Do you agree with the court?? Open Carry

[Laxguy59]

Okay so I read more on this and they stated the main consideration was that he was intentionally confrontational and intentionally attempting to appear unstable during the first encounter with the Ranger.....so that is at least better than basing suspicion on clothing, gun style, and gun color.

But when it comes to "looking" suspicious. Here is a group of men who were attempting to do a photoshoot for a calender.
- The police had them drop to the ground at gun point.
-All the guns were unloaded and all but two of the men had CWP's.
-Because the guns were unloaded the two without CWP's were still legal to open carry the rifles but charged with disorderly conduct.
-Two of the men wore camo, all had large beards, this was a beard growing club/magazine.
-They were cuffed(detained) searched and held for an unknown amount of time until the police decided to let all of them go but the two without CWP's, the two without CWP's were the only ones carrying what the police called "assault rifles".

In spite of the charitable nature of their effort, Portland Police Lt. Robert King said two will be charged with disorderly conduct for handling an assault rifle in public and causing alarm to people.

So civilians saw legal activity but "suspicious" (beards, camo) and the men effectually gave up their 4th amendment rights. Nothing they did was illegal but were treated as criminals. How do you fix this, go to court with departments that think it is okay to treat legal activity as criminal.
http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/B...-alarm-but-its-all-for-charity-168045106.html

 

[Patronus]

"We're just trying to save boobs". Gotta love it!

What the hell is "Handling an assault rifle in public"? Oregon must have some seriously wacky laws. This one seems a more unconstitutional than the other story. These guys were actually arrested and we there for a legitimate reason and not just trying to see if they could stir up trouble. I'd be more inclined to get behind these guys.

 

[attison]

There's probably more to it but if that's the facts, the LEO's were wrong. But there probably is a lot more to the case than just that. I'm sure there are tons of these stories out there, let's just stick with the one in hand. Lol

 

[dunkel]

Pushing also gets things taken away. Being stupid gets things taken away. Like someone said, just because you can doesn't mean you have to.

I mentioned three instances where pushing things expanded our carry rights, either legally or in practice. Can you show me where the opposite has happened since, say, 1994, when the last big piece of gun control legislation was passed?

Btw, I'm totally not counting California...they're so whacked out, nothing they do should count for anything.

 

[shadowman3861]

There's probably more to it but if that's the facts, the LEO's were wrong. But there probably is a lot more to the case than just that. I'm sure there are tons of these stories out there, let's just stick with the one in hand. Lol

One: It took place in "Portlandia" and Two his name was Jedediah ,I guess they thought he had to be a ratical Muslim with a name that old,LOL
So much for his sky miles now.

 

[attison]

Pushing also gets things taken away. Being stupid gets things taken away. Like someone said, just because you can doesn't mean you have to.

I mentioned three instances where pushing things expanded our carry rights, either legally or in practice. Can you show me where the opposite has happened since, say, 1994, when the last big piece of gun control legislation was passed?

Btw, I'm totally not counting California...they're so whacked out, nothing they do should count for anything.

Not on gun rights, not at this time no I can't. But, all it takes is one incident to screw things up. No need to poke the angry bear, that's just dumb. I do agree on the California part though and it seems Oregon isn't too far behind of the facts above are all there. Gun rights, guns, ammo and all the stuff all of us enjoy are in the sights of the politicians. The more people push the limits instead of using the good sense God gave them, that just gives the politicians more ammo to try nd take away the things we love. Now realistically do I think the government will ever take away the 2nd amendment rights? No, it would be a civil war. Do I think they will start making things hard on us, yes I'd people keep doing stupid stuff.

 

[Laxguy59]

"
-What the hell is "Handling an assault rifle in public"? Oregon must have some seriously wacky laws.

- I'd be more inclined to get behind these guys.

The law doesn't specifically outlaw handling assault weapons in public, it's just the basis for their disorderly conduct charge, baseless crap where cops try to play legislator determining which guns one can carry unloaded or not.

Yea, me to, the lack of orange tip helps as well, well have to see if the two guys nut up and fight back the charges.

 

[Laxguy59]

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...t-in-tn-court-complaint-papers/#comment-67509

I found the full courts description of the initial incident complaint, keep in mind this is the complaint filed by the Plaintiff(P).

I'm also reading the current dismissal and some of the facts are very different, he was cuffed, serched, then uncuffed, and held for nearly 4 hours. Asked to sign a citation for illegal weapon in a park, after refusing to do so was released without citation.

interesting excepts

several park visitors expressed concerns about Plaintiff, given his camouflage dress and the type of weapon he was carrying. Thus, under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–17–1351(t), the Court concludes that Ward had a reasonable belief to disarm Plaintiff as “necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individuals or individuals” in the park area until such time as Plaintiff's weapon was determined to be lawful. Further, Embody's weapon was returned to him when the Metro Police investigation concluded that Embody's weapon was a legal handgun.

“[t]he Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” id. at 625, that is based upon a “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “ Id. at 627. In addition, the Second Amendment does not preclude laws “on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places

So here the biggest agreement is that one can be searched because he was in a park, and that is defined as a sensitive area, not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Given that Plaintiff was in personal possession of a loaded weapon in a public park, the Court concludes that the temporary seizure of Plaintiff's weapon did not violate the Second Amendment

 

[shadowman3861]

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...t-in-tn-court-complaint-papers/#comment-67509

I found the full courts description of the initial incident complaint, this was where it was earlier dismissed before going to the Fed court of appeals.

I'm also reading the current dismissal and some of the facts are very different, he was cuffed, serched, then uncuffed, and held for nearly 4 hours. Asked to sign a citation for illegal weapon in a park, after refusing to do so was released without citation.

Dosnt mention Cam , orange colored barrel tip or a recorder????
So where does that play into it?

 

[republican]

The funny thing is that this thread is on it's 19th page while everyone goes back and forth on who was wrong in the initial arrest of a political protester. Everyone seems to be missing the point that this is the problem with public property. As individuals we all have different ideas of what constitutes acceptable public behavior. That is why one man's SBR is another man's pistol. Hence the perennial debate over what constitutes indecent material at the public library. As I have said before if this would have occured at a privately owned shopping mall the guy would have been arrested as soon as he refused to leave, but as long as public property and the constitution exist simultaneously society is going to have to tolerate AK 47s on playground and pornography at the library.