• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another Open Carry Arrest Pending!

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:
EDIT: And no, there is no Alabama org. We hope to start one soon, but we wouldn't have any monetary power for awhile at the very least...

No better time than the present. Ask for help on this issue from NRA . . .SAF . . . GOA . . .

If this issue is not handled correctly on appeal, it could set up a very bad precedent in Alabama for open carry.
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

That's a great point daniel! The problem is that I know criminals don't use 'assault rifles'. Most don't even use 'semi-automatic rifles that aren't assault rifles in any sense but are confused with assault rifles'. Plus I already use 'high-capacity cop-killer assault clips' in my pistol. (I don't know how the 'clip' kills cops or assaults anybody, but apparently it does according to many people! It normally just sits motionless for me.)

Oh and, I highly doubt the NRA or any other gun rights org, except JPFO maybe, would support a guy carrying a 'ZOMG EVIL RIFLE' through a neighborhood.

EDIT: I doubt this case will be appealed. This guy will most likely get a public 'defender' and plead guilty. In that case there is no precedent.
 

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

doubts . . . doubts . . .

A new and underfunded local organization bringing it to their attention is better then doing nothing.

;)
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

daniel.call wrote:
I would be super careful with the socially acceptable arguments. My experience with oc is that it is not socially acceptable unless you are law enforcement. It may be tolerated.
I agree. It's very easy to just go off and say anything that a particular person/group doesn't like is socially unacceptable. So it requires some good judgment and restraint to not go overboard. It's very hard to do.


daniel.call wrote:
I don't see why anyone who is worried about self-defense would carry anything less than an assault rifle. These weapons are after all preferred by criminals everywhere. That is why we need to ban them. If all the criminals are harming people with assault rifles why would you ever chose to try and stop them with a pistol.

Your assertion has a huge weak point. Actually, two, and kurtmax caught the second.

You, essentially, state that those of us who are concerned about self-defense and who do not carry assault rifles are somehow wrong. That's obviously fallacious.
 

Mjolnir

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
469
Location
, , USA
imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:
People on this board need to learn to recognize humor.
Heck, ya would think the vast majority are a bunch of up tight old maids :p:p:p
 

Mjolnir

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
469
Location
, , USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Yah, well, that's gonna be the tactic to deal with the guys who want to go walking around in public with an EBR.

Luckily there ain't too many of them. When I read the above, I immediately thought of one of our youngster members who was insisting that it was a good idea to "educate" people at Wal-Mart on the legality of walking around with a loaded AR. Luckily, he cooled on the idea. But it was touch and go there for a few days. This could have been him in Virginia Beach. (Andstill might be...he's not the most adaptable of persons...)



From the linked article:

Larry McCoy, owner of Larry's Gun Shop ..."It is not socially acceptable," McCoy said. "You just don't do that."

I can go along with that statement. It makes a lot of sense to me. Common sense is what needs to be imbued in the characters who want to walk around residential or populated public places with loaded assault rifles.

I recently purchased an AR, a very nice pre-ban Colt HBAR, andhave absolutely no desire to walk around my neighborhood with the dman thing. I think anybody who does have such a desire is kind of, well, you know...

Worse, thoseopen rifle carry "educators" in populated areasare gonna hurt my gun rights in some way, I just know it. And I don't really like that. :(

I agree with Larry. It ain't socially acceptable.
Otay, I'm officially sick :cuss::cuss::cuss:

As I agree with Hank T :banghead::banghead::p:p:p:p
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Mjolnir wrote:
Otay, I'm officially sick :cuss::cuss::cuss:

As I agree with Hank T :banghead::banghead::p:p:p:p

Welcome to the dark side, Mjolnir...

Welcome-to-the-darkside.jpg
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

This is getting a bit off-topic really. The argument of whether carrying an 'assault rifle' in a populated area is socially acceptable or not is besides the point. The real issue is: Is it legal or not? My opinion is that it is legal.

Also, nothing is Black and White. Don't group everybody that carries an 'assault rifle' in a neighborhood as a nutter. We don't have enough facts about this case to come to any such conclusions.

Let's say that he doesn't have a pistol permit. This is a likely circumstance. A Pistol Permit is a de-facto gun registration. (If the grabbers ever go house-to-house you know they will go to permit holders first), he could not be old enough, maybe the Sheriff is not issuing him one for some reason or another (but he isn't prohibited by state or federal law from carrying).

The only option left is to carry a rifle or shotgun. I'm in a similar situation. I don't hunt, so the only rifles I would ever own are of the 'assault rifle' variety. (Maybe some battle rifles and marksman rifles as well). In addition, an 'assault rifle' would be the most convienient type of rifle for carrying regularly, due to size and weight. So, this leaves me two choices:

1. Don't carry any weapons and depend on others for defense
2. Carry a rifle or shotgun even if it's socially unacceptable, and maybe not optimal compared to a pistol

So far I've done option one, but I'm seriously considering option two. I don't have any rifles above .22 atm, and I don't necessarily have tons of money to buy a rifle, so I'm considering using my 870.

Remember: Just don't make generalizations about groups of people. Each person has their own reasons for doing things, and different circumstances.

Can we just leave this 'it's not acceptable/it's acceptable' topic alone? Let's focus on the legality eh?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:
The real issue is: Is it legal or not? My opinion is that it is legal.

Also, nothing is Black and White.

The fact that you could put these two sentences so close to each other is most interesting...

How old are you, btw?
 

1st freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
317
Location
dumries, Virginia, USA
imported post

I really dont think we have enough fact's to pass judgment on this guy,

could be that he lives a block away from a range or a gunsmith,and with fuel up to $3:50 per gal.he thought he would just walk over.

How would you like to be charged for walking to the range or your friends house that lives just around the corner. Some people might think my attitude is socially unacceptable, but I shouldn't de charged for that.

My neighbors see me with handguns everydayand assorted long guns on occasion and nobody freaks out.
 

daniel.call

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
56
Location
, Utah, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Worse, thoseopen rifle carry "educators" in populated areasare gonna hurt my gun rights in some way, I just know it. And I don't really like that. :(


I was joking about the assualt weapons being the only proper weapon for self defense. I was not joking about the socially acceptable part. Here are my questions.

What is it about an "assualt weapon" that makes it "wrong" to open carry it?

How will someone legally oc'ing an AK hurt your gun rights? Why wouldn't the same complaint be valid from the cc crowd when they complain about people who oc pistols?
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

Dang it you caught me hank ;)

I normally do a "contradictory" check on my posts but that must have slipped through. I don't have an answer tbh. I suppose it should be 'almost nothing is b&w'....
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

daniel.call wrote:
I was joking about the assualt weapons being the only proper weapon for self defense. I was not joking about the socially acceptable part. Here are my questions.
That's what I thought. It wouldn't make sense that you were kidding about the socially acceptable part. Someone should explain that to ole moodyMalum....:cool:



daniel.call wrote:
HankT wrote:
Larry McCoy, owner of Larry's Gun Shop ..."It is not socially acceptable," McCoy said. "You just don't do that."

I can go along with that statement. It makes a lot of sense to me. Common sense is what needs to be imbued in the characters who want to walk around residential or populated public places with loaded assault rifles.

I recently purchased an AR, a very nice pre-ban Colt HBAR, andhave absolutely no desire to walk around my neighborhood with the dman thing. I think anybody who does have such a desire is kind of, well, you know...

Worse, thoseopen rifle carry "educators" in populated areasare gonna hurt my gun rights in some way, I just know it. And I don't really like that. :(

I agree with Larry. It ain't socially acceptable.

Here are my questions.

(1)What is it about an "assualt weapon" that makes it "wrong" to open carry it?

(2)How will someone legally oc'ing an AK hurt your gun rights? (3)Why wouldn't the same complaint be valid from the cc crowd when they complain about people who oc pistols?

Well, let's use the bae story that started this thread. A young man, early 20s, is walking around a residential neighborhood, with kids, adults and gardeners about. Let's say the layout is like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-31,GGLG:en&q=oakwood+lane,+mobile++al&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

Let's eliminate the B.S. tangents like "There could be an AK repair shop right down the corner, how do you know, huh?" and the "He could've have been just walking 10 feet from his house to his pickup truck and some nosy neighbor with binocs spotted him!"

Let's keep it simple. The guy was just walking around the residential neighborhood. He had a loaded AK. Didn't point it at anyone. Didn't fire the weapon. (Note, I am not trying to nail down the exact details of the OP's news story, just trying to set up a discussion example. This example could be a young guy in his early 20s, say PackininVB walking through a mall in VB or in a Wal-Mart, as he wanted to do a month or two ago. It'd be very similar with respect to my answers to your three questions.) He is in full view of men, women and children in the area. No one has ever seen a man carrying an AK through the neighborhood before.

(1)Three things, IMO. One it scares some ofthe residents of the neighborhood. They see a man with a rifle and they will be concerned about what the guy is doing or going to do. Next, it will concern almost all of the residents. Those that are not scared will still be concerned about what the guy is doing. Lastly, the cops will be called and will show up. All three of these things willincur costs. Coststo the residents (scared or not), coststo the PD, and costs to the guy with the AK.

There is insufficient justification for all these costs (assay, a post-Katrina lawless state would do). Who is going to pay for them? All ofthem? Including the costs to the AK bearer (which includes the slight possibility of injury or death). I don't believe the ever present need for some measure of self-defense protection justifies the costs that are being incurred. Alternatives abound.

(2) There are conceivably 2 kinds of people who walk around with AKs in residential (or Wal-Mart or a mall): Legal carriers who mean no one any harm and illegal carriers who do mean harm to others. LE or citizens responding to the AK bearer cannot immediately determine which of the two categories applies to the guy depicted in the story. So, it has to be responded to. If the practice of walking around a residential neighnorhood is repeated, it will again be responded to. After a while, both responding citizens and LE will decide that this is too much, to have to keep responding to the AK guys. So, it will pop in their heads to regulate or ban such behavior. In the process of regulating or banning such behavior, it will occur to them that a man carrying an AK is not the only thing that will incur the exact same costs. They will think of these other things and then will say, "We're banning/regulating the carrying of AKs in residential neighborhoods (and wal-Marts and malls), now is the time to also regulate/ban ___activity A, B, C...X,Y, Z___. So let's do that, too.

The AK guy will adversely affect my gun rights because I happen to do C. Or G. Or X.

(3) It may be. But ony in more extreme situations is it actionable. One has to compare the normal vs. the aberrant (not necessarily "wrong," "socially unacceptable," "unjustified," or "illegal"). If one compares the normal (some people armed, say, CCing) vs. a guy walking down Oakwood Lane with a loaded AK in broad daylight, I'd say that is a pretty extreme difference. If one compares the normal (all people who CC in public) vs. the "aberrant" (all people who OC), it is not that much of a difference. Especially, if the general public becomes more and more aware that OC is quite legal in many places and is not much different structurally than CC.


Now, here are my 3 questions for you.

(1) Do you believe that the young man in the story was "right" to walk down Oakwood Lane as he is reported to have done?

(2) Do you think that the only question that should be relevant is whether what he did is "legal?" (Setting aside, for a moment, the questionable use of the disorderly conduct concept)

(3) Do you believe that the 4 year old, the gardner, and any other persons who viewed the AK man on Oakwood Lane had a legitimate basis on which to be "scared?"
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

I believe the people have a legitimate reason to be scared, but it isn't a right to not be scared....

Might I ask, if someone were carrying a hunting rifle would it be different? An AK is practically a sub-gun compared to some hunting calibers. So in terms of ability to inflict damage the AK is probably lower on the list of available rifles. Or is it all about 'image'?

I really don't see a difference between OCing a rifle and a pistol. Yes, a pistol might be more practical in most situations. But a rifle does have legitimate uses. There also might be circumstances in which a person has no choice but to carry something other than a pistol. (Monetary, legal, etc.) Would you prefer these people to be defenseless? Should only rich people that can afford an array of weapons to carry depending on which situation is "appropriate" be allowed to defend themselves?

Do you think that if these people had noticed the same man walking down the street with a pistol they wouldn't have reacted the same? Or how about a Mini-14 (Which is used by several militaries and is infamous from the Miami FBI Shootout and that school shooting in Montreal). The mini-14 certainly has comparable destructive potential to an ak and many features of an "assault rifle", but it certainly doesn't look like one. Would a Mini-14 be more acceptable to carry than an AK style rifle?

My question is: Is there a list of weapons that you feel is unacceptable to OC? What are the criteria for a weapon to be unacceptable? Are all rifles and shotguns automatically out?
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
(1) Do you believe that the young man in the story was "right" to walk down Oakwood Lane as he is reported to have done?
If he was legally in possesion of the AK and doing nothing else illegal, yes....his RIGHT to travel and transport his belongings are covered by SCOTUS opinions and are none of your, mine. or anyone elses concern....including LE.

(2) Do you think that the only question that should be relevant is whether what he did is "legal?" (Setting aside, for a moment, the questionable use of the disorderly conduct concept)
Yes, considering that his property was taken from him illegaly....according to Code, his property should have been returned to him at the end of the "interview" if he were not arrested at that time.

(3) Do you believe that the 4 year old, the gardner, and any other persons who viewed the AK man on Oakwood Lane had a legitimate basis on which to be "scared?"
No...not unless he was doing something OTHER THAN LEGALLY CARRYING his privately owned property from one place to another....if someone is scared by someone else doing something that is legal, that is THIER problem.
I know these weren't "meant" for me but I couldn't help myself.......
 
Top