheels. So do a lot of people who...

    Would this be any different, as to "violations" of 2A and 4A, if an LEO disarmed and detained any of us until we produced the required CC license (if required by law)?

    Was this guy's actions smart? NO, but legally carrying a firearm doesn't require one to be "smart," or many of us on the forum might be banned from carrying. But maybe sometimes it takes something viewed as stupid to press home a point: Legal is legal and to disallow someting legal because we think it's stupid is the first step in disallowing something that's legal. And then--where does it stop? What legality is stripped next?

    Maybe dumping tea into Boston Harbor was stupid. Maybe standing boldly in the face of an armed force was stupid. Sometimes it takes something stupid to accomplish something important.
    The bid deal is the the LEO does not detain a person for having tattoos, the LEO does not detain a person driving a fancy car.
    That is the point.

    As far a a LEO detaining you until you produce a CCP if required. You are being detained until you present documents that are required by law. It is not at the whim of a LEO

  13. #87
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Open carrying just too provoke ignores the entire point of carrying in the first place: self-protection. All else is secondary.

    Open carrying where it is legal (I'm not getting into the RKBA issue that States/Federal Government should not be regulating the 2nd Amendment) and then being asked to produce identification (otherwise being detained for any other reason when being so detained is a violation of the law) is offensive.

    I understand the entire provocation argument but at the end of the day if it is legal then it is legal.

  14. #88
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    You forgot what I have said about the responsibility of not hurting our cause. I feel this is a big one. I'm not talking about carrying a legal weapon just as a normal part of your day, without any antagonistic intent. I'm talking about the idiots with chips on their shoulders.

    I believe this will be my last post in this thread. It's alright if you disagree with me. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree.
    The thing is I do agree that this guy was a tool. That he was hurting our cause. The only thing I disagree with is that it was the Government who put him in his place. If there is no law against what he did then it is the Government that is in the wrong when they take action. At that point I will stand up for the party being wronged. In this case it just happens to be some tool who probably got what he deserved. The trouble is that the Government abused their powers by making a issue of it.

    I'm sorry if I bother others with my stand. This gentleman might deserve to be called out, ridiculed, protested or whatever but it is not an issue for the Government if no law was broken. If they can abuse the rights of a man who we might not like could they not also abuse ours if they so desire?

    Michael
    ccw9mm likes this.

  15. #89
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,834
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    You forgot what I have said about the responsibility of not hurting our cause. I feel this is a big one. I'm not talking about carrying a legal weapon just as a normal part of your day, without any antagonistic intent. I'm talking about the idiots with chips on their shoulders.

    I believe this will be my last post in this thread. It's alright if you disagree with me. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree.
    I did not know that I am responsible for helping or hurting our cause. When did that burden fall on the individual. It is nice but not something that should be forced on somebody.

    There is a post running right now with a kid on top of a dead deer. Most folks think that is cute. How does that portray hunters? Makes them look like they do not care about wildlife nor respect it.

  16. #90
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    And that is the problem. Who gets to say what your intent is. Until we develop our own version of Spok's Vulcan mind probe for side of the road brain scans the problem will exist.

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad View Post
    No mind meld needed, just read any of his posts. If you can find a discussion board he hasn't gotten himself banned from. Seeking confrontation is what he lives for.
    Did the Police know this before he was detained? Do we want the Government to be able to detain a citizen on the side of the road while they go search for proof of intent?

    Michael

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

is their a open carry gun law in charleston south carolina
,

leonard embody 6th circuit

,
lincoln, ne open carry
,

nebraska open carry law

,

nebraska open carry laws

,
nebraska open carry rules
,
open carry a ak47 in iowa
,
open carry in nebraska
,

open carry laws in nebraska

,

open carry lincoln nebraska

,
open carry rest area va
,
terry stop and open carry laws
Click on a term to search for related topics.