Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: young man in camo with slung airsoft rifle arrested

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    VT, AK, ,
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    http://www.azfamily.com/video/index.html?nvid=388316

    I saw this on another board and figured I'd post it here. I was a bit surprised to see something likethis happen in AZ.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    A bit... odd... but not illegal. The disorderly is disturbing 'cause there was no intent. He wasn't doing anything but hiking... fantasy hiking... but that's all. The rifle could have been real... there's no law against it. Prob'ly some Kommiefornia noobs took faint.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    female hikers = california pussies (or at least wishing this was CA)

    carrying an airsoft rifle = *****. you wanna simulate carrying a ruck, pack 80+ pounds and carry a 12 pound AR

    being charged with disorderly conduct = priceless. charges will probably be dropped and he'll be made fun of for a while but none the less i still give him props for trying.

    either way if your trying to prepare for something you might as well make it as realistic as possible. pack a heavy ruck, dress ACUs, carry an unloaded (or loaded i guess) AR and start hiking.

    airsoft and woodland camo? pretty gay but still give him an A for effort lol

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    I suspect that the charge for disorderly conduct might have been less likely if the rifle had actually been real. There are no legal protections for the right to carry scary looking toys.
    http://arizonagunowners.com - The best AZ gun board around!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.



  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    JesseL wrote:
    I suspect that the charge for disorderly conduct might have been less likely if the rifle had actually been real. There are no legal protections for the right to carry scary looking toys.
    That's an interesting speculation. If you're right it would mean that a person with a rifle is acknowledged more rights than a person with an airsoft toy.

    I think the situation is unfortunate. The kid had a right to dress any way he wanted to and carry almost anything he wanted to.

    The public had a right to report the "GI Joe with a rifle."

    The cops had the reasonable latitude to check out the situation and detain the kid.

    Nobody did anything wrong.

    Yet, they all screwed up.

    Funny, how that happens sometimes...







  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    It would have been hilariously ironic if the SWAT team had shown up. Carrying rifles. While wearing camouflage.

  8. #8
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    :shock: You know, there needs to be an open carry meet with everyone open carrying a long gun or NFA weapon. Maybe go out for a group hike.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.


    In 1988, two scientists from Cornell University published an academic paper entitled “The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    I'll save you the long-winded analysis and skip right to the conclusions: The players wearing black uniforms were universally more agressive than those who did not.

    Also, players and spectators alike found teams with black uniforms to be more manevolent and intimidating.

    Read into that what you will.

    Edit: You can read the entire paper herein .pdf format.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Interesting. I was thinking it's stupid because of the hot weather we get here in the valley.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    canadian wrote:
    Kildars wrote:
    I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.

    In 1988, two scientists from Cornell University published an academic paper entitled “The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    I'll save you the long-winded analysis and skip right to the conclusions: The players wearing black uniforms were universally more agressive than those who did not.

    Also, players and spectators alike found teams with black uniforms to be more manevolent and intimidating.

    Read into that what you will.
    I don't have to read into it: I know from anecdotal experience that it's true.

    I live in a suburb of a medium-sized city. Until a few years ago, that city's police officers wore light blue shirts and medium blue trousers. Until this year, they drove white patrol cars with light blue police logos down the sides.

    Now, they wear black uniforms, and all their new cars are black & white (predominantly black).

    I admit that my political views have changed over the year, as well as my level of knowledge about police abuse. But still, every time I see one of their old white cruisers on the street, I smile a bit, thinking that it looks like someone to whom one could turn for help. And when I see one of their new black cruisers, my heart skips a beat.

    The new police chief even said that he chose the new B&W scheme because it was more "intimidating".

    Gee, thanks, chief.

  12. #12
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    I'd like to mention.

    If you've like to keep updated to his case, Mr. Dan Hoemke is keeping everyone who asks updated on the issue. His email address is listed below.

    dan [at] hoemkeassociates [dot] com

    They are, "certainly not pleading guilty." Please be aware he can't inform anyone of his defense strategy, so don't ask. He does have a lawyer for his defense, so they should be ready to have a go with the DA.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    What is really sad is that even just an arrest,even withan acquittal,is likely to ruin his chances of becoming an Army Officer.

  14. #14
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Cato,

    You speak like you know it all, but you don't. You don't know what CO may say or do to him in regards to his past history. Also, he can have his records expunged, but there is always the media history behind him.

    Don't make assumptions.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    time for an AR15/AKM open carry hike

  16. #16
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    I'm reserving judgment on this, until after the case is tried. It seems hard to believe that someone was arrested just for walking around in the desert with an airsoft rifle. I'm guessing that the kid did something stupid, like try to scare some people with it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    An email received from Officer Clark by one of the members over on thehighroad.us:
    The title of your email tells me that you have no idea what the facts of this arrest are. Hiking/PT with an airsoft rifle had very little to do with his arrest. Here's what I've sent to a few other folks concerned about this arrest. This young man was in a dedicated preserve area where these types of air guns are not legal to possess, and clearly posted as such. You can expect to be cited or arrested if you are so equipped in the McDowell Preserve area in Scottsdale. This was not an open hunting area or state land. Its a city park used by kids, families and recreational hikers. The rifle this young man was carrying/handling was altered to look real, so any reasonable person would assume it to be a genuine assault rifle. He (admittedly) was standing on a hill overlooking an elementary school within an hour of hundreds of school children showing up for their day of school. He had the rifle in his hands at the "low ready" position when he was perched above the grade school. Hikers were, quite literally, were fleeing from this person exhibiting this behavior. If you see this, you would to foolish to assume it was an ROTC student in training. This was a reasonable reaction by these hikers to seeing this on recreational use, municipal hiking trail where these types of guns/toys are prohibited. (And clearly marked as such). Unfortunately, there are enough incidents with real guns in the news that our citizens are compelled to call the police when they see this behavior. If you are basing your opinion on the TV news coverage, then you saw his actions AFTER the incident, when he was knowingly going to meet the police. Obviously, he was just hiking and carrying his rifle slung over his shoulder when the news helicopter showed up to beam his image to the television station. So please don't assume you have all the facts, unless you were there or have the police report on the incident. If you've already made up your mind that we are the "bad police", then there's nothing more to say. If you are interested in the facts, then you will see that our actions were completely justified. You can also call me if you wish to discuss our actions any further.
    http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=411948


    The discussion on thehighroad mentions that the nearest school is over a mile away and the way the Scottsdale law on guns in the nature preserve is being enforced appears to be in violation of Arizona's preemption law.
    http://arizonagunowners.com - The best AZ gun board around!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    sieg heil officer clark

    "assault rifles" and their exploding bullet are deadly to kids and jumbo jets at 1 mile.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Since I have a CCW permit, I can carry (OC or CC) in city and state parks even if they are posted "No Weapons." State preemption does allow parks to limit firearms to permit holders but they can't outright ban them. If Scottsdale PD doesn't like that, tough.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    Thank to azredhawk over at THR, it's been discovered that the posting at the McDowell Preserve is illegal per ARS 13-3108.




    http://arizonagunowners.com - The best AZ gun board around!

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    i love how these towns love to exploit the wild west heritage but do everything completely opposite of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    JesseL wrote:
    Thank to azredhawk over at THR, it's been discovered that the posting at the McDowell Preserve is illegal per ARS 13-3108.

    Just confirmed the same information on the Preserve website:

    http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/rules_regs.html
    I especially like how they redefine the term 'fire arm' (and also make it into two words) to include things that are not legaly firearms.


    Sounds like it's time for some action =)


  23. #23
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    i love how these towns love to exploit the wild west heritage but do everything completely opposite of it.

    Yeah, that's a good one, ain't it? The first thing I noticed about that sign was the little picture of the cowboy on the bucking bronco, and then the second thing I noticed was "no weapons."

    They're a bunch of ******* morons, but, then again, what do you expect from the group of people who elected Sam Campana?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    If you read the text of the relevant Scottsdale ordinance, the law seems to be compliant with 13-3108, but it has a lot of verbiage that basically parses out to nothing.

    http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/d...ve/ord3321.pdf

    Sec. 21-2. Purpose of the preserve.
    ...
    (c) The preserve will not contain traditional facilities or improvements associated with a public park, but may contain facilities or improvements that the city determines are necessary or appropriate to support passive recreational activities.
    Sec. 21-12. General rules for use.
    (a) All persons using the preserve shall comply with all federal and state laws, and county and city ordinances, rules and regulations.
    (b) All persons using the preserve shall comply with the following, except as may be specifically authorized by a permit or permits issued as provided in this section, or in sections 21-22 or 21-23 of this chapter:
    (1) No person shall possess a deadly weapon, or an air rifle, air pistol or slingshot in the preserve, or a firearm in any developed or improved area, as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3108, except as otherwise permitted by law.
    Funny that they don't have any developed or improved areas, per their own purpose and the definition laid out in ARS 13-3108, but they still ban firearms in them.

    The biggest problem here is that whoever was responsible for making the sign didn't pay any attention to the legal requirements, and that the local law enforcement appears to be enforcing the illegal sign rather than the law.
    http://arizonagunowners.com - The best AZ gun board around!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Looking a little deeper, that site also links to a PDF file with the 'detailed' rules for the preserve.
    Section 21-12 General rules for use

    B-1: All persons using the preserve shall comply with the following, except as may be specifically authorized by a permit or permits issues as provided in this section, or in sections 21-22 or 21-23 of this chapter:

    No person shall possess a deadly weapon, or an air rifle, air pistol, or slingshot in the preserve, or a firearm in any developed or improved area, as defined in A.R.S. 13-3108, except as otherwise permitted by law.
    Doesn't help the kid in the featured article any, but at least that would be the correct wording (which is not carried over into the signs in the park apparently) that really applies.

    Based on that, and the fact that the signs don't specify their re-defining of the term 'firearm' to include airsoft devices, the kid should be able to argue that airsoft was not posted as being disallowed in the park.

    As for the real deal, that wording tells me that CCW holders are indeed safe (when held against the official rules vs. the signs or website.)


    Edit: doh, looks like JesseL beat me to it...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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