MKEgal
Regular Member
.
(To avoid the ad)
(To avoid the ad)
Yeah, in the parts that explicity tell the police they can't just walk up to someone & demand ID, on pain of arrest."As a people, we preserve our freedom by restraining our government. But we preserve civilization by restraining ourselves," said Bloomfield Township real estate lawyer and juror Ed Kickham. "There's some gaps in our law (regarding identifying yourself to police officers)."
This is my first post here, and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but merely stating my opinion. While I support open carry, I don't necessarily understand the people who choose to carry a rifle, like this guy did. Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town (unless it happens to be the only firearm someone owns), I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention. Like I said before, I support open carry and believe it is our right to do so, but I don't think we should carry long guns if we have other options at our disposal. I believe it just sends the wrong message.
A lot of people who do this cite educating the public as a reason. I agree with educating the public regarding gun rights, open carry, etc., but most of the time, the experience of seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle is more alarming to the public than it is educational. Also, the almost certain confrontation with police would tend to reflect negatively on the cause in the eyes of most observers passing by IMO. Face it, most people tend to think of police encounters as being a bad thing, and if they see a gun involved, a lot of people are going to assume that either carrying a firearm openly in public is illegal or that the person was just another "bad guy with a gun". Neither one of those is particularly helpful in educating the public. Sure, the outcome in this particular situation in MI can be considered a "win" for the cause, but that initial negative reaction most likely still resonates within some of those that witnessed the actual encounter with the police.
If you would take a few minutes and follow the story from the start, you would see that the rifle is the only firearm the kid owned. In MI you do not have to produce ID unless you are driving and the cops know this.
I am certain that since you disagree with this young mans choice of firearm to carry (his only firearm) that you would be ready to purchase other options to be at his disposal, right?
Speaking of education, how is seeing a rifle doing nothing more then hanging on somebodies back alarming? I mean really only a complete idiot would be alarmed by just the sight of a rifle.
I am scared of fat women in spandex, will you soldier a campaign to stop that for me, please?
More so than I trust most people driving cars, yes. Because it is not normal, as you say, it what makes it less likely to be a threat. Only someone would do so if that was their only option for arming themselves. We've already established that he did not have the option of carrying a handgun he did not own, and the law does not allow legal adults to purchase handguns until they are 21, even if they had been issued handguns while in the military.... Do you trust everyone you spot carrying a weapon?
... Only someone would do so if that was their only option for arming themselves.
We've already established that he did not have the option of carrying a handgun he did not own, and the law does not allow legal adults to purchase handguns until they are 21, even if they had been issued handguns while in the military.
PLEASE help us change the law to allow ALL responsible adults to purchase handguns, which, as you agree, are far more suited for personal defense sidearms.
As an adult, Combs was legally able to carry the rifle — a birthday present from an older brother — and under Michigan law, he wasn't required to show police ID. However, officers testified Wednesday that Combs appeared very young and upon refusing show ID, Combs caused enough of a disturbance to attract a crowd.
This is my first post here, and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but merely stating my opinion. While I support open carry, I don't necessarily understand the people who choose to carry a rifle, like this guy did. Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town (unless it happens to be the only firearm someone owns), I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention. Like I said before, I support open carry and believe it is our right to do so, but I don't think we should carry long guns if we have other options at our disposal. I believe it just sends the wrong message.
A lot of people who do this cite educating the public as a reason. I agree with educating the public regarding gun rights, open carry, etc., but most of the time, the experience of seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle is more alarming to the public than it is educational. Also, the almost certain confrontation with police would tend to reflect negatively on the cause in the eyes of most observers passing by IMO. Face it, most people tend to think of police encounters as being a bad thing, and if they see a gun involved, a lot of people are going to assume that either carrying a firearm openly in public is illegal or that the person was just another "bad guy with a gun". Neither one of those is particularly helpful in educating the public. Sure, the outcome in this particular situation in MI can be considered a "win" for the cause, but that initial negative reaction most likely still resonates within some of those that witnessed the actual encounter with the police.
Welcome aboard.px4guy said:This is my first post here
1) Many anti's say that there's no practical use for carrying a pistol.Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town
Freedom of speech. Ain't it great?I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention.
But not illegal, & the police can choose to ignore behaviour that's not illegal.My post was directed toward those individuals that walk through towns carrying rifles merely to get a reaction from the police
...Trolling just to get a response from the police is plain stupid IMO
1) being "outside the norm" is not illegalwhen someone steps outside of the norm, especially when firearms are concerned, it could be quite alarming to some members of the public
You're right. It's not true. It's legal for an 18yo (who's not otherwise prohibited) to purchase a pistol. S/he just can't do it from a dealer & have a background check.I too think having to be 21 to purchase a handgun is BS.
I'm fairly certain that police harassing citizens who are doing nothing wrong is not the way to go. In fact, it's a good way to turn more citizens against police. Antagonizing people who are statistically the most law-abiding & likely to step forward in a bad situation makes no sense. It's those bad officers who are creating problems for the other LEO.I'm fairly certain though that carrying a rifle with the sole purpose of causing a scene, when one has the option not to, is not the way to go. It just seems like antagonizing police officers, even though not technically doing anything illegal in the process, is a good way to turn more of them against the open carry crowd and create a hassle for the rest of us.
So freedom of speech in a group is acceptable, but individually it's wrong?staged group protests are normally supporting a worthy cause, such as the protests supporting the young man in MI, while the individual displays I have seen seem to be nothing more than self-promoting BS from guys that desperately want to become a hero to the gun crowd but are going about it the wrong way.