Yes he was. He most certainly did not help our cause by his conduct. That may not be legally wrong, but it is wrong.
Legally, he may well have been in the wrong as well. Carrying a golf club or baseball bat is legal. Swinging it around or raising it overhead in a threatening or disruptive manner is not legal in many circumstances.
Carrying a gun visibly is legal in Utah. Carrying a gun in hand, with finger on trigger or waving it around rising to the level that a reasonable man would find it threatening. That is illegal. Carrying long guns in combat slings across the chest, while loitering in a public area, with no obvious reason for such conduct may well be similar enough to finger on trigger as to get a conviction.
I might not prosecute for it were it my choice to make. But it isn't.
I predict the guy is convicted of some crime related to this event, likely the disorderly conduct with which he has been charged.
I predict that conviction is not overturned at any level of appeal.
We can all complain about how that may not be right. But at the end of the day, it will define what is or is not legal.
The guy crossed a lot of lines of good taste and very well may have crossed a legal line as well. I believe the final verdict will say he did cross a legal line and committed a crime.
I don't celebrate that potential. But neither do i celebrate jack hats who engage in deliberately provocative conduct just because they can.
Civil societies exist not because we carry guns, but because we choose to engage in civil conduct.
Charles
Your term "deliberately provacative conduct", makes me laugh.
Please provide the following:
#1. A list of acceptable firearms to open carry. Please be sure it's comprehensive.
#2. Your solution to those wishing to open carry, who cannot afford a handgun, and do not wish to give up their rifle.
#3. A dress code so that we may "properly dress" for the "best appearance" to our detractors, or the rest of uninformed society.
#4. Please create a list of rounds you believe unacceptable to be carried, or used as a
defense round in a public setting.
...and on, and on. This list is literally endless.
After you do this, we will rename the 2nd Amendment, via repeal, to the "Charles Amendment". Then you can replace "...shall not be infringed", with "as long as you don't scare the public".
See how far that BS gets you.
There is a HUGE difference between wanton brandishing of a firearm, and the slung carry of a rifle. Attempting to tie the two together is complete BS on your part, and might I add, excessively emotive in nature.
I realize it is hard to fathom, but we really need all the law abiding open carriers we can get. This means the urban street dweller, the uptight rich snob, and the occasional redneck with two super redhawks, one on each hip.
Sticking with only those in khakis and polos, really misses the mark of the 2nd Amendment, and does not a damn thing to serve the end goal. The same can be said of firearm choice.
If you wish to carry a Puma, or a KelTec PLR, then fine. If you wish to carry a sub compact, then fine.
If you wish to carry a slung rifle, then fine.
No Charles, what we
really need, is less emotive outcry and "OMG he is gonna get our right to carry banned!" on behalf of
purported 2nd Amendment embracing firearms owners.
Stop making excuses for your right to carry.
Even better.
Stop making excuses for other peoples right to carry.
So long as this guy didn't place his finger anywhere near the trigger, I give a flying donkey turd if it was a Barret M82A1, or a Sig P228.
If you don't agree with his actions, that's your prerogative. Frankly though, you don't understand the concepts of the 4th or 5th Amendments, probably couldn't quote any Federalist, and actually had them backwards in your last post.
I am wondering if you understand "
Freedom".
Another gentleman made a remark that made more sense. He said something along the lines of supporting what he did "absolutely", and expressed why he felt it was poor timing, or a poor method.
That makes a ton more sense than, "OMG HE IS HURTING OUR CAUSE OH LOOK AT ME AND MY EMOTIVE OUTCRY".
Just sayin. :lol:
PS. "Civil Societies" exist not because we "choose to be civil", but because we choose "structure" over chaos. That structure is the very framework that comprises the governing body of said society. In our society it is limited in scope of power by our Constitution. What we have today is an "entitled society", which is both lazy, and ignorant. Recent developments due to generational complacency. Our country was founded on individual liberty. The only catch? Ya gotta do for yourself.
Once government shifts power from "the people", to it's owner inner workings, on it's own behalf mind you, then it is not a "Civil Society" on behalf of the good will of people. It is a tyranny, defining what is "civil", for us.
All power should be inherent in the people. That is the way our government was formed, and that is the manner in which it shall be restored, as it has strayed significantly from that structure over the course of many generations.
That "Power", whether anyone wishes to rationalize it, or not, does in fact come from the tip of the sword, and the barrel of a gun.
So you see, "Charles", society does indeed become "civil" by the barrel of a gun.
Don't believe me?
Ask the "redcoats" why their "civilized society" was rejected, and more importantly,
how it was rejected.