• 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.

TERMINATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION MEMBERSHIP

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

We just have to face it, open carriers are despised by many people, especially those within the very "gun rights" group.

We are the dirty little uncontrollables that might push back a negative reaction. . We are ahead of the curve. We need to give the slow children time to catch up.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Venator wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.
Couldn't possibly be that he doesn't want to see all the good work done in this arena to be undone by those acting overzealously, scaring the voting people into prodding their legislators to reduce or remove our freedoms, could it?
If our rights are so precarious that they might be snatched away at public whim, then they are not rights at all.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

lockman wrote:
Just because he personally feels it inappropriate does not mean he will not defend your right to engage in that activity. I think you over reacted on this one.
I disagree as well. How can you count on an organization who's leader publicly states that the 2a should have yet another pointless limit?
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

Not to add anything too obvious to this discussion BUT;

I haven't found anything about this snafu on the SAF website. I can find various news items, videos, press releases dated both before and after this incident **but** nothing (yet) concerning this particular sniveling appearance.

Has anyone else noticed this ?

Am I not looking in the correct place on the saf.org website ?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
Mike wrote:
My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.
My bolding included above. What I believe Mike to be articulating is "staying on message" for OC and OC only. This allows us to focus on the "Primary Purpose" of attracting people to OC and informing the general public of such. While other "causes" are certainly good/right, I believe that we will better succeed staying on the message of OC alone and not get bogged down in other areas.

I have experienced the value of a group staying on message and helping me. On August 28th, 2009 I will have 20 Years Clean/Sober. I see OpenCarry.org following the same general "12 Traditions" that when 12 Step Groups follow them, they are extremely successful. In what Mike is trying to do, I believe he is stating the value of Tradition 10: Having no opinion on outside issues, OpenCarry.org should not be drawn into public controversy. Traditions 5/6 also seem to be espoused as well: http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-122_en.pdf

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to tie OpenCarry.org and 12 Step Organizations together, nor implying the value of these for anyone other than myself.

So far to date, I believe OpenCarry to be doing well in their stated endeavor. I have learned a great deal from the website and the good people who participate here. I was encouraged to starting OC'ing and to pursue my CPL, which I now have. I hope to be able to attend a local event very soon and meet others who believe as I do and practice it.

I have proposed having an OC Event nearby an Obama Healthcare Rally for the puposes of educating on OC and for OC only: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/30011.html
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

Huh ?

So how is it possible to say that all is o.k. with either Alan or the SAF AND FURTHER that they are "staying on message", if our message is to encourage open carry where legal and being pro-open carry and Alan (and the SAF by inference) took personal exception with that ?

Alan G. and SAF have sadly strayed from the message of unity amongst the pro-carry gun rights community. And I am not sure why some people cannot see that amazingly simple reality when Alan G. said what he did.

And since I am explaning the obvious, if you agree with those that say open carry is not o.k. but licensed and/or concealed carry is o.k., you feed the forces that would like to keep the 2nd Amendment the only item in the Bill of Rights to remain "un-incorporated".

And I am not sure how you can say Mike is o.k. agreeing with Alan's behavior and in keeping with our collective purpose or message in light of the above.

Geesh !
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:
Venator wrote:
Mike wrote:
My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.
My bolding included above. What I believe Mike to be articulating is "staying on message" for OC and OC only. This allows us to focus on the "Primary Purpose" of attracting people to OC and informing the general public of such. While other "causes" are certainly good/right, I believe that we will better succeed staying on the message of OC alone and not get bogged down in other areas.

I have experienced the value of a group staying on message and helping me. On August 28th, 2009 I will have 20 Years Clean/Sober. I see OpenCarry.org following the same general "12 Traditions" that when 12 Step Groups follow them, they are extremely successful. In what Mike is trying to do, I believe he is stating the value of Tradition 10: Having no opinion on outside issues, OpenCarry.org should not be drawn into public controversy. Traditions 5/6 also seem to be espoused as well: http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-122_en.pdf

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to tie OpenCarry.org and 12 Step Organizations together, nor implying the value of these for anyone other than myself.

So far to date, I believe OpenCarry to be doing well in their stated endeavor. I have learned a great deal from the website and the good people who participate here. I was encouraged to starting OC'ing and to pursue my CPL, which I now have. I hope to be able to attend a local event very soon and meet others who believe as I do and practice it.

I have proposed having an OC Event nearby an Obama Healthcare Rally for the puposes of educating on OC and for OC only: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/30011.html
I don't believe that his commentary here demonstrates your concern. I recently made a comment on another forum of debate along these lines.

What has open carry got to do with health care? Nothing. They aren't related. It creates a nonsense argument and I think he is right to point that out.

But, counter to that, Obama's reason for being somewhere hasn't the power to dictate anyone else's reasons. The man has repeatedly insulted and attacked gun-owners. No matter where he goes, or what his stated purpose is, I feel that gun owners, regardless of HIS purpose, should be there to put it in his face.

Who is ready to OC foam-rubber guns with "bitter clinger" printed on them, into the actual forums in which he spreads his fud?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

para_org wrote:
Huh ?

So how is it possible to say that all is o.k. with either Alan or the SAF AND FURTHER that they are "staying on message", if our message is to encourage open carry where legal and being pro-open carry and Alan (and the SAF by inference) took personal exception with that ?

Alan G. and SAF have sadly strayed from the message of unity amongst the pro-carry gun rights community. And I am not sure why some people cannot see that amazingly simple reality when Alan G. said what he did.

And since I am explaning the obvious, if you agree with those that say open carry is not o.k. but licensed and/or concealed carry is o.k., you feed the forces that would like to keep the 2nd Amendment the only item in the Bill of Rights to remain "un-incorporated".

And I am not sure how you can say Mike is o.k. agreeing with Alan's behavior and in keeping with our collective purpose or message in light of the above.

Geesh !
I neither listened to Alan G/SAF and really do not care what he or that organization says (at this point). I did not post about that and did not weigh in on anyone's decision to support them. My post was strictly in support of Mike and OpenCarry.org not getting entangled in other areas (I.E.: the current Healthcare Debate).

Here is my take:

1. Keeping and Bearing Arms should not be hindered in any way, OC/CC and Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Etc. It will take time to get there and, save an outright revolution, will be taken back little by slowly. It should NOT have to be this way, but this is current lay of the land (until some are voted out of office and many laws changed). You cannot eat an elephant in one bite!

2. I support anyone who Keeps and Bears Arms for Lawful Purposes. I believe that this should be an individual decision as to how/why/when and not "dictated" by an organization such as OpenCarry.org. I joined the organization for the simple fact that people here did not try to "force" a specific practice, only advise based upon understanding of law and their own experiences.

3. I liked seeing people on TV practicing their right to Open Carry and watching the anti's show their true colors. This is winning more to the Open Carry "side" daily and people around me are asking to go shooting where otherwise they would not. I have plenty of rifles/shotguns to OC if I choose and would do so when I deem it necessary, although it currently appears the MI allows this only for hunting (have not researched it).
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I suspect Alan may have just fallen for the same old initial reaction many others have.

Once he realizesOCers get about 1 negative reaction for half-million positive reactions from the public, he'll come around.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
imported post

Venator wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.

I don't think Mike is softening his view on 2A (even if I do disagree with him on this issue). It may be that he believes, as Falstaff, that "the better part of valor is discretion". That is fine, but I (and some others) believe, as Virgil writes in Aeneid, that "Fortune favors the Bold".
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

WCrawford wrote:
Venator wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.

I don't think Mike is softening his view on 2A (even if I do disagree with him on this issue). It may be that he believes, as Falstaff, that "the better part of valor is discretion". That is fine, but I (and some others) believe, as Virgil writes in Aeneid, that "Fortune favors the Bold".
I commend the 'racist white' black guy of other hot threads for having the balls to prove both of these premises accurate.

That guy can't sneak up on anyone, they clank when he walks.

Discretion is knowing when to be bold, not running and hiding every time.
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:
para_org wrote:
Huh ?

So how is it possible to say that all is o.k. with either Alan or the SAF AND FURTHER that they are "staying on message", if our message is to encourage open carry where legal and being pro-open carry and Alan (and the SAF by inference) took personal exception with that ?

Alan G. and SAF have sadly strayed from the message of unity amongst the pro-carry gun rights community. And I am not sure why some people cannot see that amazingly simple reality when Alan G. said what he did.

And since I am explaning the obvious, if you agree with those that say open carry is not o.k. but licensed and/or concealed carry is o.k., you feed the forces that would like to keep the 2nd Amendment the only item in the Bill of Rights to remain "un-incorporated".

And I am not sure how you can say Mike is o.k. agreeing with Alan's behavior and in keeping with our collective purpose or message in light of the above.

Geesh !
I neither listened to Alan G/SAF and really do not care what he or that organization says (at this point). I did not post about that and did not weigh in on anyone's decision to support them. My post was strictly in support of Mike and OpenCarry.org not getting entangled in other areas (I.E.: the current Healthcare Debate).

Here is my take:

1. Keeping and Bearing Arms should not be hindered in any way, OC/CC and Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Etc. It will take time to get there and, save an outright revolution, will be taken back little by slowly. It should NOT have to be this way, but this is current lay of the land (until some are voted out of office and many laws changed). You cannot eat an elephant in one bite!

2. I support anyone who Keeps and Bears Arms for Lawful Purposes. I believe that this should be an individual decision as to how/why/when and not "dictated" by an organization such as OpenCarry.org. I joined the organization for the simple fact that people here did not try to "force" a specific practice, only advise based upon understanding of law and their own experiences.

3. I liked seeing people on TV practicing their right to Open Carry and watching the anti's show their true colors. This is winning more to the Open Carry "side" daily and people around me are asking to go shooting where otherwise they would not. I have plenty of rifles/shotguns to OC if I choose and would do so when I deem it necessary, although it currently appears the MI allows this only for hunting (have not researched it).
Huh ?

Again you are making no sense in as much as the venue matters ONLY to those that would seek to differenciate where and when open carry is politically correct. And to agree with Alan G. is to play into that divisive thinking. Unfortunately Mike did so, albeit perhaps without fully thinking it through. (I dunno, as he has to say and you cannot say for him.)

Also I guess you don't understand this either but despite your insistence otherwise this thread **IS** about open carry and what Alan G. said about it. And specifically what others said about it including Mike. You might feel that it is o.k. to suggest what Mike may have meant, but it rings very hollow if you have not actually seen the video or read the transcript.

So if you really feel the way you say you do, then perhaps you can understand that maybe Alan G. did mess up. And maybe Mike spoke up in a discordant fashion. But to understand all of that you would FIRST need to go read the transcript and watch the video. THEN come back and re-read this thread.

Geesh !!
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Color me surprised here in this reaction to Mike.

Here is what Mike actually stated:

Mike wrote:
I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.
ricecountyrefugee stated:

ricecountyrefugee wrote:
And the name of this forum is OpenCarry.org ? Mike, I think that you're confused about what the Second Amendment says and I disagree with your statement above.
You realize that Mike is one of the two founders and leaders of OCDO, right? Telling Mike that he's confused about what the 2nd amendment means is about the same thing as telling John Adams that he doesn't know what the constitution means. Open carry is the purest form of the 2nd amendment.

KBCraig wrote:
I believe those who are quitting SAF either misunderstood Gottlieb, or are mischaracterizing what he said.

He said that he didn't believe the rifle was "politically smart". He didn't condemn "Chris", and he supported the right to carry the rifle. He merely opined that it might not be a good political strategy.

I disagree with Gottlieb on that point, but it hardly makes him any less pro-gun.
I agree with the above comment. Let me remind all of you that this isn't just purely a public relations battle. It's a long term legal and political battle. As one of my fellow gunnies over on Calguns has pointed out repeatedly:

We 'eat our own' because we're trying to stop stupidity.

One black rifle incident and we might lose Kennedy from the Heller 5 majority. Their words do speak louder than actions.

Period.


Btw, someone in this thread stated that Chris B (the AR-15 carrier in Phoenix) did not speak about the health insurance bill. This is absolutely false. Chris B. DID speak out against the proposals, and did so in the debate repeatedly with others who did confront him in the protest outside.

I also point out, once again, that the AR-15 carrying was masterminded by Ernest Hancock, a supporter of the Viper Reserves, who's core leadership was arrested by the feds for plotting bombings of federal buildings throughout Arizona. Great folks there, just the people we want to be associated with, right?

Alan Gottlieb was right about it not being politically smart in this particular circumstance. The open gun carrying at town hall events and getting into yelling matches with supporters of the health insurance bill is actually starting to radicalize them to the point where they're willing to push even harder and not accept anything less than the current proposal. Open carry of firearms purely by opponents of the health insurance bill during the town halls and outside of the presidential events may lead to some unintended POLITICAL consequences down the line, such as the greater likely hood that the bill will actually pass, and some congressional and state legislative attempts to ban guns outside of the presidential security zones, regardless of the White House and the Secret Services statement that the President was never in any danger.

All it takes is ONE incident of gunfire at one of these events and A) you can pretty much bet that the health care bill WILL pass in less than 1 week and B) We can look forward to the knives of law enforcement putting an inordinate focus on all of us. Not to mention the eventually Legislative consequences, which SAF, which some of you think "sold us out", will have to fight in the courts.

Just to piss the ones threatening to "terminate their memberships with SAF", I'm going to start donating additional money to SAF to cancel out Idaho Cowboy's and Para_Org's cancellations, specifically to fund their lawsuit against DC's carry law, and their lawsuits in California against may-issue and the handgun roster. Zumbo'ing Alan isn't going to work, as he did NOTHING wrong other than offend the effete sensibilities of people who would throw even a founder of this site under the bus if they sniff the slightest bit of impure unorthodoxy.

I swear, it's almost like arguing with a dining room table here sometimes. :what:
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

As for 'one black rifle incident'

I think that, as usual, the events which do not occur are escaping documentation.

How many people have OCed at political rallies? How many massacres have there been?

It hasn't sunk in, as the leftist panty wetting is still at fever pitch; but the point is already made.

A bunch of people walked around in an emotionally charged environment and they were mature and responsible enough that nothing bad happened.

Can't say the same for the opposition party...... Eventually it will get noticed.
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

Yes exactly.

However I need to correct some misstatements of facts made by Gray Peterson that *directly* concern me or were said about me.

1 - This discussion has become circular and folks are going to one of two sides (not counting the fella that actually has NOT bothered to look at the video or read the transcipt and does not care what was said therein) of the following question:

I cannot exercise my rights because someone might take offense of me doiing so and ruin my rights via court decision. (I'll remember that next time I leave the house armed, which is every time I leave the house BTW.)

i.e. I should not exercise my rights in public lest I loose the rights to exercise them in public? Some of us agree with this logic and some do not. HOWEVER I would point out that THIS website is suppose to be devoted to the exercise, in public, of this right to openly carry. And those pointing out that Mike seems to have strayed from this has some merit. (I have not done so directly by the way, but I do understand their concerns about where Mike is headed.)

(The rest of this refers to Gray Peterson when I use the word "you".);)

2 - *** The guy who carried the rifle did not yell at anyone in any of the coverage I saw. You state that in your discussion above as a key point in creating a logical basis for refraining from exercising the right to open carry, but can you offer a link to a video of him doing so ?

Hey, I bet you cannot link to a video of either of the popular press's open carry strawmen from the past two weeks that WAS also in a heated discussion and yelling at these rallys.

3 - You further state that I have cancelled my SAF membership. But again you are stating something as factual without any evidence of this. I have NOT said that, nor have I done so to date. I am still deciding but your outburst above is not helping me decide to keep my membership.

4 - Finally you seem to be using the very same old arguments of those that would prefer that no one be allowed to open carry except those granted permission to do so from the state. i.e. You trot out that old bug-a-boo bit about someone discharging a gun at the wrong time. Everyone here should be able to see how goofy that bit of reasoning is without my having to trot out the standard reply. Even you (Gray Peterson); right ? (Well maybe not as you might feel compelled to defend this argument you brought up...!!)

5 - When we begin to tear apart our own house with flimsy il-considered remarks that sound EXACTLY like the rhetoric our detractors use and degrade our friends, .... are we being smart ?
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

I like all of your points, but there is still something missing.

There has been a lot of heated exchange between the two sides of the political fence at these rallies. It seems to be accepted that those who carry a gun are not allowed to participate.

Exercising the 2nd means losing the 1st? Since when can we have only one Right at a time?

It is not politically smart to support that position. The only people trying to stifle debate, are those who are pretending to be intimidated by something that is not meant to intimidate. It is guilt by inductive reaction. The opposition pretends to 'feel' a certain way in an attempt to ground their own accusations.

Since when has OCDO, or any gun-rights organization, bent itself to that idiocy? Why start now?

Carrying guns is something these people do anyway. The fact that they do it at these gatherings is 1) simply because that's what they do 2) in some cases, a message sent to the 'leader' in question and not the supporters who are arrogant enough to think that they are the focus 3) because Leftist supporters have been the ones to practice violence at these gatherings, and since they have not accelerated their violence since people have been carrying guns; the guns have done their job to create peace!

Obama supporters are, once again, overstating their relevance. Any political message made by carrying weapons is intended for the 'leader' who has repeatedly disrespected them. Not any desire to intimidate the stupid. Obamacites really are full of themselves.

Lets look at reality.

The Obama Supporters have been the source of violence.

The Obama Supporters have edited videos in an attempt to play the race card, and deliberately hide the fact that the man in question was BLACK while telling the world that he was a 'white racist.'

The Obama supporters have cried 'you're intimidating us' even though no one has threatened them. THEY are the ones who have resorted to violence to suppress others. That didn't happen at the events where guns were brought... Think about it. Exactly who did what?

The Obama Supporters are the ones trying to limit and frame the discussion by saying that people who do not obey their agenda (people who carry guns) are not allowed to have a voice.

The Obama Supporters are the ones being bullies, by playing the race and bully card themselves to censor others; in spite of the fact that all material evidence supports the position of gun owners.

The Obama Supporters are the ones whining and distracting from the primary point; nothing bad happened. Responsible, mature people carried weapons, just like they do every day, and even in an emotionally charged setting, kept their cool. Nothing happened, and this proves all the 'what if' fear-mongering Obama Supporters are full of crap!
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

I've been reading some of the posts here, and I fail to see how saying (condensed paraphrase, etc...) "yeah sure it's legal, I [making a personal opinion] just don't necessarily agree with it... but I'll argue with you if you say he shouldn't be able to" is a bad thing.

There are plenty of things in the world that I view as inappropriate, but would still defend other's ability to do.

inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed to are different things, I'm pretty sure he understands that and believe he made that clear.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

If you watch the whole interview, SAF guy did say he supports this guys right to do this. He personally wouldn't have.

The problem I have with SAF, is when I am personally told by a high member in that organization not to listen to any advice from Mike, and that we are not lawyers and the pamphlet we have here in Washington does more harm than good, Cops have the right to detain me, run my serial numbers on my weapon when I have not been engaged in any wrong doing, and then cover my weapon up and not to open carry for awhile.

On the other hand they did call, the department that harassed me and asked if they did certain things, of course the department lied. But because of that call I doubt they will bother me for awhile, knowing they are being watched by the SAF.
 
Top