Defensive Carry banner

Kid in Birmingham OCing Rifle - Not Guilty on All Counts!

9K views 107 replies 40 participants last post by  Smitty901 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I have stated before that while Open carry is legal in Alabama, but if you choose to do so you will most likely wind up on the ground with a Glock Q-Tip. You will most likely win in court but you will have to pay the price until then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yankeejib
#4 ·
Wow! Lots of Alabama open carriers would probably disagree with that statement. I trust that you will be attending the Alabama Gun Rights Statewide Event. Alabama Gun Rights Statewide Event. | Facebook

So now the shoe is on the other foot and their needs to be a suite against Birmingham for this incident. Just as should be in Alabama if it should happen.
 
#3 ·
So the kid made his point loud and clear.

I personally prefer to make a much more subtle point and do so much more quietly.

This is why you read posts written *by* me, rather than threads written *about* me.
 
#5 ·
I read the story. I found it absurd. Especially this part:
Three officers testified, and all said Combs was stopped because he appeared to be too young to carry the rifle. State law says those carrying rifles must be 18 years old, but Combs appeared to the officers who testified as only 16. “I had no problem with him having the gun,” Birmingham Police Officer Rebecca Springer testified. “If he looked 32 (years old) he would have enjoyed the night.”
So. If that is true, then why did they still arrest him after he showed the officers his ID to prove he was 18?
 
#6 ·
I read the story. I found it absurd. Especially this part:

So. If that is true, then why did they still arrest him after he showed the officers his ID to prove he was 18?
Because they didn't know the law until after they arrested him. They came up with that after the fact. Seriously what crime would you arrest somebody for if they were carrying a weapon in the open but you weren't sure what exact law it breaks? Brandishing.
 
#11 ·
All as it should be, now it's time to bankrupt the Birmingham PD pension fund.
It's already bankrupt, until Stockton Cali went belly up last month it was the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history
 
#9 ·
I am glad that this kid was willing to stand up for his right and in doing so the rights of all others in that State.

This case hit home with me because as a youngster I also carried a rifle or shotgun slung over my shoulder or in my hand when walking through town on the way to the river for a bit of hunting or plinking. We were not trying to make a point or bait any policemen. We were just going out to do some shooting. We would also ride two up on our motorcycles strapped down with firearms on more distant trips down the highway when we got older.

If by chance that someone in my State is arrested I hope for my sake and others that it will go to court. That seems to be the only way sometimes to make the Government obey the laws.

Michael
 
#13 ·
Good for him! Just like the guy in GA...I hope he sues for millions. When the heck will LEO's (sorry, but they are the ones doing the arresting) ever learn that it is a right to carry and bear arms and being a jerk is not enough to keep arresting and harrassing folks. Yes, I said jerk because most of the time they ar....but many times they are not. I am quite sick of this and quite sick and tired of folks that suppose to support the 2nd A on this forum put in caveats all the time that one should be smarter if the OC. They can do what ever they want as long as it is legal.


Good for the kid.
 
#30 ·
Good for him! Just like the guy in GA...I hope he sues for millions. When the heck will LEO's (sorry, but they are the ones doing the arresting) ever learn that it is a right to carry and bear arms and being a jerk is not enough to keep arresting and harrassing folks. Yes, I said jerk because most of the time they ar....but many times they are not. I am quite sick of this and quite sick and tired of folks that suppose to support the 2nd A on this forum put in caveats all the time that one should be smarter if the OC. They can do what ever they want as long as it is legal.


Good for the kid.
I agree that's it's good for the kid that he won the case and agree on all points but one... "I hope he sues for millions". On what grounds would you sue? What are the damages? Rodney King sued because he got the crap beat out of him. He had real damage. This kid should be rewarded money because why? Because he's angry? I do believe he should be rewarded for court costs and some inconvenience but not 'millions' in tax payer dollars...no way.
 
#16 ·
Oh my fault, I thought it was Birmingham and Troy Alabama......Dang yankees copying our city names. Plus I would be surprised if the BPD (Alabama) don't know our carry laws.
 
#17 ·
We didn't know all the facts, but from what we did know it appeared the prosecution's case rested on a sandy foundation.

And apparently the jury, once presented with the relevant facts, agreed.

(Where are all those posters who said he was guilty of something?.....<cricket chirp> <cricket chip>)
 
#19 ·
Hopefully it was a learning experience for everyone and can serve as a reminder that just because some actions aren't very common, doesn't mean they're illegal. Although if you don't use it, you lose it. California OC for a good example. If a lot of people did it when it was legal there wouldn't have been such an outcry from those virgin eyes.
 
#21 ·
From the article said:
After resting her case, Mary Kucharek, attorney for the City of Birmingham, argued against Makowski’s direct verdict motion.

“Hindering or opposing can be reached by an action or inaction,” she said. “The hindering is (the inability of police) to complete their investigation and determine whether a crime was being committed.”
Despite there being no legal requirement to show ID in Michigan. IOW, it's not the accused's hindrance, as claimed. Rather, it's the People of the state of Michigan who've presented the "hindrance." Irrelevant, though, as he did show ID and it showed 18yrs of age.

From the article said:
The key portion of the brandishing charge is that Combs was carrying the rifle “ostentatiously,” Kucharek said.

What was ostentatious about ... placing (the rifle) on his back and walking down the street?" Barron asked.


Nothing at all.

Kudos to the jury for being able to see the truth of what strongly appeared to be nonsensical and insupportable accusations. :congrats:
 
#23 ·
This kid is and will always be, a tool. He did it for attention. He got the attention, didnt he. I think Im going to go for a walk, Ill strap on my .50 cal and see what kind of reaction I can get.....:duh:
 
#38 ·
The damages should come directly out of the DA's,chief of Police and the LEO's pocket.
They knew they were in the wrong. But like what happens so many times they did not care it tax payer money and time and they were going to push their politics regardless of the law.
Just like the Milwaukee Chief of police that made it clear he will take anyone anytime open carrying to the ground and take their gun. And if the suspect you may be CC they may grab you too.
Examples of why it is so hard to respect and form of LE today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN_Mike
#41 ·
Awesome! Law suit to follow! And I am not one to advocate a Law Suit, however, this needs to be rammed down the DA's and Local PD/Sheriff's throats!

On another note: Sean Combs......arrested..... I wish it had been that skelator looking guy who is a Progressive Talk Radio host on FOX.
 
#45 ·
He wasn't caring it for self defense he was carrying it becasue he was legally allowed too.

You can argue why should you carry a pistol for self defense when you can call 911 on your cell phone or have pepper spray or a police whistle etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN_Mike
#50 ·
One of the great advantages of OC, here in Virginia, is the 18 y.o. can carry.

Wish that we could get the minimum age for a CHP reduced to 18.

BTW, sometimes you will see younger kids also OC, when with parents. :congrats::congrats: parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHYDAH and Badey
#51 ·
As to "valid reason" or "need."

See my rant at #312 on Us and them... - Page 7

As much as the antis demand that there must be a demonstrated "need", I wonder if some of us aren't buying into their mantra, to some extent.

Here in Virginia (like many other States), we got rid of some of the prior restraint on RKBA when we got rid on "may issue" -- i.e., we no longer a need to prove a "valid reason" or "need." to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN_Mike
#55 ·
Wow I am amazed.
I don't think anyone would approve of a LEO stopping a black man just because he is Black walking the the street because the LEO does not like it
How would you feel if a LEO stopped you wife or daughter and questioned them about being hookers just because they walked to the store? Taking their names and putting in a report why they stopped them.
But you have no problem with a LEO stopping someone that is not breaking any law, in many case taking them to the ground, Taking their legal property.
So if a LEO barks no madder what even if he is breaking the law we must summit and let it go.
Can you then at least tell me where you would draw the line.
Just walking into your home in the middle of the night looking for legal fire arms to take.
Think it can'y happen it has.
 
#56 ·
All I am saying is that you need to be prepared to accept the consqueces of your actions.

I am not saying that it is just or fair or even legal. If they asked for ID I would give it to them, if they asked for me to put the rifle down while we talked I would. I will also sue them if I need too.

When the Freedom riders boarded their busses and headed down south they knew that they might pay with their lifes for expressing their rights.

Freedom is not free, I'm just saying to be aware of the potential cost of upholding your rights.
 
#57 ·
The point is there should not be any consequences for a legal act. Anyone that tries to hand out their own brand of punishment for a legal; act should be jailed on the spot.
That is why we are in the shape we are in, LE has been doing what ever feels good for so long they now ignore the law all together.
 
#64 ·
I recall a friend of mine back when I was young strapping on several pistols, one rifle across his back and one in each hand and hitchhiking out to the Issac Walton shooting range.... and he got rides out and back! Times sure have changed! I'm surprised that even gun owners bring up questions of "need" or motive for this young man toting his Garand down the street. The whole purpose of the OC movement, especially here in VA., is to reacquaint the public with the legality of private individuals being armed in public and the fact that it is a right still recognized in most places. Use it or loose it!

If those cops truly had questions regarding the young man's age and didn't just make it up as an excuse after the fact, then I don't see an issue with them telling him about their concern and asking for ID showing his legal age. But, they arrested him anyway even after he complied. Bad call on their part.
 
#72 ·
QUOTE=TN_Mike;2318839]I was going to bust out a list of several reasons, none of which I am sure you would agree with because you don't seem to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment bu, many others have summed it up very well for you and you still don't get it so I am sure me repeating all the logic already thrown at you won't get through to you either. I think you should really reconsider whether you are a true supporter of the Second Amendment because you sound like a conditional supporter of the Second Amendment. And the condition appears to be, as long as the person carrying does so in a manner you approve of. And I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you Bub but, that isn't the way it works. As I have pointed out in relation to other members on this board, the ones I call Anti-OC'ers, you and others, are at least in part espousing an anti-gun/anti-carry point of view. You are all for people carrying as long as they do it the way you think they should. Otherwise they shouldn't carry. So you are perfectly in line with the Brandy Campaign part of the time. That should make everyone who subscribes to this line of thought think. But I suspect you, and they, will simply dismiss it. And that is the most telling aspect of all.



EXACTLY!



It is not a show of stupidity Sir. Your stance on the sight of a slung rifle in a free society is troubling. It is your opinion that it is stupid but, the fact that it is your opinion certainly does not make it correct. The fact that he broke NO laws, that he was acting completely legally and was still arrested, went to trial and was found resoundingly not guilty, and that the cops obviously by their testimony fabricated the reasoning for the arrest to cover up either their ineptitude or outright disregard for the law and how they were sworn to uphold it but instead violated it along with his rights, should show you that it was not stupidity but a free man exercising his right. A free man exercising a right is NEVER STUPIDITY. The fact that you think it is says volumes.

I'm extremely happy that this young man was found, rightfully so, not guilty. And I hope he does file a law suit. I agree he should get his legal fees and any court costs paid by the city and should win a monetary award for punitive measure to the city. I will not speculate on the amount. It is only through this kind of action that the rotten LEO's out there who have an anti-gun mind set will be forced to learn. And the cities they work for must also learn.[/QUOTE]





:congrats:.....:congrats:


Whoa, Mike ,
tell us how you really feel!
I think YOU summed it up very well!!:congrats:
 
#73 ·
So we throw out common sense and are no longer being the grey man. Is that what Im hearing. All the rest of carrying responsible and not making a seen and all of that goes out the window. The rest of this forum must be a shame, seeing how strapping on a rifle and walking down an urban street is now seen as a sensible act. Sorry guys I can not get on board with that kind of thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericb327
#79 ·
So we throw out common sense and are no longer being the grey man. Is that what Im hearing. All the rest of carrying responsible and not making a seen and all of that goes out the window. The rest of this forum must be a shame, seeing how strapping on a rifle and walking down an urban street is now seen as a sensible act. Sorry guys I can not get on board with that kind of thinking.
I think you are misunderstanding what folks are saying here. No one is saying that you must let everyone know that you are carrying a weapon. No one is saying that you must give up common sense. No one here is saying that you must do anything you don't want to do. Trust me if I believed that is what was going on here I would be raising hell about it.

What they are saying is that is a person is not breaking any laws the government should leave them alone. I do not see where anyone is trying to force anything on you.

Michael
 
#74 ·
TN_Mike, you make a very convincing argument. This is one of the best posts I have read in a while. The premise behind shall issue is that we no longer have to show a need to be allowed to carry. I think this was a very important legal change and we must be defend it rigorously. Some states like Florida have "keep it concealed" laws. Obviously the overriding opinion in those states is "carry in a manner that is approved" meaning don't upset the sheeple. I live in a state that allows OC and support the concept as did the guy in this thread. His actions were allowed by law and we should not be quick to judge or demand that he change because it doesn't agree with our ideology.
Edit:
So we throw out common sense and are no longer being the grey man. Is that what Im hearing
You beat me in timing. Being the grey man should be a choice, not a mandate.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top