Ok. He went with the intent to provoke. He went armed, and to protect himself, painted the tip of his Draco AK-47 pistol, orange, and wanted body armor. In a separate event: He then went carrying a pistol in hand to provoke a change in the law.
He did not consider his provocation might have led to shots fired, and an innocent bystander getting hurt.
More like this: You would not pull your firearm and shoot without looking to make sure you are going to hit the target, and not some innocent? There is responsibility there, right?
Point is this: Going out and carrying there is a responsibility of the carrier to ensure the safety of others. He did not meet his responsibility, because he put others, through his provocation, in harm's way. This responsibility should have, at the very least, been thought of.
"I am open carrying an unholstered, strapped across my chest, Draco AK-47 Pistol, which looks near exactly like, unless looked at closely, an illegal folding stock AK-47 rifle, in a park where the uninformed general public will be, to test a just passed right to carry law, and I will carry a recorder, so I can get the response of the Wildlife Resource Agents reaction on tape, so I can sue."
Problem is this thought did not enter the planning: "Hmm. Maybe I should take into consideration the Agents may react, or even overreact, in a wrong way, so I may need to ensure the general public is not down barrel..."
"I am going to buy and carry a reproduction 1860's pistol, with its safety limitations, in hand at dusk in Belle Meade to force a change it their antiquated carry laws."
Problem with planning: "Hmm, perhaps the BMPD may react poorly, overreact, or simply not know how to handle a black powder pistol, exposing the general public to the barrel sweep of a loaded firearm..."
Responsibility. It is MY responsibility when I carry to ensure the firearm does not go needlessly off, does not get in the hands of a bad guy, and that if confronted, by law enforcement, or by criminal, my actions do not overexpose the innocent bystander.
If, I have to shoot, I **** well better make sure those bullets land in the bad guy, and not in some innocent bystander, or I get to go to jail... and get sued for more money than I have, will have, or ever had.
Here Kwik overexposed the innocent bystanders. And, ironically, himself, by not thinking it through.
That simple. Had the Agent with the shotgun tripped, and an innocent bystander got shot, Kwik would have been on the hook. Possibly criminally, but definitely civilly.
And that is the issue I have. Not that he did it lawfully, or not. Not that he was well within his rights or not. I have issue with the lack of safety he took. He should have protected the innocent and himself better.
Perhaps he will add the additional thought of, "what happens if..." before the next time he provokes the PD.
Now, what was the topic again? Oh yeah, AG's opinion is not enforced, but is merely advice on how to follow certain laws, and court decisions, to prevent his office, and / or the legislature from mis-enforcement or creating bad law...
Since there is new Court rulings from the SCOTUS, obviously, this opinion may not be fully effective. But, in 2003, it may have been an effective opinion.
He did not consider his provocation might have led to shots fired, and an innocent bystander getting hurt.
More like this: You would not pull your firearm and shoot without looking to make sure you are going to hit the target, and not some innocent? There is responsibility there, right?
Point is this: Going out and carrying there is a responsibility of the carrier to ensure the safety of others. He did not meet his responsibility, because he put others, through his provocation, in harm's way. This responsibility should have, at the very least, been thought of.
"I am open carrying an unholstered, strapped across my chest, Draco AK-47 Pistol, which looks near exactly like, unless looked at closely, an illegal folding stock AK-47 rifle, in a park where the uninformed general public will be, to test a just passed right to carry law, and I will carry a recorder, so I can get the response of the Wildlife Resource Agents reaction on tape, so I can sue."
Problem is this thought did not enter the planning: "Hmm. Maybe I should take into consideration the Agents may react, or even overreact, in a wrong way, so I may need to ensure the general public is not down barrel..."
"I am going to buy and carry a reproduction 1860's pistol, with its safety limitations, in hand at dusk in Belle Meade to force a change it their antiquated carry laws."
Problem with planning: "Hmm, perhaps the BMPD may react poorly, overreact, or simply not know how to handle a black powder pistol, exposing the general public to the barrel sweep of a loaded firearm..."
Responsibility. It is MY responsibility when I carry to ensure the firearm does not go needlessly off, does not get in the hands of a bad guy, and that if confronted, by law enforcement, or by criminal, my actions do not overexpose the innocent bystander.
If, I have to shoot, I **** well better make sure those bullets land in the bad guy, and not in some innocent bystander, or I get to go to jail... and get sued for more money than I have, will have, or ever had.
Here Kwik overexposed the innocent bystanders. And, ironically, himself, by not thinking it through.
That simple. Had the Agent with the shotgun tripped, and an innocent bystander got shot, Kwik would have been on the hook. Possibly criminally, but definitely civilly.
And that is the issue I have. Not that he did it lawfully, or not. Not that he was well within his rights or not. I have issue with the lack of safety he took. He should have protected the innocent and himself better.
Perhaps he will add the additional thought of, "what happens if..." before the next time he provokes the PD.
Now, what was the topic again? Oh yeah, AG's opinion is not enforced, but is merely advice on how to follow certain laws, and court decisions, to prevent his office, and / or the legislature from mis-enforcement or creating bad law...
Since there is new Court rulings from the SCOTUS, obviously, this opinion may not be fully effective. But, in 2003, it may have been an effective opinion.
Last edited:
