Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Appleton open carry detainment at gun point

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    appleton
    Posts
    2

    Appleton open carry detainment at gun point

    so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2y...mr_lMS&index=2


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_...kszUW8pEmr_lMS
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-10-2013 at 01:09 PM. Reason: Fixed title

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Thanks for not sitting in the back of the bus.

    The fact that they took so long and they there were so many questions proves to me they didn't have anything to stand on.

    Fishing expedition they were trying very hard.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckley View Post
    so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2y...mr_lMS&index=2


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_...kszUW8pEmr_lMS
    I suppose it was the long gun issue and not your handgun. I haven't carried a long gun yet but that may change. Chuckley, now are you going to pursue this or do nothing and embolden the cops?
    Last edited by Law abider; 09-09-2013 at 01:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Wisconsin Law is clear, They messed up. Settlement should include training

    It appears that they made several mistakes and violated at least three amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    First; (turning off video recorder, video recording of officers during their public duties has been ruled a First Amendment Right.

    Second: Stoped without probable cause based on exercise of Second Amendment rights. Clearly aimed at chilling the exercise of the Second Amendment.

    Fourth: Detained people for nearly an hour without probably cause or RAS.

    Weren't there some criminal penalties put in Act 35, just for such situations?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    It appears that they made several mistakes and violated at least three amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    First; (turning off video recorder, video recording of officers during their public duties has been ruled a First Amendment Right.

    Second: Stoped without probable cause based on exercise of Second Amendment rights. Clearly aimed at chilling the exercise of the Second Amendment.

    Fourth: Detained people for nearly an hour without probably cause or RAS.

    Weren't there some criminal penalties put in Act 35, just for such situations?
    Yes there are as Protias pointed out in another thread:
    Any law enforcement officer who uses excessive
    force based solely on an individual’s status as a licensee
    may be fined not more than $500 or sentenced to a term
    of imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both. The
    application of the criminal penalty under this paragraph
    does not preclude the application of any other civil or
    criminal remedy.
    (b) Any person who violates sub. (16) may be fined
    not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 30
    days or both.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Did this Happen Yesterday? I do not see a date for the event.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckley View Post
    so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2y...mr_lMS&index=2


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_...kszUW8pEmr_lMS
    Did this happen yesterday?

    How many police officers were at the scene? 4? 5?

  7. #7
    Regular Member JerryD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    central Wisconsin
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Did this happen yesterday?

    How many police officers were at the scene? 4? 5?

    It happened Sat. 9/7/2013



    I personally believe the officers who were there and pointing loaded guns at these guys should be charged with assault with deadly weapon.
    I had to change my signature because you know who got upset about it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: open carry detainment at gun point

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryD View Post
    It happened Sat. 9/7/2013



    I personally believe the officers who were there and pointing loaded guns at these guys should be charged with assault with deadly weapon.
    You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE.
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 09-09-2013 at 06:01 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Perhaps AG Van Hollen Could Carge them under Act 35

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE.
    Handcuffing them and holding them in a squad car for 45 minutes while desperately trying to come up with some sort of charges... is pretty flagrant.

    I have been told that *any* use of force, when there is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause is considered excessive use of force. I do not have a cite for that.

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape

    Last Saturday, the seventh of September, Charles and Ross were exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms under both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin state Constitution. Neither had been involved in this sort of activism before, but from reading open carry forums had decided that carrying a video camera as well as their firearms, would be a prudent precaution.

    They did not expect trouble. Open carry has been well established in Wisconsin. Open carry has always been legal, and in 1998, after a long and difficult amendment process, Wisconsin citizens cemented this long standing right into the State Constitution with 74 percent of the votes cast in the referendum.

    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose


    Over the last 5 years, open carry has been tested in the courts. Several lawsuits have ended in settlements to open carriers including cases in Wisconsin. The State Attorney General issued an opinion that open carry did not constitute disorderly conduct, because police were abusing the disorderly conduct law in order to arrest open carriers.

    Considerable numbers of newspaper, broadcast, and Internet articles were devoted to the issue, which became one of statewide interest in the 2010 elections. After the elections, in 2011, the Wisconsin government clarified the law to insure that the Constitutional rights would be protected.

    Included in the reforms was a section that specifically excluded open carry as disorderly conduct, and provided for a $500 fine and or a month in jail for officials that used excessive force based solely on the persons status as a concealed weapon licensee.

    In spite of the statewide debate, several court settlements, the AG opinion, and the shall issue law with special provisions protecting open carry, the most charitable thing that can be said of some officers in Appleton, is that they were not paying attention.

    As Charles and Ross were walking down the street with slung rifles and holstered pistols, some of Appleton's finest approached them, pointed at least one loaded rifle at them, and demanded that they move up against a wall. Ironically, it is likely that the rifle pointed at them was an AR-15 clone. (about :35 seconds into the video)

    Note that at this point there is no reasonable suspicion of any law being broken. There is no probable cause. No gun (other than the officers) has been pointed at anyone. The audio and video recorder is running. Open carry has been specifically defined by law in Wisconsin as not being disorderly conduct.

    Charles and Ross cooperate with the police, though they have little choice with loaded guns pointed at them. They answer questions. They have, but do not require concealed carry permits, because they are not concealing any weapons.

    The officers handcuff them and place them in the back seat of one of the squad cars. One of the officers takes the video camera and turns off the video while allegedly attempting to erase the recording. This in itself is a violation of the open carriers First Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit has ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to record police in the performance of their public duties.

    While the officer turned off the video recording, he did not find the right sequence to turn off the audio recording. The camera was then taken to another police car where the police discussed possible charges against the open carriers.

    It is clear that they do not like the idea of people carrying rifles openly, though why is not so clear. At about 6:52, one officer mentions that they have Charles and Ross' wallets and CCW permits, removing any doubt that they realize that Charles and Ross are not breaking any laws.

    It appears that there are at least four officers involved. At 12:28, one officer, who appears to be the one who impounded the camera, says, "This ain't going on on YouTube" making clear the intent to violate the First Amendment.

    At about 14:05 on the recording, the officers mention the Madison case, showing that they know about the settlement favorable to open carry reached in that case, which occurred even before the protections of open carry in act 35 went into effect.

    The officers consider checking the serial numbers on the firearms. They have no probable cause to do so, but one of them says its "Worth a try" (20:10).

    At 21:10, one officer mentions "Those are Sig Sauers" "Those are good firearms."

    At 34:30, an officer decides to run the CCW permits again, to see if they are still valid. Note that this is over half an hour after Charles and Ross were handcuffed without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It is clear that the officers are fishing for something to arrest them on, but they cannot find anything. There is no reason to run the permits, because Charles and Ross were not concealing any weapons.

    At about 41:00, the permits come back valid.

    At about 42:40, one of the officers says that they are all right to go.

    There are some apologies, and Charles and Ross are released after 45 minutes in detention, most of the time in handcuffs.

    How many of the Bill of Rights were violated in this incident?

    First Amendment: already covered, the police had no right to stop the video or impound the video camera. The intent to prevent publishing of the recording was itself recorded.

    Second Amendment: They had guns pointed at them, were handcuffed and held, and their other rights violated because they were exercising their Second Amendment rights. A clear desire to chill the exercise of those rights was expressed by the officers and recorded.

    Fourth Amendment: They were detained without reasonable suspicion of a crime, there was no probable cause to hold them, the serial numbers of their guns were entered into national databases without any probable cause to do so.

    Other cases where people had police point loaded guns at them without cause have resulted in settlements of $15,000 or more.

    Perhaps the Appleton P.D. will learn from others mistakes, settle quickly, and offer much needed remedial training for its officers as part of the settlement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2y...kszUW8pEmr_lMS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_...kszUW8pEmr_lMS

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

    Any help on making the links work would be appreciated.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/09...rights-of.html
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 09-10-2013 at 06:03 AM. Reason: typo

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Is there any local news coverage? I have not been able to find any......Google Fu is weak it seems.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Is there any local news coverage? I have not been able to find any......Google Fu is weak it seems.
    Didn't find any media coverage either

    Did find YouTube video and audio links:

    Link to YouTube video, about 5 minutes

    Link to full audio recording, 46 minutes


    Woops - see the links were previously referenced.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-10-2013 at 08:46 AM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    One of the victims in this case already started his own thread, (08SEP 10:39pm)
    and would probably be willing to answer some questions (pending talking with a lawyer).
    I know he did invite media to the SBX OC event the next day, but other than calling police to tell them what we were planning they have had little involvement so far.
    There may be a story coming up.

    Grapeshot, maybe you could merge these 2 threads? --Done--

    At about 1:00 the officer who says "I'll cover them both" is holding a rifle pointed at the 2 victims.

    1:45 victim 1 tells an officer he has a "permit".

    2:50 "put 'em in handcuffs, guys!"
    This despite having no indication of illegal activity.

    5:18 (over the radio) "no wants, valid ccp"
    So the next 40 minutes or so were all opinion enforcement.

    7:33 "it's takin' the Second Amendment a little bit far
    8:29 "you have a right to carry but I said however I said you cross the line to disorderly conduct when you're walking toward a busy farmer's market"
    8:38 "there's a fine line … between Second Amendment rights and disorderly conduct"
    8:42 "crossed the line"

    8:48 "who wants to interview my burglary suspect?"
    [So they have actual crime to deal with, & by now they know the victims have valid cc licenses.]

    16:20 "Wisconsin concealed carry law... little paper all highlighted [laughs]"
    [Why is a citizen trying to be informed something to laugh at?]

    17:52 tries to influence someone from the farmer's market into banning these guys
    FYI, it's open-air on public streets, no barriers, no admission fee, so there is no legal support for this opinion of his that anyone at the event can ban these citizens

    19:57 "this'll be a lawsuit"

    apx. 21:40 they indicate they will find where one victim's car is parked and ticket him. They also tried to convince Walgreen's to say they ban LACs, and the manager wouldn't. He was all in support of the 2 victims.

    23:26 "they weren't bein' mouthy were they?"
    [And this would matter why? "Being mouthy" is not a crime.]

    23:38 "should know better, he's 26"
    [So none of the officers are older than 26, because they don't know any better than to try to deprive a couple citizens of their rights?]

    24:16 & 24:48 they comment on the victims having contact info for a lawyer

    26:40 another admission that they realize there will be a civil rights lawsuit & the city will lose

    28:24 & 31:29 orders the un-handcuffing of the 2 victims

    32:17 - 32:35 they talk about going to Milwaukee (a major city about 90min away) and handcuffing people

    33:55 they run the cc licenses again
    Why? Did they really think something would change in the last 28:27 while they were cuffed & stuffed?

    36:34 why does the officer need the victims to tell him the make & caliber of firearms, the brand of camera?

    38:38 "you guys both from Wisconsin?" [they already know that, as of apx. 10:00!]

    "What was with the Utah ID?" [he means the UT permit, and what does it matter?]

    40:09 & 40:20 pressing for a reason

    41:25 once again, it is confirmed that both carry licenses are valid

    41:46 asks if the victims were fingerprinted

    44:43 "I just think we wanted to see if they were stolen"
    [in answer to why the serial numbers were run; he goes on to claim it's "just another perspective" and gives the impression that it's standard procedure]



    Why is the one officer so curious about if the guns are loaded or not?
    What difference does it make?

    And they are obviously not aware of the DC statute, nor the trespassing statute.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-10-2013 at 01:10 PM.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Do you know if the handguns were concealed or openly carried?

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryD View Post
    It happened Sat. 9/7/2013



    I personally believe the officers who were there and pointing loaded guns at these guys should be charged with assault with deadly weapon.


    My first interpretation was that the handguns were openly carried, but someone showed me that it would be reasonable to believe they were concealed. I would like to know, because I wrote that they were open carried, and I need to correct that if they were concealed.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    My first interpretation was that the handguns were openly carried, but someone showed me that it would be reasonable to believe they were concealed. I would like to know, because I wrote that they were open carried, and I need to correct that if they were concealed.
    If they were CCing, then the officer would be able to ask for their CCLs (doesn't sound like they did). CC is not a crime in WI, it is a forfeiture of $1000 if you do not have a CCL and not on your own property.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE.
    Is it possible in that state for citizens to bypass the prosecutor and take the case directly to the grand jury themselves?

    Once upon a time in this country, private citizens prosecuted cases themselves. The government attorney only got involved in the biggest crimes.

    If one represents himself in court, he is said to be operating pro se. Compare to the first five letters of prosecute.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Technically this thread is against the forum rules, which prohibit discussion of long gun OC.

    LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
    I really hate to say this, but I'm starting to agree with their logic.

    When the context was, "well, I wanna OC my rifle to the range," I thought the rule was absurd. I'm starting to agree, however, that two guys OCing ARs does nothing to normalize gun rights, and may in fact be counterproductive.

    That's not to defend the actions of the thugs in uniform, however.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-10-2013 at 11:31 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    If they were CCing, then the officer would be able to ask for their CCLs (doesn't sound like they did). CC is not a crime in WI, it is a forfeiture of $1000 if you do not have a CCL and not on your own property.
    As Charles and Ross were walking down the street with slung rifles and holstered pistols,....

    It is clear that they do not like the idea of people carrying rifles openly, though why is not so clear. At about 6:52, one officer mentions that they have Charles and Ross' wallets and CCW permits, removing any doubt that they realize that Charles and Ross are not breaking any laws.

    ...There is no reason to run the permits, because Charles and Ross were not concealing any weapons.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/09...rights-of.html
    I don't know. It seems that OC is the mode of carry. The long gun part.....well, and I hate to say this, just cuz ya can don't mean that you should.....

    I'm with marshaul on this one regarding the possible rule violation.

    Though, keep us informed on the outcome of the citizen's quest to seek a redress of wrongs.....just point us to the news story.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The long gun part.....well, and I hate to say this, just cuz ya can don't mean that you should.....
    I had to remind myself that, as a libertarian, I have no problem with social censure over behavior which is non-aggressive but unworthy of approbation, even though I would oppose the legal prohibition thereof.

    Again, I hate to say it, but I can't condone the OC of an AR "around town", any more than I can condone the assault on these LACs by criminal LEOs.

    It's simply not prudent, and it retards the efforts which responsible OC of handguns advances.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-10-2013 at 12:13 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I had to remind myself that, as a libertarian, I have no problem with social censure over behavior which is non-aggressive but unworthy of approbation, even though I would oppose the legal prohibition thereof.

    Again, I hate to say it, but I can't condone the OC of an AR "around town", any more than I can condone the assault on these LACs by criminal LEOs.

    It's simply not prudent, and it retards the efforts which responsible OC of handguns advances.

    The same has been said and is said about the open carry of hand guns.

    Please sit in back of the bus please don't eat at the lunch counter.

    As far as the law is concerned there is no different between OC of Long guns or hand guns.

    You know only half blacks can vote but not full blacks.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Sure, but this ain't a long gun centric cite. There is a rule and if ya don't like the rule hit the bricks. The fact that this thread remains means to me that the owners see some value to this story and have not deep sixed it. If this thread remains alive how about we focus on the story, minimize the LG part, and bask in the owners largesse.

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The Time Has Come for re-normalization of the open carry of rifles

    I have thought about this an come to the conclusion that the time has come for the re-normalization of open carry of rifles.

    Rifle and shotgun carry was considered normal in New York City up into the early 1960's.

    It has always been legal in Wisconsin.

    The reaction of the Walgreen Manager is an anecdotal reinforcement that most people do not see anything wrong or threatening about the carry of slung rifles. The ubiquitous presence of Israeli babes carrying M-16s and other weapons in pictorals on the Internet has helped with this re-normalization.

    We have won the open carry battle for pistols.

    Now we just need to educate the police about the law for rifles. This is a great opportunity to do that. The AR-15 type rifle has finally replaced the 1903A3/Mauser/Model 70 Winchester as the sporting rifle for this generation. This is clear by the extraordiary sales of such rifles over the years of the Obama Administration.

    Rifle carry is ripe for normalizaiton in most of the country.
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 09-10-2013 at 01:50 PM. Reason: clarity

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    <snip> The ubiquitous presence of Israeli babes (in bikinis mind you) carrying M-16s and other weapons in pictorals on the Internet has helped with this re-normalization.
    <snip>
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490 ....for your viewing pleasure.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    I have thought about this an come to the conclusion that the time has come for the re-normalization of open carry of rifles.

    Rifle and shotgun carry was considered normal in New York City up into the early 1960's.

    It has always been legal in Wisconsin.

    The reaction of the Walgreen Manager is an anecdotal reinforcement that most people do not see anything wrong or threatening about the carry of slung rifles. The ubiquitous presence of Israeli babes carrying M-16s and other weapons in pictorals on the Internet has helped with this re-normalization.

    We have won the open carry battle for pistols.

    Now we just need to educate the police about the law for rifles. This is a great opportunity to do that. The AR-15 type rifle has finally replaced the 1903A3/Mauser/Model 70 Winchester as the sporting rifle for this generation. This is clear by the extraordiary sales of such rifles over the years of the Obama Administration.

    Rifle carry is ripe for normalizaiton in most of the country.
    May we presume you are starting your own site - LGOC? See the Forum Rules

    Don't see that the battle has been won re the open carry of handguns - believe we are winning though. It just isn't a done deal; we can't rest on our laurels.

    There are the obvious/well known areas of resistance: TX, NY, CA, IL + major cities like Denver. Some states do not allow OC w/o a permit or restrict that activity in certain areas - not acceptable.

    Even in Virginia there are unnecessary limitations - I'll continue to fight the good fight.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The rules on this site are up to the owners. I will support them.

    I support opencarry.org. I will abide by the rules, I can see that the article/thread is close to the edge, but I think it is valuable.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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