Incendiary Image of the Day: Arrest This Edition

From msnbc.msn.com: Chris Combs, of Troy, left, and Stephanie Locke, of Clawson, cross the street in downtown Birmingham, Mich. while participating in a protest by gun enthusiasts Monday, June 11. The protest is in support of eighteen-year-old Sean Michael Combs, of Troy, who was arrested in Birmingham on April 13 while carrying a rifle. Combs was charged with brandishing a weapon, disturbing the peace, and obstructing a police officer.

comments

  1. avatar Ian says:

    I don’t know about you, but even as a gun enthusiast and a supporter of open carry, I don’t approve at all how that women is caring her rifle. That’s far too easy, imo, to be considered threatening and therefore brandishing. I know I wouldn’t walk around with my pistol im my hand.

    1. avatar macnorfin says:

      I agree. But muzzle discipline isn’t the only issue here. I’m not a big fan of open carry unless it’s in the back country. It’s needlessly provocative. Gun enthusiasts should realize that some people are fearful of guns. You can overcome that with education (and maybe a range trip), but you’re not going to overcome it by marching down the street with a dozen AR’s.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        It’s no more provocative than carrying a hammer or a wrench. Just because some people are morons and afraid of inanimate objects doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. The best way to get them to stop crying is for them to SEE IT on a regular basis – after a few weeks (maybe less), they’ll stop even noticing that the evil gun is there.

        1. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

          Uh…yes it is. If I see someone across the block walking with a hammer I see it as unusual, but not threatening.

          If I am walking through the streets of my hometown and see some carrying a rifle like that lady is….it is a pretty good indicator that sheet is about to hit the fan.

          You may have the luxury of living in a community where there isn’t a person shot just about everyday within a couple of miles of your house. I don’t.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          That’s your issue if you’re scared of an inanimate object – that has no relation to the object of the person holding it.

          You may have the luxury of living in a community where there isn’t a person shot just about everyday within a couple of miles of your house.

          You mean the same luxury the overwhelming majority of the country enjoys? No one’s making you live in the ghetto (or maybe it’s Chicago?). But again, just because you’re scared of an inanimate object doesn’t make the object threatening.

        3. avatar B says:

          totenglocke: you are an idiot.
          There is nothing wrong with a person open carrying a weapon on a strap like the guy next to her, or even the guy right behind her. They do not have their HAND ON THE GRIP! When you have your hand on the grip, that is called BRANDISHING( Def.:To wave or flourish (something, often a weapon) in a menacing, defiant, or excited). It is threatening and shows intent to use the weapon. Hell yeah, it’s something I would be worried about! And if all you can do is keep singing your “but muh inanimate object” bullshit, then you are a fking idiot!

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        I don’t necessarily approve of walking down the street with a rifle in hand…. but an activist has to be at least somewhat provocative to get their point across.

        The response of the community is what determines if the act was appropriate or not…. but it is very much something you want to carefully consider before doing, and I am not sure that much thought went into this.

      3. avatar Jwhite says:

        ^^^ this…

        Next thing you know (California is a great example) Open carry of pistols, AND long guns is under fire. Give them a reason… And it gets the ball rolling.

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      It’s on, what looks like, a 2-point sling. You can see the strap over her right shoulder. Although she’s likely handling the rifle to keep it from smacking into her leg as she walks, her setup is similar to the man to her left.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      So it’s OK to own a gun, just not to touch it?

    4. avatar Don says:

      If I saw a group of people coming down my street toward my house with rifles slung like that and wasn’t aware of any protest or reason… fine it’s your right and all of that, but know that I’m sitting in my window pretty damned scared with mine zeroed in on you trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and that’s my right. Guns are for defense, war, sport, and fun. Not for making political points or activism.

      -D

      1. avatar Mr. Lion says:

        Out of curiosity, were, say, a truckload of National Guard troops to spill out in your neighborhood with slung rifles, would you take a bead on them, too?

        Were that the case, I suspect you’d get a somewhat more.. warm.. reception than would be with joe six pack walking down main street with a slung rifle.

        1. avatar James says:

          “Out of curiosity, were, say, a truckload of National Guard troops to spill out in your neighborhood with slung rifles, would you take a bead on them, too? “

          Most assuredly, yes.

          The day troops, tanks and whatever else hit American streets is the day every American worthy of the title takes aim and prepares to fire.

        2. avatar Don says:

          Probably, and I’d observe them until I was able to determine if they were real national guard or a hostile invasion force dressed up like them.

          -D

        3. avatar matt says:

          I thought the national guard was only good at shooting unarmed hippies, ie: kent state

        4. avatar Don says:

          lol, who knows what kind of people they’ve been practicing to shoot since then?

        5. avatar James says:

          All indications point to that they’ve been training to shoot people like us since then.

          Take stories, for instance, where the Army was holding drills in Washington where the stated objective was to handle situations of civil unrest, and their “mock protestors” were wearing Carharts and flannel outerwear. http://tinyurl.com/6nb8vya

          Or the multi-agency operation that went on in the LA area for a couple weeks back in January. http://tinyurl.com/cffsnwh

          Or what about the US Army Combined Arms Center’s own whitepaper on the benefits of training for military operations within the United States? http://tinyurl.com/bpy9zgu

          And once in a while, you get stories from places you don’t always expect that make you realize you are the enemy they truly fear.

      2. avatar Don says:

        I can’t wait until the remake of read dawn comes out:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_%282012_film%29

        I’m almost as excited about this as Expendables 2.

        -D

        1. avatar Don says:

          gosh… *red

      3. avatar Totenglocke says:

        but know that I’m sitting in my window pretty damned scared

        Your irrational fear is your issue, NOT the issue of the evil gun owners. It always astounds me how many anti-gun comments come from supposed gun owners.

        1. avatar Don says:

          You have the right to march through the streets with a rifle at the ready, i have the right to judge it as an irrational and unusual behavior, and therefore a potential threat, and take percautions.

          Pretty straightforward arrangement.

  2. avatar Sid says:

    She is carrying the weapon at the low-ready position. Her finger is very clearly OFF of the trigger. She is carrying the weapon correctly.

    Maybe, you two should ask why they are openly carrying RIFLES instead of pistols?

    1. avatar Elliotte says:

      Also look at the shoulder straps of her top, it looks like she’s got a sling for the rifle on her right shoulder.

      1. avatar matt says:

        a single point, but it is being carried like a purse

        1. avatar matt says:

          i was wrong

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Um, she’s carrying it correctly for being in a warzone. Ok, for an actual patrol you’d want it in the shoulder and a little more “guns and eyeballs”, but that’s not the position for a casual stroll unless you frequent the Tikrit Starbucks. It’s like have your pistol in hand. but pointed at the ground – you wouldn’t wander around town like that. Not cool.

    3. avatar B says:

      It doesn’t matter where her finger is, she can have it up her butt for all I care. What does matter is that she is BRANDISHING the weapon by holding it by the grip. And that is NOT legal unless you intend to shoot something and have the right to do so.I thought people on THIS site would be smart enough to know that.

  3. avatar Buzzy243 says:

    Nice soul patch.

  4. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    WOLVERINES!!!

  5. avatar One If By Land says:

    I don’t think this serves our cause well. One thing to protest, another to look like your getting ready to storm the police station. Also, referring to it as a “weapon” doesn’t help either. Weapons are used in wars and crimes. She’s carrying a rifle, or firearm. Weapon does not sit well with the ignorant masses..nor does “assault rifle” – we do ourselves a disservice buy using these terms.

    1. avatar matt says:

      that is anlaogous (damn you spam filter!) to saying you shouldnt call something a car because it could be associated with a race car, you should instead call it a automobile.

      1. avatar B says:

        Does it fire on full-automatic?? No? Then it is NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Geez! Another point I thought people here were smart enough to know.

    2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      I’m sorry, but it is a weapon. The politically correct, “mustn’t offend anyone’s tender sensibilities” bullsh!t has to stop. You can’t pick up a turd by the clean end.

      1. avatar One If By Land says:

        I’d rather win the debate, than lose on principle. This is a fight that takes place in the media…we can’t ignore the PR aspect of this. It’s the reality we live in. We use uphamisims all the time.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “It’s the reality we live in.”
          ——
          Yup, and we’re working to change that reality. Care to help?

        2. avatar matt says:

          Do you watch the news, especially the national news channels? No matter what you say or do, you’ll be the enemy, look at how Zimmerman was crucified.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          You’ll never win the “debate” against the media. Thankfully, gun laws no longer seem to be influenced by the media, so your fear is pretty much irrelevant.

  6. avatar matt says:

    god I wish I could go to a protest with my RFB

  7. avatar 9mm&4wd says:

    Now there’s something I’ll never support. I long for a day that every state allows all forms of carry… But keep the friggen rifles where they belong.

    1. avatar matt says:

      I long for a day when every state allows all types of speech, but just keep the controversial speech to your self.

      1. avatar 9mm&4wd says:

        lol

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      What’s the old joke?

      “Pistols are for fighting your way back to the rifle you never should have put down to begin with.”

      ;p

  8. avatar Dustin says:

    I’m definitely torn on this one. One the one hand I get it. I can get behind the movement.

    We definitely walk a thin line. Whether we like it or not, I would say most people are uncomfortable with firearms at best, outright fearful at worst.

    The attitude is changing, but we need to woo the sheeple, not flat out attack. Think dating- you don’t go directly to bed with her, you take her to dinner first…

    Just my .02$

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      Also, that guy on the left’s shoes are ridiculous.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        It keeps me safe while I’m… jogging at night!

  9. avatar BobS says:

    Actually, this form of protest is EXACTLY how it should be done. With MULTIPLE people overwhelming the popo-response-system instead of being picked off in onesies and twosies while doing what we have a RIGHT to do.

    When enough of you rabid ‘individualists’ learn to cooperate and support each other for a common goal instead of sniping at each other over petty tactical differences and nuances. There will ALWAYS be pantie-wetting sheep willing to be frightened by almost ANYTHING that you do. You need to forget them and stand up for your RIGHTS.

    As one man said; My Rights apply whether you believe them, agree with them, understand them, or not. That’s why they are called “Rights”.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I’m on the fence, but I’m leaning toward my gun. I get that some people might be skeeved out, but people can get used to anything if you give them time. And if you’re gonna do it, BobS is right, do it en masse, because if it’s just one or two guys (or girls) doing it, it’s much easier for the police to hassle them off the street “for the greater good” because it’s a “public nuisance.” When it’s thirty-five or forty clearly peaceful people, they kinda just have to stand back and let it happen, because at that point the public disturbance factor of using enough force to stop it overwhelms the public disturbance factor of “just letting them have their little parade.”

    2. avatar Don says:

      “As one man said; My Rights apply whether you believe them, agree with them, understand them, or not. That’s why they are called “Rights”.”

      I agree, yet it disturbs me that so many who purport to believe this idea when it comes to 2A stand passively by and support the tyranny of the mob in other areas. We still allow the majority to vote on the natural rights of minority groups without calling BS. For example, whether or not to recognize the the legal rights of gays which come with the choice to marry.

      -D

      1. avatar ScottA says:

        I always forget about the 28th amendment

        A well regulated group of queers, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of gays to marry and have children, shall not be infringed.

        If you want gay marriage to be a right, get it in the constitution. There is no natural right to marriage considering marriage is something that’s recognized by the state.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          Wow. You are aware, I presume, that being in a recognized marriage provides some legal protections and advantages that single people do not enjoy, right? Don’t we have an amendment that addresses something like equal protection, privileges and immunities?

        2. avatar Don says:

          You are either for freedom (for all) or you are inconsistent. To get a “right” in the constitution means some majority needs to agree with it. This is a logical fault with respect to the concept of a right. That’s the flaw with viewing the constitution as a holy writ rather than a living document striving toward perfection as well. Stuff only gets in there by majority opinion, and rights are usually a protection of the individual FROM the tyranny of the majority.

          Liberty’s only hope is for people to be true and consistent to the greater philosophy of liberty, even if they don’t personally agree with the behaviors or opinions of others. If you cherry-pick rights to acknowledge or defend or establish officially based only on the protections you as an individual need from the mob, then you can’t really say you are pro-liberty in the larger sense.

          -D

        3. avatar ScottA says:

          I don’t think gay marriage is a right. That doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal but people love to define whatever they want as a right when it has to be based on something. Freedom of speech wasn’t a right until we made it one. I don’t even think gun ownership is a universal right. It’s certainly a right in this country. If you want gay marriage to be legal, make it a law. If you want it to be a right, get it in the constitution. I’m just sick of the gay marriage lobby and I’m not even against gay marriage in theory. They go around preaching “tolerance” when they have n0 tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them.

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “Freedom of speech wasn’t a right until we made it one.
          I don’t even think gun ownership is a universal right.
          If you want it to be a right, get it in the constitution.”

          I’m not getting into the gay marriage conversation with y’all, because my opinions on that are, and will remain, my own, as I feel they have no place on this blog.

          With that out of the way, the three lines I quoted above are where you will find disagreement with many on this blog, and from my understanding, with the Framers themselves. In the beliefs of those men, and many of us, the two rights you listed specifically, and the others we hold dear, exist independent of any piece of paper. We did not grant them to ourselves. They were granted to us by the invisible deity of your choice, or by virtue simply of us being sentient human beings. The Constitution does not grant us those rights, it simply enumerates them and protects them from government interference.

          At least that’s the theory.

        5. avatar ScottA says:

          It’s a chicken egg argument. The framers thought they were inalienable rights but without a constitution saying they’re inalienable rights, we wouldn’t really have them.

        6. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “I don’t think gay marriage is a right.”
          ——
          Okay, I see where you’re going with that now. And I agree with you. But because the institution of marriage has (in this country, at least) been deemed beneficial to the state and thereby granted certain important legal protections (e.g., spousal privilege) and preferential treatments (e.g., division of estate, next of kin), I believe that the 14th does apply. Just my opinion; it’s worth what you paid for it.

        7. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Best. Comment. EVER.

          There’s no Constitutional right to marriage, regardless of if you’re gay or straight. Besides, marriage is a religious agreement, so government getting involved and deciding who can and cannot get married violates the 1st amendment…..

  10. avatar Johnny says:

    Don’t see a problem here. If people want to openly carry firearms, let them do it. People will cry and whine and maybe even need a change of pants, put there will always be people like that regardless of the situation. Maybe if people get used to people carrying firearms all the time, they won’t be so afraid of them.

  11. avatar ST says:

    A group of people walking down the street with rifles is NOT THE SAME as a group of people with rifles who are shooting them! Our society has shifted from valuing what’s true to valuing what an act looks like, and us who exercise the RKBA should know better. Personally, im more wary of a group of people carrying bottles and crowbars as there’s logical reasons why someone would open carry a rifle .

  12. avatar g says:

    Call me old-fashioned, but isn’t it protesting 101 to at least carry a sign or banner stating the reason/nature of your protest? A group people open carrying rifles with a sign saying “MARCH FOR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS” would to a whole lot more to ease people’s apprehension.

    Other commentators are right that there is a PR/media image that needs to be considered. If you live the area I live in, walking with a swagger and gun in your hands means that ish is about to go down AND NO SIGN COMMUNICATING THE PURPOSE OF WHY YOU’RE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A RIFLE IN THE LOW READY POSITION is asking for trouble.

    Just sayin’.

    1. avatar BPS says:

      This was my immediate observation as well. There’s no harm in carrying signs (or handing out flyers) explicitly stating why you’re marching through town with firearms. If you wish to educate the public, then educate using all the tools at your disposal . The minor side benefit of easing public apprehension is useful but shouldn’t be the primary goal.

    2. avatar Don says:

      I think it would have been neat and far more effective to attach a sign describing the purpose of the demonstration to a long cleaning rod sticking out of the barrel on a back-slung rifle.

      -D

    3. avatar Wes says:

      I kind of agree. It seems that they could sling their rifles AND carry a sign. Makes more sense to me and would be doing the same thing in a less threatening manner. Their intent would be obvious with the signs.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Those agitators — a term of affection — are doing exactly the right thing in the right way. By legally and peacefully exercising their rights as a group in front of the Gestapo police in the plain view of news media, they are exposing the truth. The truth is that they’re doing the same thing that the kid did. Except the kid was arrested and they weren’t. Why? If the kid broke the law, aren’t the protesters also lawbreakers? And if they’re not lawbreakers, then why was the kid arrested?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      One of these days I’m going to have to track you down and buy you a beer (or three) for all the enjoyment you’ve given me on this site.

      1. avatar bontai Joe says:

        I’d like to add a steak dinner to that, should we ever meet.

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      +1 for Ralph

    3. avatar James says:

      Thing is: The kid got arrested because it was dark, his rifle was loaded, and when stopped by the police, he refused to produce identification to verify he was eighteen years old, and therefore legally entitled to carry his rifle down the street.

      I’m not saying I agree with him being arrested, I’m just telling you why it happened.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        Why must I carry papers with me? Why do any of us have to do that? I object to it.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Best to carry an ID. If you have violated a statute, and cannot provide satisfactory evidence of identification, you can be arrested.

      2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        The way the our law is supposed to works is that the state must prove we’ve committed a crime. It is not up to us to disprove it. The young man was under no obligation to assist the officers in their investigation. I don’t know what the “Stop and ID” laws are in MI, but in most states all that is required in identifying yourself is to state your name. No state-issued ID is required to walk down the street or to possess a firearm.

        1. avatar L. Y. says:

          I’d love some confirmation here. So you have the right to NOT give police your ID? I grew up in the ghetto, and I experience personally the police loose interpretation of probable cause. It went something like this:

          Police: Can we search your vehicle?
          Driver: No.
          Police: Step out of your vehicle, we have probable cause to search your vehicle.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          The laws in many jurisdictions state that you have to identify yourself if asked, but you do not have to provide ID. The reason for this is simple: everyone has a name, but not everyone has an ID (or has it on them).

          A post here recently had a YouTube video of an open carry activist who was approached by a police officer, and in the course of the conversation he was asked his name by the officer, with his pen and notepad in hand. The citizen immediately went into the, “Am I being detained? Am I free to go?” loop, because in his jurisdiction he was not required to identify himself.

          In short, the requirement of giving your name is not universal, so check your own jurisdiction.

          On the subject of the search, that’s one of those “fight it out in court” things, I believe. If you very clearly state, “I do not give you consent to search my vehicle,” then it’s on them to prove they had PC to do so. If they can’t prove that, then things start getting inadmissible. I am not a lawyer.

        3. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “If they can’t prove that, then things start getting inadmissible.”
          ——
          And lawyers start salivating.

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I hit Post too fast, so a couple more points:

          It really has to do with why you were stopped. If the officer has a “reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal activity” then you are usually required to identify yourself. In some states, not doing so at that point is grounds for arrest.

          Check Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes for a more in-depth explanation.

          If I have to say it, please don’t use Wikipedia as your sole source of information on this, or any topic, but especially those involving legal issues.

        5. avatar L. Y. says:

          thanks for the reply 🙂

  14. avatar One If By Land says:

    Allow me to clarifty my statement: I don’t mind that they’re carrying rifles, just this photo, and how she is carrying her rifle, in an aggressive posture…others have it shouldered, and I don’t have an issue with that.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      I’d be willing to grant that maybe, MAYBE, port arms or shouldered would be more appropriate.

      1. avatar One If By Land says:

        Slung, not shouldered…

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          Quite so; see below.

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Her’s is shouldered too. I agree that someone in the group should have taught her how to properly adjust her sling in order to prevent it from smacking back and forth on her hips as she walks. That would have eliminated her need to “handle” the rifle, instead of just letting it hang.

    3. avatar matt says:

      I always thought shouldered meant you had the butt against your shoulder, generally pointing the muzzle at a target. She is just holding it at a low/ready position.

      1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        Quite right. I should have said “slung”, not “shouldered”.

  15. avatar bontai Joe says:

    I love the fact that these folks are protesting on behalf of a fellow gun owner. More power to ’em. I think that a few signs telling the media and public what they were doing would have removed the “scariness” out of it. And why not carry a few signs, might as well use as many rights as you can while we still have them. Would I be out there with them? Probably not, because they have all identified themselves as firearms owners and got their photos in the media. I would not feel comfortable having that info go public, expecially in Michigan if anywhere near Detroit.

  16. avatar Anthony Meruelo says:

    I agree. I love the open carry movement but that lady is doing it wrong. The guy next to her is doing it perfectly, though. This isn’t Kandahar and you aren’t on a patrol. You can keep the rifle slung in front of you just fine.

  17. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    all seriousness aside what about the 2 cannons she’s carring?

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      lol

  18. avatar Don says:

    I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. Think of it from the standpoint of stand your ground though. We finally got the right to defend ourselves without waiting to be shot at. How do you rationally judge a potential threat if only waiting to be shot at is acceptable?

    Outside of a combat scenario, I for my own defense most reasonably have to judge a person with a rifle slung in the ready position as an immanent threat to me. Hands on at the ready in public makes no sense to me in any context outside of an assault, unless there is already fighting in the streets going on. Slung on a back makes it clear that they are broadcasting “not a threat, just carrying my rifle”, in a case… no problem, uncased with barrel upright… also no problem. And by no problem I mean much clearer to interpret.

    An interesting thought experiment is that if you don’t think it is reasonable to interpret the the two people pictured in front as potential threats, what would have to be added to make it so? How about if they were just wearing burkas and turbans? What if they were black and wearing military berets? Would that seem more threatening to you? If so does that mean that you are more threatened by the look of the person and their clothing than their rifle slung at the ready? How much do you have to add to the picture to make justifiable judge them as threatening. To stand your ground before being shot at you need to be able to make this call. If you need to add more than a rifle in the ready position, why is it that the look of the person matters more than their rifles slung at the ready in a scenario where that makes no sense?

    -D

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Ability – Presence of rifle
      Opportunity – Within range of rifle
      Intent – ?

      Intent is almost always the most difficult to determine and is usually judged by the totality of circumstances.

      Are they displaying any pre-assaultive behaviors? Are they going about their business or are you the focus of their attention? Have they made any verbal or non-verbal threats? Are they associated with others who have committed overt hostile acts or demonstrable hostile intent?

      The answer to those questions would go a long way toward determining if someone has the intent to do you serious bodily harm, although the list is, by no means, all encompassing. Each situation is different and the mere presence of a weapon does not necessarily meet the criteria for hostile intent.

      1. avatar Don says:

        Agreed. Intent is the hard part. How do you read someone else’s mind? The way we get insight into other people’s minds is by them electively communicating what is in there in some way. Language accomplishes this pretty effectively at short ranges, visual representations of language, for example a sign, do it effectively at a distance. Body language, which is all you may have to work with if you are looking out your window at this is ambiguous at best, and for the folks in the front of that line, I’d have to err on the side of threatening for my own safety.

        -D

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The law in Virginia is pretty clear. If you carry a long gun in public, other than while hunting, your weapon must be slung over your shoulder. Under VA law the woman is brandishing; the man next to her could be also interpreted as brandishing. That might not be the case in Michigan.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I for my own defense most reasonably have to judge a person with a rifle slung in the ready position as an immanent threat to me.

      Again with the irrational fear, Don. What did they do to threaten you? Nothing. Simply walking and holding a gun is NOT a reason to think someone is an imminent threat – that’s just you being off the deep end and being afraid of a gun.

      Go ahead, try taking a shot at that woman just for walking down the road carrying her rifle. Even the most pro-gun prosecutor and judge would throw you in jail for murder faster than Angela Correy could.

      1. avatar Don says:

        And i bet if she was in a burka you would be pooping yourself.

    4. avatar g says:

      A good thought exercise, Don.

      As well-meaning as some of the posters are on this blog, I think the fact they see this picture and are gushing OMGTHISISSOAWESOMEIWOULDDOTHISTOO shows a lack of how many people would interpret this scene, especially non-gun owners. I don’t think people on this blog would have the same kind words if the people in the picture were young Black or Latino males wearing bandannas, baggy pants, and hoodies. Or Brown skinned men in black robes and facial scarves.

      Nothing wrong with protesting or exercising your rights as a citizen. But this group should have been smarter and at least carried some signs/banners stating their intentions.

  19. avatar sy says:

    Can’t help but wonder aloud if you were a criminal about to commit a crime and encountered a group like this. I’m guessing you’d seek opportunities elsewhere….

  20. avatar freeport56 says:

    …But she is Hot! Girls and Guns oh my!

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Hot? As girls always love to say “My face is up here” – and hers is most definitely not hot.

  21. avatar Wes says:

    Like a lot of gun rights supporters, I have uneasy feelings about the “open carry moment”. They clearly have a constitutional right to do so just as I have a right to stick a pencil into my eye. Neither are a good idea IMHO. I am undecided about this issue in general. I think they would be well served to carry protest signs while caring their arms so the intent is clear.
    What I can tell you is that if someone were standing on the road outside my home with an AR in the low ready position like they were on patrol I would go into an immediate defensive posture. Do I know what there intent is? How would you feel if someone you didn’t know was bearing arms right outside your home? We often use the saying “an armed society is a polite society.”
    This is not polite behavior.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      You and Don sound like you’d be great friends. Both of you claim to like guns, yet are terrified at the sight of one.

      1. avatar Don says:

        Your suggestion that my interest in guns is false or that i am afraid of them is hilarious given the details of my life and the extent of my gun collection and related activities. Know that i am chuckling at you given how ironically falacious your suspicion is :-P. Ill be thinking fondly of this as im reloading my 50 round drums for the weekend.

  22. avatar matt says:

    @everyone complaining about the women
    Do you feel the same about cops who rest their hands on their sidearm? If IL had open carry, i’d have my FNP45T on a thigh holster, my hand would almost always be in contact with it.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      matt: It’s a question of context, I guess. I’ve seen cops standing around bullshitting with a hand resting on their gun, just for someplace to rest their hand, and not thought anything of it. In another context, a cop suddenly resting his (formerly free) hand on his gun has an entirely different connotation, because it’s a (not so?) subtle threat of force.

      I agree the way she is carrying is unnecessarily provocative. The three guys nearest her manage to do their part in the protest and exercise their rights without looking like an overt threat. If it was necessary for her to keep both hands on the gun to keep it from bouncing, someone should have simply helped her adjust her sling.

    2. avatar Don says:

      I was going to mention this but I actually kind of do feel the same way in this case. Cops or anyone fingering their holstered guns because they need a hand rest is a huge peeve for me.

      The main reason for touching a holstered gun while out and about (or at least the reason which has greatest bearing on ME if I’m around) is to draw and fire it for some reason. How do I know the guy is actually a cop? His clothes? Certainly no one has ever impersonated a cop before to get the drop on a victim. Even if he is a cop, cops are just people, what if he’s right about to have a nervous breakdown? Even if he’s completely sane, maybe he sees something I don’t somewhere and bullets are going to start fly imminently, now I have to be imminently ready to draw and fire too.

      -D

  23. avatar Mark says:

    In a post-9/11, school shooting world, that’s how pedestrians SHOULD be dressed.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    I have resisted so far but I am bored. The woman is almost as hot as Fiona Glenanne of Burn Notice fame.

  25. avatar Sanchanim says:

    I don’t mind open carry, I would prefer it actually.
    To that end I would feel more comfortable being surrounded by folks like the ones pictured than anything else.
    Yeah ok I am just weird. I admit it.

  26. avatar Michael B. says:

    These free men and women should be applauded. If you wish to grovel like a slave, ask for permission, and appease a bunch of elected scoundrels feel free to do so. But don’t try to tangle me up in your chains too.

  27. avatar bruce says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…open carry is needless posturing I don’t care what your constitutional rights are. That kid was an idiot to be carrying a locked and loaded Garand around, and these idiots are just as stupid. If they were middle eastern or black, I guarantee you that picture would look a lot different. I agree that “Lara Croft” in the pic looks like she’s on patrol in Iraq, definetly arousing the attention of LEO’s….idiots…..

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I don’t care what your constitutional rights are

      No kidding. I could never tell.

      Frankly, I think that someone standing up on his soap box and calling these people “idiots” is needless posturing.

    2. avatar matt says:

      Thanks for playing the race card. And it likely wouldnt, who wants to fuck with a semi-organized group of people with rifles, who aren’t doing anything illegal, and that out number a SWAT team at least 2:1?

    3. avatar matt says:

      Between playing the race card, and not caring about peoples rights, do you not find any irony in calling everyone who doesnt share your opinion idiots?

    4. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Being anti-gun is needless posturing, I don’t care what your constitutional rights are. It’s idiotic to go around preaching how citizens should piss themselves and cower in fear just because some donut eating jackass who barely graduated high school tells them to.

  28. avatar 230therapy says:

    The RIGHT to keep and bear arms…is a right. It does not matter that you do not like open carry. Rights do not work based upon consensus.

    This right has been reduced to a privilege in many places. These people are reminding those in power that the citizen has power and they demand their right to keep and bear arms.

    1. avatar Don says:

      Rights SHOULDN’T be based upon consensus… or more specifically, majority opinion, but if you look around today they always seem to be. Massive failure of liberty. The problem is to really set things straight people would have to fight to restore freedom alongside others whose rights you don’t care about or even disagree with.

      -D

  29. avatar drTodd says:

    As a person who was part of this group, let me explain the situation: a young man was carrying a loaded rifle in the downtown area of Birmingham, MI. The officers ostensibly approached him because he appeared to be under 18 years of age. Most of us have little issue with the police behavior at this point.
    Upon stopping him, the officer demanded ID; the young man refused and asked under what grounds he was stopped. Again the demand for ID was made, and the young man provided his ID. As he was handing it over to one of the officers he was cuffed and placed in the back of a police car. As he being placed in the car, the officer to whom he gave his ID walked over to the car and informed the other officers that the young man was 18 years old. He was then arrested and charged with Brandishing, Obstructing a Law enforcement Officer, and Disturbing the Peace.
    The reason that many of us attended this event was that we saw this as an issue regarding carrying firearms. Most of us do not advocate carrying rifles in an urban area; the reason some chose to do so was to show that the police department is well aware that such behavior does not warrant the charges. As was asked above, if what he did was illegal, then charge us too. Their inaction underscores our belief that the charges are not applicable to the situation; various court decisions and Attorney General Opinions also substantiate our assertion.
    Once again, regarding the issue of Open Carrying long guns: most of us agree that it was not wise for him to do so. However, this young man was arrested and charged with violating various laws, yet what he did was entirely legal. Our impression is that since “Contempt of Cop” is not (yet) a chargeable offense, the officers felt the need to punish his initial hesitation to show ID until the officers cold explain why he must do so with charges that are not supported by the facts.

    The citizens of Birmingham knew why we were there… many of them came to our peaceful rally and expressed support… and underscored that Birmingham is a “tony” area and that opposition to us was not based on “fear”, rather they thought that a young man carrying a rifle openly was viewed as “silly”. There was also some concern that signs may violate some possible interpretations of their odinances. Most of us agree agree with many of the comments here; this young man perhaps deserved at most some feedback regarding the “wise-ness” of carrying a rifle in a downtown environment. But, is being 18 and appearing “silly” something worthy of charges that will be on his record for the rest of his life?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I like your approach. “I don’t think you should do it. I might go so far as to say it’s stupid. But it’s not illegal, and you shouldn’t be punished for it.”

      That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. That’s exactly how I would like the police to behave.

    2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      Thank you for your comments, drTodd. Intelligence from someone with “boots on the ground” is always to be prized.

    3. avatar matt says:

      Does Michigan have a stop and identify statute?

      1. avatar matt says:

        oops didnt see your follow up below

  30. avatar drTodd says:

    Let me add that Michigan is NOT a “stop-and-ID” state.

  31. avatar Silver says:

    Good for them.

  32. avatar James says:

    Spam filter caught a comment of mine above.

    Is there a threshold on links or something?

    1. avatar matt says:

      more than 2 will get you flagged, same with words like fukc, cutn, cokc, anla (even if it is part of a word like anlayze) etc.

  33. avatar Bruce W. Krafft says:

    Birmingham Police Chief Don Studt defended the arrest, saying “this guy was creating a disturbance and he wouldn’t cooperate.”

    Why do I hear echoes of a different Birmingham with cops complaining about some people sitting at lunch counters “creating a disturbance” and not cooperating . . .

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email