Another Open Carry Arrest Pending!

[Comp-tech]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

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?

+1 .....There are those that spew forth such nonsense.....what is it they're called again...demoncrats?...policaticians?
Guess there's no need for labels..."if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....."

 

[HankT]

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

I know these weren't "meant" for me but I couldn't help myself.......

Hey, this is a discussion forum on the Internet. That means that open discussion is pretty much encouraged and desirable. Contrary to the opinion of some Internet censorious newbies who would discourage and trash ideasand input they don't like.

Hell, maybe I'll have a comment or two on your ideas--after I read D.C's replies.

 

[Mjolnir]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hey, this is a discussion forum on the Internet. That means that open discussion is pretty much encouraged and desirable. Contrary to the opinion of some Internet censorious newbies who would discourage and trash ideasand input they don't like.

Just don't ever say anything bad about the blackhawk airsoft line of gear or even worse the airsoft serpa holster, people love to hate and attack anybody who speaks out against the serpa and demands proof even when ya rell em they ain't getting anything more than what they get. It's great fun watching them try to poke holes in something they clearly do not understand as it goes agains the popular opnion so therefore it's bad.

But hey, it's the internet afterall & so many people don't have a clue in life and must be internet commando's to stroke thier fragile ego's

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

I know these weren't "meant" for me but I couldn't help myself.......

Hey, this is a discussion forum on the Internet. That means that open discussion is pretty much encouraged and desirable. Contrary to the opinion of some Internet censorious newbies who would discourage and trash ideasand input they don't like.

Hell, maybe I'll have a comment or two on your ideas--after I read D.C's replies.

Fair enough.....

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Mjolnir wrote:

HankT wrote:

Hey, this is a discussion forum on the Internet. That means that open discussion is pretty much encouraged and desirable. Contrary to the opinion of some Internet censorious newbies who would discourage and trash ideasand input they don't like.

Just don't ever say anything bad about the blackhawk airsoft line of gear or even worse the airsoft serpa holster, people love to hate and attack anybody who speaks out against the serpa and demands proof even when ya rell em they ain't getting anything more than what they get. It's great fun watching them try to poke holes in something they clearly do not understand as it goes agains the popular opnion so therefore it's bad.

But hey, it's the internet afterall & so many people don't have a clue in life and must be internet commando's to stroke thier fragile ego's

Heh. We sure argue amongst ourselves alot for sure. I wonder if the MMMs have debates on how much gun control is reasonable or socially acceptable

On an off-topic note... please show me a link to a serpa discussion. I haven't seen this debate raging on these forums before. I have a serpa and rather like it. I haven't been able to find anything negative about it. A fobus or such works just a good but if there is a reason I shouldn't be using a serpa I'd like to know...

 

[Mjolnir]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

On an off-topic note... please show me a link to a serpa discussion. I haven't seen this debate raging on these forums before. I have a serpa and rather like it. I haven't been able to find anything negative about it. A fobus or such works just a good but if there is a reason I shouldn't be using a serpa I'd like to know...

The serpa thread is around here someplace. I'm dead set against em for a few reasons and since I can't or wont post the proof many here want I'm a troll and as such not to be believed & have an attitude and a few other issues.

I'm outspoken and know what works and does not work for myself and the guys I run/ran with and have recieved reports and read other info about the serpa line of holsters.

Lots of people I know consider Blackhawk to be excellent airsoft gear and stay away from it. Years ago before they stoped producing gear in America it was not bad, but once production moved to Korea the quality went down the tubes. I still have some pre Korea made gear, but up till I retired from active duty my gear of choice was the orginal John Wills SOE gear. Blackhawk was also rumered quite heavily in some circles to have "borrowed" gear ideas from Eagle (Eagle is better quality than Blackhawk) but I don't know if it was ever proven.

I don't know any HSLD kind of guys who use blackhawk gear & the ones I do know have nothing but bad things to say about the serpa holster & that's good enough for me.

Oh and I almost forgot, I'm a poser for talking about HSLD guys, the gear some of em use and then not posting any proof that I know any operators :lol::lol:

Got to love the internet and internet commando's :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Added on edit: here is a link to the thread in question http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/1995.html

 

[unrequited]

imported post

*yawn*

 

[HankT]

imported post

Mjolnir wrote:

The serpa thread is around here someplace. I'm dead set against em for a few reasons and since I can't or wont post the proof many here want I'm a troll and as such not to be believed & have an attitude and a few other issues.

I'm outspoken and know what works and does not work for myself and the guys I run/ran with and have recieved reports and read other info about the serpa line of holsters.

Now, Iunderstand why der Neutralizer is following you around the forum about that subject.

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

HankT wrote:

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!"

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?"

I liked your responses. Very well thought out. I agree that all of the imaginative explanations for this individuals behavior should be set aside.

1) I won't go as far as to say that he was wrong. I won't say he was right either. I wish you would have asked what I thought about the police and DA's actions. I know they were wrong. I'll just stick with saying this individual was unwise.

2) I think that moral questions would be a lot easier if all we had to worry about is whether or not our actions are legal. I think that should be a secondary concern. A decent person will need to evaluate how his actions affect those around him or her. My uncle has been slowly robbed by the civil court system for the last six years. Everything happened legal but I haven't seen a sleazier situation in my life. We have a lot of rights in our country. I think the true measure of the character of a society is how well the individuals suppress their own individual rights out of respect for their neighbors.

3) I'll admit that I probably wouldn't have gotten scared but I would have been paying close attention. I think they feared the rifle and rightly so. It is powerful tool even if it isn't using "full size" rifle cartridges.

In the end my position is that it should be perfectly legal to open carry any weapon to any non secure area. Respecting private property rights of course. However, since most people are unaccustomed to seeing weapons everywhere, discretion needs to be used. I wouldn't worry about those who wield rifles infringing on your rights too much. Rifles are a pain to carry. They get heavy quickly, don't conform to your body well and the slings ruin your cloths quickly. Not many people will take their rifles for walks anywhere too far from home.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

HankT wrote:

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!"

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?"

I liked your responses. Very well thought out. I agree that all of the imaginative explanations for this individuals behavior should be set aside.

1) I won't go as far as to say that he was wrong. I won't say he was right either. I wish you would have asked what I thought about the police and DA's actions. I know they were wrong. I'll just stick with saying this individual was unwise.

He was unwise by doing nothing illegal?.......

2) I think that moral questions would be a lot easier if all we had to worry about is whether or not our actions are legal. I think that should be a secondary concern. A decent person will need to evaluate how his actions affect those around him or her. My uncle has been slowly robbed by the civil court system for the last six years. Everything happened legal but I haven't seen a sleazier situation in my life. We have a lot of rights in our country. I think the true measure of the character of a society is how well the individuals suppress their own individual rights out of respect for their neighbors.

So long as ones' actions do not deprive anothers RIGHTS or break any law, there need be no evaluation.....as individuals, we cannot be in control of anyone elses "feelings"...these are internal and therefor under their control.
This is true but only to a very small point....how far are you willing to go? Do you respect your neighbors fear of guns to the point that you would give yours up? If we, as individuals, don't protect our own rights, just who will?

3) I'll admit that I probably wouldn't have gotten scared but I would have been paying close attention. I think they feared the rifle and rightly so. It is powerful tool even if it isn't using "full size" rifle cartridges.

Why should anyone fear an inanimate object?.....was the man having a hard time keeping the AK under control so that it would not go crazy and shoot people?...why should anyone fear his rifle any moreso than an LEOs sidearm?

In the end my position is that it should be perfectly legal to open carry any weapon to any non secure area. Respecting private property rights of course. However, since most people are unaccustomed to seeing weapons everywhere, discretion needs to be used. I wouldn't worry about those who wield rifles infringing on your rights too much. Rifles are a pain to carry. They get heavy quickly, don't conform to your body well and the slings ruin your cloths quickly. Not many people will take their rifles for walks anywhere too far from home.

What this man did IS legal....that is the point of all this, why was he harrassed?....because someone else was "unacustomed"?
His only discretion was whether he was breaking any laws or infringing on someone elses RIGHTS....which he wasn't, according to the LEOs statement.

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

He was unwise by doing nothing illegal?.......

So long as ones' actions do not deprive anothers RIGHTS or break any law, there need be no evaluation.....as individuals, we cannot be in control of anyone elses "feelings"...these are internal and therefor under their control.
This is true but only to a very small point....how far are you willing to go? Do you respect your neighbors fear of guns to the point that you would give yours up? If we, as individuals, don't protect our own rights, just who will?


Why should anyone fear an inanimate object?.....was the man having a hard time keeping the AK under control so that it would not go crazy and shoot people?...why should anyone fear his rifle any moreso than an LEOs sidearm?

What this man did IS legal....that is the point of all this, why was he harrassed?....because someone else was "unacustomed"?
His only discretion was whether he was breaking any laws or infringing on someone elses RIGHTS....which he wasn't, according to the LEOs statement.

You can do all sorts of things that are unwise but perfectly legal. Lets say my pistol has a malfunction. It is perfectly legal for me to look down the barrel to investigate. Might not be a good idea though. It is perfectly legal to get drunk off your rocker and then go and get in your private pool. Might not be a good idea. Therefore some legal actions may be unwise. If you want to believe any legal action is good go ahead though.

True, other people's feelings are under their control. So according to your logic I don't need to have any sympathy to their feelings. If they are offended by my actions it is all their fault. You ask how far is one supposed to go? No one needs to give up any right to self-defense to protect anyone else's feelings. I again say, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do. You guard and protect your own rights. Just because you decide not to exercises a right does not mean you have given it up. If a burglar breaks into my home and I decide not to shoot him I have not given up my right to self defense. I have chosen not to exercises the right. I could run, I could attempt to detain them. I can chose between a whole bunch of different rights. Just because I chose not to shoot a burglar today doesn't mean I have forever given up that right. I just don't understand why all those people in the former USSR were complaining. The way their government treated them was entirely legal. I just can't believe they couldn't keep their feelings under control.

I fear all sorts of inanimate objects. I really don't like IED's for some reason. I fear saws too. I'm missing part of my thumb because an inanimate object ate it for lunch. I also really fear guns. You know, when people are messing with inanimate objects they can become an extension of that person. I wouldn't fear the individual in the same way if they didn't have the inanimate AK47. Therefore my fear doesn't come so much from the trigger man but the fact he has a couple of 155 rounds to do his bidding. I fear the explosion, not the man. I fear my own gun. If I don't treat it right at all times it will let me know. How can an inanimate object let me know I misused it? When I misused the skill saw for just a tiny moment it let me know. Fear can help one respect. Those who have no fear tend to be careless.

In the end this man is being harassed by the government when he has broken no law. This is terribly wrong. Plain and simple. Only this individual will know what his intentions were. Was he trying to annoy his neighbors? Was he truly concerned about self defense? Was he on his way to settle a dispute? The exact same action could be a "wise" or unwise" choicedepending on what one is trying to accomplish.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:
You can do all sorts of things that are unwise but perfectly legal. Lets say my pistol has a malfunction. It is perfectly legal for me to look down the barrel to investigate. Might not be a good idea though. It is perfectly legal to get drunk off your rocker and then go and get in your private pool. Might not be a good idea. Therefore some legal actions may be unwise. If you want to believe any legal action is good go ahead though.

There is a BIG difference between unwise and stupidity....the above examples fall into the stupidity section and hardly compare to what he was doing.
For the debate to have any value, may I suggest that we compare "apples to apples"?

True, other people's feelings are under their control. So according to your logic I don't need to have any sympathy to their feelings. If they are offended by my actions it is all their fault.

I never said that we should not have consideration for others....that's what makes us "civilized". I do, however, contend that I/we should not have to structure my/our life/lives around other peoples feelings or opinions.

You ask how far is one supposed to go? No one needs to give up any right to self-defense to protect anyone else's feelings.

The man had his property illeaglly confiscated because of someone elses feelings....the LEO couldn't even find anything to arrest him for which made the confiscation illegal by Alabama Code......the magistrate issued an arrest warrant that was only "good" if the complainant would sign it...the LEO had no cause for arrest or there would be no need for a warrant.
Wonder if the arrested party would agree with your above statement?

I again say, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I won't debate moral issues here...this a gun RIGHTS forum, not a religion forum.

You guard and protect your own rights.

How can you "guard and protect" something that you compromise away by allowing others feelings dictate their use?

Just because you decide not to exercises a right does not mean you have given it up. If a burglar breaks into my home and I decide not to shoot him I have not given up my right to self defense. I have chosen not to exercises the right. I could run, I could attempt to detain them. I can chose between a whole bunch of different rights. Just because I chose not to shoot a burglar today doesn't mean I have forever given up that right.

Vast difference in CHOICES and RIGHTS........

I just don't understand why all those people in the former USSR were complaining. The way their government treated them was entirely legal. I just can't believe they couldn't keep their feelings under control.

WTF does Russia have to do with US?....Why wasn't what the Nazi gov did to the Jews OK?.....it was all legal....completely useless babble as far as this debate/conversation is concerned......

I fear all sorts of inanimate objects.

You have mental issues if you can't see that inanimate objects can't hurt you.....you MUST seperate objects from the OPERATOR/USER....that is the one that should concern you.

I really don't like IED's for some reason.

I can agree with that one but....I like the PEOPLE that use them even less....they scare me in a way.

I fear saws too. I'm missing part of my thumb because an inanimate object ate it for lunch.

The saw didn't eat it....YOU fed it to the saw......show video, prove me wrong.
I RESPCT saws as I have had a finger in a table saw....the saw (inanimate object) didn't do it....my carelessness did.

I also really fear guns. You know, when people are messing with inanimate objects they can become an extension of that person. I wouldn't fear the individual in the same way if they didn't have the inanimate AK47. Therefore my fear doesn't come so much from the trigger man but the fact he has a couple of 155 rounds to do his bidding. I fear the explosion, not the man. I fear my own gun. If I don't treat it right at all times it will let me know. How can an inanimate object let me know I misused it? When I misused the skill saw for just a tiny moment it let me know. Fear can help one respect.

Jeeez man.....read your own words....you agree with my point but are too stubborn to admit/see it.
BTW...VAST difference in respect and fear....respect is given/earned and is at free will to be given/taken away.....fear is instilled/forced and there is not much choice involved.

Those who have no fear tend to be careless.

Agreed.....plain stupid at times as well.

In the end this man is being harassed by the government when he has broken no law. This is terribly wrong. Plain and simple. Only this individual will know what his intentions were. Was he trying to annoy his neighbors? Was he truly concerned about self defense? Was he on his way to settle a dispute? The exact same action could be a "wise" or unwise" choicedepending on what one is trying to accomplish.

We don't disagree here so much.....my part in this discussion has been based on what we know from the information at hand. If indeed his intentions were those listed above, he would be unwise in THOSE CHOICES.....
I still contend that he should have been left the hell alone untill he broke a law or otherwise deprived someone else of their rights.
Wonder if you'd feel differently "in his shoes"....doesn't have to be an AK, could be your pistol...could be in a different place......the principal still applies.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

So, what is the update? Surely they would have decided whether to press charges by now? Anybody know this guy?

 

[HankT]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

So, what is the update? Surely they would have decided whether to press charges by now? Anybody know this guy?

People on this board need to learn to look up stuff.







Looks like another youngster wannabe commando...

This type of kidis gonna damage my gun rights, for sure. They just don't gotcommon sense.:cuss:







Teen arrested after seen with AK-47-style rifle

Wednesday, July 18, 2007
By RON COLQUITT


Mobile police arrested Michael McLeod Freeman, 19, Monday evening and charged him with disorderly conduct in connection with Freeman carrying a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle through the Spring Hill neighborhood where he lives, officials said.

Freeman was taken to Mobile County Metro Jail, where he was released on $250 bail, jail records show.

While it is not illegal to carry such a rifle, a Mobile police spokesman said that it is unlawful to alarm people in the community. That is why Freeman was charged with disorderly conduct, Officer Eric Gallichant said.

Members of Freeman's family declined comment Tuesday, referring questions about the incident to family attorney Paul Brown. Brown could not be reached for comment.

Freeman graduated from St. Paul's Episcopal School in May 2006, according to a Press-Register story.

Sean P. Costello, who lives near the Freeman family, said Monday that his gardener spotted Freeman with the rifle about 6 p.m. Friday walking along

Oakwood and Dilston lanes. Freeman did not point the rifle at anyone or threaten anyone, Costello said.

Costello said Freeman was also carrying a 30-round magazine, but it had not been inserted into the rifle at that time.

The gardener was so frightened that he left the area, Costello said. A bullet can be loaded in the chamber of a semiautomatic rifle even when the magazine is not inserted.

Gallichant said that police confiscated the rifle after they arrived at Freeman's home and found it loaded with a magazine in it. The police report on the incident did not say whether the rifle was loaded at the time Freeman was carrying it through the neighborhood, just that it was loaded when it was confiscated, Gallichant said.

The rifle had not been returned to the Freemans as of Tuesday afternoon, he said. Also, he said that investigators had not determined where Freeman got the gun.

Larry McCoy, owner of Larry's Gun Shop on Pleasant Valley Road just off Government Boulevard, said Monday that anyone 18 or older who is not a convicted felon can legally purchase a semiautomatic, AK-47-style rifle.

McCoy said he sells them only to people 21 or older because he does not consider a teenager mature enough to buy such a rifle.

An employee of Larry's Gun Shop said Tuesday there was no record of Freeman buying the rifle from them.


http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1184750741307550.xml&coll=3

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Thanks for the link

No thanks for pointing out my ignorance.

Hey! The rifle was not even loaded? :cuss:

 

[HankT]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

No thanks for pointing out my ignorance.

Pointing out something else was the intent...



Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Hey! The rifle was not even loaded? :cuss:

And that would matter in what way?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Hey! The rifle was not even loaded? :cuss:

And that would matter in what way?

As to the feasability of the State's argument that his conduct was in any way "threatening."

Not that I think carrying a loaded long arm is threatening, but an unloaded gun makes the state look a little ridiculous.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

HankT wrote:

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Hey! The rifle was not even loaded? :cuss:

And that would matter in what way?

As to the feasability of the State's argument that his conduct was in any way "threatening."

Not that I think carrying a loaded long arm is threatening, but an unloaded gun makes the state look a little ridiculous.

So, your position is that the kid walking around with a BR can only be "threatening" if it is actuallyloaded?

What about the mag the guy was reportedly carrying? Would the BR/mag combo be "threatening" or not?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

HankT wrote:

So, your position is that the kid walking around with a BR can only be "threatening" if it is actuallyloaded?

What about the mag the guy was reportedly carrying? Would the BR/mag combo be "threatening" or not?

Hank, are you ok? :uhoh:

Itching to pick away at other's posts?

No, that is not my "position." You could certainly be threatening with an unloaded weapon, but I have seen nothing to indicate any threatening conduct by the person arrested.

I really do not know what you are getting at with your second question, so I am going to just leave it alone.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Not that I think carrying a loaded long arm is threatening, but an unloaded gun makes the state look a little ridiculous.

There is my "position." :quirky