Another Open Carry Arrest Pending!

[HankT]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

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.

Yah, feeling good today. Thanks for asking. How bout yourself? OK?

Just trying to discuss your statements, MP. You say something, someone responds. Then you can respond...It's called a discussion. And sometimes people disagree.


I doagree with your statement:

" You could certainly be threatening with an unloaded weapon..."

I just don't seehow, then, you couldn't see the AR-47 kid being possibly "threatening." You're not being very convincing.



Malum Prohibitum wrote:

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

It's pretty simple. Can a guy walking through a residential neighborhood with an AK-47 and a magazine for it in hand be "threatening?"

I'd say "yes." What would you say?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

No. Not if that is the sum total of the facts.

By the same logic, a pistol in a holster "could be threatening." There has to be something more.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Freeman did not point the rifle at anyone or threaten anyone, Costello said.

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

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

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.

Wonder if Hank is upset about the soiled panties?.....happened as he ran away from his gardening spot screaming like a girl......

jeeeez Hank...the guy didn't do anything illegal according to police...why the hell should he lose his property and be arrested?....and then only after some gardener ruined his panties.....you just don't seem to be "getting" this one...from the information we have, the guy was arrested and lost his property not because he did anything illegal or even wrong for that matter...it happened because of SOMEONE elses over-reaction to an irrational fear.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Looks like another youngster wannabe commando...

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

Yeah! How dare he not break any laws. Idiot!


Maybe you should direct your displeasure at the sheeple mentality of the neighborhood, police and media.

Blaming this kid because society is screwed up is a perfect example of the problem and why we may never recover from it.

What do we do when the sheeple figure out that those funny shaped black cloth cases are not ukalele cases and actually contain an evil "AK-47 type rifle"?
We won't be abe to leave the house with them in fear that someone's idiot gardener will get scared :uhoh:

So NO, HankT, this kid is not going to damage your guns rights. YOU are already doing that be being a "common sense" gun bigot. You do not care about gun rights, only your guns. Your exactly like the hunters that blame me for standing against the assault weapons ban in fear it was going to hurt their guns by opposing "common sense" legislation against "assault weapons" that "serve no sporting purpose". <puke>



Now for the obvious. Someone walking down the street with a rifle (any rifle) in a non threatening way should not garner any more attention than anyone else, perhaps a stranger, would garner. Maybe watch him to see where he is going, but calling in the professional harassers (po-lice) because your paranoid or to get your point across (he shouldn't be able to do that!) is despicable.
Guns are LEGAL, Owning guns is LEGAL, carrying guns is LEGAL.
This is as absurd as calling the po-po because you see a stranger simply walking down your street minding their own business.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

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.

^^ I agree.

EDIT: And.. wow. So they took the rifle from his house!? Very odd. Nice to see that his family actually has some money and might be able to fry the department.

Also if you feel threatened by a 'kid' (why would it make a difference if he was 19 or 99?) carrying a rifle? I certainly might be concerned and keep an eye on him, but I wouldn't be calling the police unless he started really threatening people. Like pointing the rifle at them or making verbal threats. I seriously cannot find a single case yet where someone was convicted of disorderly conduct for simply appearing 'threatening'. That's just too broad of a definition for 'threatening'.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

HankT wrote:

Looks like another youngster wannabe commando...

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

Now for the obvious. Someone walking down the street with a rifle (any rifle) in a non threatening way should not garner any more attention than anyone else, perhaps a stranger, would garner.

Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the wordobvious that I wasn't previously aware of.


Yours is the most astonishing statement that I've read on this forum this week. And that takes a lot!

BTW, would your "any rifle"includeone which isfullauto?

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Actually I'm not sure it's legal to carry a full auto firearm in that way. There is something in Federal Law that says you can't carry them except at ranges or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll look more into it when I get a full auto weapon

And no, full auto shouldn't make a difference.

In fact, I'd be quite confident that most of those school shooters, or crazy people that walk through neighborhoods and start shooting people wouldn't be able to fire a full auto weapon accurately, and just run out of ammo faster with killing less people.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

HankT wrote:

BTW, would your "any rifle"includeone which isfullauto?

HankT, really now, would your gardner be able to tell whether it was full auto or semi from that distance?

:lol:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure it's legal to carry a full auto firearm in that way. There is something in Federal Law that says you can't carry them except at ranges or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Alright. That's good. I know alot of people say you shouldn't use full-auto for self defense because you get fried in court. ("What sane person would use an EVIL MACHINE GUN OF DEATH to kill somebody???!!!!")

I always figure it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six....

And I also agree. What gardner would be able to tell full auto from semi. Hell, unless you have super-eagle-eyes and can spot the fire selector, it would be hard to tell. (Maybe on an UZI or something you could spot an open bolt or whatnot, but seriously now...)

 

[molonlabetn]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Pa. Patriot wrote:

HankT wrote:

Looks like another youngster wannabe commando...

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

Now for the obvious. Someone walking down the street with a rifle (any rifle) in a non threatening way should not garner any more attention than anyone else, perhaps a stranger, would garner.

Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the wordobvious that I wasn't previously aware of.


Yours is the most astonishing statement that I've read on this forum this week. And that takes a lot!

BTW, would your "any rifle"includeone which isfullauto?

2 answers...

The obvious part is because society should not get their panties in a wad because they fail to mind their own business.

In reality, the rifle was indeed obvious... similar to how abull is obvious in a herd of steer. In both cases, the huge ball-sack is hard to miss.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

I cannot find any update on this story.

 

[HungSquirrel]

imported post

Legba wrote:

He won't sell an AK to anyone under 21 because he presumes that they aren't mature enough??? wtf?

Larry is a filthy racist. I was in his store looking at handguns about two months ago. A white male, about 19, was handling an AK and said he wanted to buy it. Larry said "I don't normally sell AKs to people under 21, but because you're a white boy, I'll see what we can work out."

Mobile residents, take your business to Steve's Gun Shop. Not only are they not openly racist, they have an indoor range and let you try your gun for free after you buy it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

I cannot find any update on this story.

Anybody know anything about what happened to this guy?

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Nope. I can't find anything on him at all.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Put him UNDER the jail? :uhoh:

 

[cato]

imported post

It was probably a DA reject. Or the guy paida small fine and that was the end of it. Misdemeanors rarely go to trial and if it did there would be news. Some one local should do a FOIA on that incident. Or just call that department. Maybe someone will talk informally.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

HankT wrote:

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...

...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.

• It isn't socially acceptable
• It may cause gun grabbing legislation that harms our 2A rights

These are exactly the arguments I've heard for why I shouldn't OC my handgun, and they were spouted by people purporting themselves to support my RKBA.

Where do we draw the line with this line of logic that makes it OK for what you want to do but not OK for what <someone not HankT> wants to do?

 

[Marco]

imported post

HankT wrote: BTW, would your "any rifle"includeone which isfullauto?



most people couldn't tell the difference between a Full auto and a Semi auto rifle
so way would that be a issue.:banghead:

if the person is legal to have a FA have at it.