Testing of rights/testing police

[Tom Servo]

Tom, walking down a busy roadway with a revolver "in his hand" is wrong.

And yet, it was technically legal when a guy did it a year or so back. That was the point the guy doing it was trying to make (or at least that's what he claimed).

Cops have a tough job but need to maintain a high level of standards & ethics.

Agreed, and we of all people shouldn't be making that job harder just so we can impress a few of our friends on the internet.

 

[noelf2]

Sometimes our other rights make a cop's job harder too. I agree that it's not helpful to test a cop performing his/her duty. I would never do so intentionally. But I recognize the right to practice your rights for whatever you want (impress your friends, expose an injustice or a common illegal practice, etc.). Irritating cops this way isn't smart, but it's not breaking the law. If you are bent on testing a cops resolve, legally, you better be recording it.

 

[apr1775]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with open carry. If you should be approached by police, ALWAYS BE POLITE. I have been in a few police contacts while open carrying. I was respectful and always addressed them as "sir" or appropriate rank or title. This way the encounter stays focused on rights and law not rude behavior. Things have ended well.

A hand gun in a holster, open or concealed, is something you carry just in case. Hopefully you never need it. Should be seen as normal as long as you are just going about your business.

A slung long arm, seems to signify you have an expectation that you will likely need to use a firearm. Absolutely your right to do so, just not normal in most everyday situations.

A gun in hand indicates you are engaged in something.

In some situations I can see an officer being concerned and initiating a field interview, if for nothing else to make sure there is not a situation that he should know about.

 

[arch308]

In my humble opinion these people are just wanting attention. They want to be internet heros. These videos do not help the cause of 2A rights, they only reinforce the bad images non-gun people have of us.

 

[ClydeFrog]

Legal precedent; AK event....

A few years ago, I read a online forum post of a woman in AK who got into a huge dispute with her local PD because she decided to jog around her town, HOLDING her firearm.
She stated she was a formal NRA member & supported 2A issues.
The woman was not charged but made a citizen complaint over the LE contact.

As stated, I agree you should be polite & professional but so should the sworn LE officers.
The police chief of Milwaukee WI has been quoted by the media as saying; "We'll take the guns away from the citizens then we will decide if they can have it."

Clyde F

 

[jimbob86]

Honestly, they are doing it for the attention it gets them. They say they are doing it for their rights, but that isn't it. If that was the case then they wouldn't have 3 or 4 buddies filming the whole thing. All they want is to get the video on YouTube and get comments saying how good they are and how bad the police are.... I hate it, and I hate their agenda.

Those who do not protect themselves with video evidence can be abused by uniformed thugs like the Milwaukie CoP tha Clydefrog just mentioned. We had a recent case locally where Police Officers went after a guy because he was filming his brother's arrest ..... they took the guy's memory card out of his phone and destroyed it ...... but a neighbor recorded their actions and publicly posted video of same, leading to a formal investigation and firings. Without the video, nothing would have come from it ..... and these bad apples would still be out there being bad apples, on the public dime.

The guys doing the video recording may not have been angels, but the Police MUST be. If they are not, they have failed at being Police Officers, and are just part of another, albeit much better organized and financed, street gang.

 

[noelf2]

In my humble opinion these people are just wanting attention. They want to be internet heros.

Quite right! I think we can all agree with that, but what's your point? We either make that sort of behavior illegal and have a police state, or we agree that they have the right to be stupid and carry on.

These videos do not help the cause of 2A rights, they only reinforce the bad images non-gun people have of us.

Again, what's your point? If that is the case, what should be done about it? You see everyone has an opinion here, but does anyone want to sacrifice a right so idiots can't have that right? There are more rights involved in this practice than 2A. 1A, 4A, and sometimes 5A rights can be demonstrated in these videos (maybe more?).

 

[thallub]

There is a danger that "testing police" and "testing of rights" will backfire.

In about 1967 the CA legislature became concerned when a group of folks started carrying loaded guns in public. The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded guns in public.

Fast forward about 45 years to a time when gunowners in CA started carrying unloaded guns in public. The CA legislature and governor had a solution to that one too. They outlawed the carry of unloaded guns in public.

 

[jimbob86]

The right was tested, and failed, in California. Neglect will do that, in that a right will wither if it is not excercised enough.

Those suggesting we not excercise our rights for fear of losing them are asking us to let them wither ....... of what use is that?

I am reminded of Theoden from The Two Towers, hiding in Edoras because Grima Wormtounge has convinced him he is too old and frail to fight for what was his ..........

 

[noelf2]

The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded guns in public.

After fast forwarding from 1967 - propel yourself out of CA to a place where the people have a better appreciation for the constitution and their rights, because people began exercising those rights, challenging the ignorant, and educating their friends and neighbors (i.e. almost everywhere else), showing that the laws can and will favor groups of folks open carrying guns. There are some videos where open carry groups were confronted by cops, but the cops ultimately had to stand down because they were wrong.

 

[arch308]

Noelf2,
I just wanted to voice my opinion that these attention hounds aren't helping. That is the point. I never said or implied that they shouldn't be allowed to play their games as it is within their rights just as it is your right to disagree with me.

 

[jimbob86]

Arch, are you suggesting they are harming?

The more common guns are in public, the less serious the cases of FBPSH there will be, over time, and the fewer of them.

 

[MRYANJ99]

I had an experience with one of these types of open carriers recently. I was standing in line at Taco Bell and this kid in front of me was there with his girlfriend and he's got a 1911 tucked in his waistband in plain sight. Usually this wouldn't bother me, but he was talking to the girl and kept mentioning how great his gun was. Now whenever he mentioned his gun, he'd talk very loudly and would be looking around to see if anyone was paying any attention to him. I'm guessing he either just got his gun or just got his permit and was trying to show off. All he did was manage to make a whole bunch of people nervous by being such a knucklehead about open carry.

Non-gun (for lack of a better term) people tend to get very nervous when they see someone with a gun. When I'm carrying, I try not to have anyone notice to avoid a potential scene. I get that it's our right to open carry, but people need to use their heads and have some common sense. Trying to draw attention to yourself when you're carrying a gun is just asking for trouble from both sides of the law.

 

[noelf2]

I don't think he'd have made me nervous. I'd just roll my eyes because he's a goober.

 

[arch308]

I just don't think planned confrontation is a good idea. In principle I tend to agree with constitutional carry. Get the media involved and it turns into a circus, and the media is very seldom on our side.

Hell, maybe I'm just getting old. I'm not the rebel I once was.

 

[Tom Servo]

Neglect will do that, in that a right will wither if it is not excercised enough.

I've heard this argument before, but I have no recollection of such a thing happening with other civil rights. Can you provide an example?

 

[Closing The Gap]

Tom,
Why do we need examples of other civil rights withering? Isnt the constant withering of the 2A over the past century example enough?

 

[jimbob86]

I've heard this argument before, but I have no recollection of such a thing happening with other civil rights. Can you provide an example?

There are none so blind as those with eyes that will not see .....

Right off the top of my head, IIRC, black men in the South had the right to vote after 1869 and full rights of Citizenship after 1868 ....... yet almost a century later had no political power and could not even eat in the same places as whites, under penalty of law, because their rights were whittled away a bit at a time, and they were discouraged from excercising them ..... the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Blacks were at first discouraged from excercising their new rights by social pressure ..... sometimes by violent repression ...... after Reconstruction ended, laws chipped away at their rights a bit at a time...... until a black woman had to give up her seat to a white man, and that was thought of not only as right and proper, and to refuse to do so would get the black woman arrested for "Disturbing the Peace".

Excercise your Rights, People. Resist those who would discourage you at every turn. Make violation of your Rights as difficult and as Public as you can.

 

[Tom Servo]

the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Because blacks didn't simply neglect to exercise their rights; they were intimidated and bullied from doing so. Big difference.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Blacks were at first discouraged from excercising their new rights by social pressure ..... sometimes by violent repression ...... after Reconstruction ended, laws chipped away at their rights a bit at a time...... until a black woman had to give up her seat to a white man, and that was thought of not only as right and proper, and to refuse to do so would get the black woman arrested for "Disturbing the Peace"....

And there are huge strategic and social differences.

1. So since your brought her up, let's take a closer look at Rosa Parks:
   
   
   • On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. That night, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.
     
     
   • Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).
     
     
   • Mrs. Parks actions and arrest were part of a well orchestrated, well organized, program leading to a successful conclusion.
   
   
2. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement in many ways is a poor model for the struggle for the RKBA:
   
   
   • Different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.
     
     
   • When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions won wide support in editorials in major newspapers, from pulpits in houses of worship across the country and on college campus.
     
     
   • The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.
     
     
   • During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.
     
     
   • The acts of civil disobedience, violations of law, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.
     
     
   • A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
     
     
   • How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?
     
     
   • During the Civil Rights Movement a largely sympathetic media was able to build widespread public sympathy for the cause. Today a popular media largely hostile to the RKBA helps build fear and antagonism.