Three guys open carrying at the Texas Capitol were arrested recently. Can’t open carry in Texas, right? Except these guys were carrying pre-1899 black powder pistols, which aren’t covered under Texas law. But the cops couldn’t just let them go, so they dropped the open carry charges and charged them instead with disorderly conduct/causing alarm with a gun. The three men were from Open Carry Texas, they were doing it to be provocative and they were filming everything. The part where they point out to the cop in charge that cap & ball black powder isn’t a firearm is at about at about the 6:00 mark in the accompanying video. Along with at least a half dozen cameras. Wow . . .

U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Detroit seized a cache (not an arsenal) of ammunition from a Canadian citizen enrolled CBP’s NEXUS trusted traveler program. After telling the officer he had nothing to declare, the 36-year-old man was directed to secondary screening where 3,450 rounds of .22LR were discovered concealed under the front passenger floor mat. Seriously, I know .22LR is hard to come by these days, but I hardly think it’s worth all this trouble.

President Barack Obama said the Navy Yard shooting could possibly have been prevented if tougher background checks existed: “Initial reports indicate that this is an individual who may have had some mental health problems. The fact that we do not have a firm enough background-check system is something that makes us more vulnerable to these kinds of mass shootings,” Obama said. Or if the existing background check system had the mental health information it was supposed have all along.

Johnathan D. writes: “Here’s your anti-gun movie agitprop for the fall, about the DC sniper. I though it painted the people of the gun in a horrible light. Like we’re all wired the way that psycho was/is. Watch the trailer and you may get how I felt watching it.” What say you, AI? Anti-gun or no? I like Isaiah Washington, I think he’s a great actor, so I’ll probably check it out. Mobile users click here if the video below doesn’t render.

148 Responses to Daily Digest: Phoning It In Edition

    • I don’t know if you are the real Leonard or just using his name.

      But just seeing that sentence under that name is hilarious

    • THANK YOU
      i kept argueing with people on GRAA’s facebook about this. everyone keeps saying texas sucks because of this and my state is better and F*ck all.
      these guys dont represent texas. these COPS are stupid. the CITY was austin, our most LIBERAL city. WTF DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN?!

      Sweet god, im so sick and tired of open carry a$$holes who are doing nothing but hurting our cause. why open carry, expect a cop, be a douche to said cop, and then film all of it??? seriously, go play in traffic kids.

      • If you could sue a cop for violating your rights and ensure they don’t violate anyone else’s right in the future, wouldn’t you? A guy in Wisconsin did this and got $10,000 a few years ago. This is the civil rights movement of our times! You don’t understand that these guys WANTED TO GET ARRESTED!

        • No, they did not “want to get arrested.” They want to exercise their rights without being subjected to harassment. They would like nothing more than to carry their guns without being illegally detained and searched. They would like to not have to record the police. They recognize that the police in that area do not know the law. That the police do not obey the law. They recognize that the only way to alleviate the problem is to sue for federal civil rights violations and win damages. Due to the rules of court they must have standing to sue. A plaintiff can’t gain standing by sitting on the sideline, they must have skin in the game. So, these open carriers recognize that cops violate rights and to prevent that they must subject themselves to possible arrest and prosecution so that others may carry uninfringed.

    • They are typical Texans. They live under the illusion that Texas is the gun friendliest state in Union. Ain’t so. Virginians have way more gun rights that even Terry McCauliff won’t challenge. Robert should have moved to Virginia instead.

    • Gentlemen, that’s enough. These men are our brothers. I read it best yesterday; our open carry brothers that stage these events are the LGBT equivalent of the gay men wearing high heel boots with full blue and green makeup and a pink boa who make out and act quite flamboyantly at every pride parade in America. It’s a big fuck you to the nanny-state-shiver-in-their-boots-at-the-sight-of-a-firearm folks’ faces. I don’t partake in it, but I like it. The RKBA is a NATURAL HUMAN CIVIL RIGHT, and these folks are being “assholes and dickheads” to make a point. As this post-Newton rush has shown (see California’s soon to be passed ban on all semi-automatic firearms), the antis will stop at nothing. I for one, am out of the RKBA closet and proud of it. Do I think open carry demonstrations are the most effective way to gain acceptance? No. Then again, the black civil rights movement and the LGBT equality movement would not be where they are today had Rosa Parks not decided to stop sitting in the back of the bus or the LGBT folks had not grown tired of being relegated to back alley seedy clubs. Don’t let the antis’ fears divide and conquer us.

  1. Matt in FL, are you a ttag writer now? i used to see you in the comment section but now there are articles by you now. whats up?

    • Thank you, Ed, for reminding us that just because you’re a gun owner does not mean you care about rights or freedom.

      • Opposing open carry does not mean that Ed opposes civil liberties. All open carry does is scare the $h*t out of people and gives the Anti-2A crowd proof that gun owners are extremists. This does nothing to get the population on the side of gun rights.

        • Jesus Christ on a crutch; so if they carry openly and don’t cause any ruckus, it proof that people who openly carry cause ruckuses?

          Your pretzel logic is entertaining, but it’s illogical and utterly stupid.

        • As scores of open-carriers will attest, 99% of the people they encounter either do not notice the gun, or assume that they are LE.

        • Absolutely proved. Open-carry is not Fright Night for the vast majority of Americans.

          This silly debate proves nothing useful anymore. Let it go.

        • Every great and righteous cause has had to bear at the beginning the label of being extremist and full of whackos, and only through the efforts of those willing to martyr themselves to the cause were they able to gain any foothold and eventual acceptance, or at least tolerance. I reference you to Judaism in the time of Pharaoh and Christianity following the crucifixion, among others.

          If the purpose is to gain acceptance of our natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and to encourage average people to not fear normal citizens going about their business armed, then those average people must become accustomed to seeing non-police civilians engaged in everyday activities while armed. (Ideally with pistols, IMO, but not exclusively) Concealed carry will not accomplish that. Concealed carry is a solitary affair pursued for individual self defense and/or the protection of innocents in extremis. Open Carry is a sociological effort intended to secure for all of us the continued enjoyment of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

          The shame is that in this country ANYONE should consider the exercise of that right an extremist act or that anyone should be required to play the part of martyr in order to ensure that the rest of us can enjoy that right at no excessive cost to ourselves.

          I cringe at these videos and the confrontations either contrived or sought, but then I am not a confrontational person. I do not trust a random LEO responding to these calls to always engage in rational responses or not find some reason to ruin my day or my life. I cannot see myself intentionally attracting this sort of law enforcement attention, but I can most certainly appreciate what these people are trying to accomplish for all of us. Yeah, they come off like dickheads, but the bottom line is that they are right and while most of us are willing to quietly go about our business with a concealed pistol they are willing to jump in the shit and make some constitutional waves.

          Here is my consideration: We think we have made great strides in the last few decades with now all 50 states allowing some sort of concealed and/or (technically in most cases) open carry. We think this is a great thing, but the bottom line is we are willing to accept a little license from the government in order to bear arms in a manner approved by the government when in fact the Second Amendment flatly states that our right to keep and bear arms is none of the government’s goddam business! The fact of the matter is that, realistically, by applying for and carrying that CCW, CPL, or whatever your local political hacks want to label it as, we are agreeing with them that the Second Amendment does not actually mean what it says and that yes, in our opinion it is absolutely fine that the federal and state governments infringe upon our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to whatever extent they desire or can muster enough low-information voter support to pass. OPEN CARRY MARTYRS ARE NOT WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT POINT. They are standing up for everyone’s right as expressed in the Second Amendment, mine, and even yours, and while their tactics may make us uncomfortable and even fearful that the government will further erode our Second Amendment in retaliation, calling them names for these heroic acts of defiance is hardly an honorable response on our part.

          I admit that I jumped through the hoops, paid the tax, got fingerprinted, and got my CPL from the state of Washington. I want to carry a pistol and I freely admit that even though open carry is technically legal in this state I am far too much a coward to take the chance, so I compromised my principles in order to avoid the cloak of martyrdom. But far be it from me to name call real men who are willing to man those barricades.

        • Tough talk mr Toten. do you open carry? or do you just always talk down on those who disagree with you?

    • I suppose Rosa Parks didn’t help the cause by sitting openly at the front of the bus. She should have quietly concealed herself at the back and gotten to the same destination just fine.

      • True that.
        A rare occurrence of someone making a stand for their rights by sitting down and doing nothing that resulted in a positive outcome.

        Read the post by Cliff H at 01:53

  2. Oh my…the “main cop” in the beginning would be hilarious if he were a character in a movie…unfortunately the character has come to life off-screen.

  3. This may be too logical for the background check crowd to understand, but what if I buy a gun today and go completely bats* insane tomorrow?

    How exactly does a BACKground check help already legally purchased firearms?

    • Point of Order!

      Your question is interesting, but moot. What part of “…shall not be infringed.” grants any government branch, agency, or authority the right to run a background check on a citizen to determine if that citizen should be allowed to exercise their natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

      • I agree with 95% of your statement. The second amendment, indeed the entirety of the first 10 amendments, leaves no room for further government regulation or other curtailing of the rights enumerated therein.

        What I disagree with is that the argument is moot. The fact of the matter is that we live in a nation where the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is, has been, and will continue to be infringed by a government that has been overstepping it’s authority for more than 2 centuries. It’s a fact of the world that we live in.

        The point has been made many, many times that RKBA is a natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right both here and in other places throughout the country, both online and off. If that is ALL that is required to end the government overreach of it’s authority on the second amendment then why do we still have background checks, gun free zones, and the NFA?

        I didn’t post the question as an end all, be all argument in support of rolling back the illegal government intervention in the regulation of firearms. It was intended as more of a piece mail assault. The overarching “civil right” argument has proven time and again to fall on deaf ears on the part of the gun grabbers. MY questions is meant more to chip away at the logic (assuming their is any, of course) behind one of their core platforms.

        • I have to agree here. There is no prior restraint on the 1A; why is it OK to have it on the 2A? It is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crouded theater, but it is not acceptable to put duct tape on the mouths of those attending the event to prevent them yelling “Fire!”

          Even Scaia got it wrong in Heller. The law should be crafted to punish wrong actions, not to impose prior restraint on potentialities. As many guns as there are in the US, and as few that are used to violate the law, it is clear that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

          Newspaper columnists do not have to fill out government forms and get government permission before writing their columns. Why do I, someone who has never violated anything other than traffic laws, have to fill out paperwork, pay money, and wait months, just to carry a concealed weapon?

        • I stand corrected, sir, and if I could I would edit out that part of my comment.

          …][I have to agree here. There is no prior restraint on the 1A; why is it OK to have it on the 2A? It is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but it is not acceptable to put duct tape on the mouths of those attending the event to prevent them yelling “Fire!”[…]

          I love when people (not you) use this argument to justify government infringement on our Bill of Rights. The fallacy of this argument is that it is illegal to yell, “FIRE” in a crowded theater ONLY if there is not actually a fire and your intent is to create fear and panic by uttering a lie. Essentially the same reasons that libel and slander are illegal. There is no intention of limiting any of our rights as expressed in the First Amendment, since we have no natural right to create panic or injury.

          As you state, government action to prevent any person in the theater from speaking at all would be the equivalent of current gun control laws that prevent the exercise of 2A rights by law abiding citizens by either denying them access to firearms or denying them the ability to bear those arms. And both would violate the intent of the Bill of Rights to prohibit government intervention or denial of those rights.

  4. Seriously? I have difficulty understanding the “Why” behind this civil disobedience! Texas will give almost anyone a conceal carry permit. Why push this issue? (educate me on why?)

    I personally never want any person to know that I’m armed! And Texas laws make that very easy for me!

    (Why I ever moved back to Kalifornia form Texas still haunts me!)

      • That’s it. Leonard, for reference, it was not you that I was speaking of earlier, but a couple who just surfaced yesterday, after the Navy Yard shootings. Why do they surface now? I think the answer is obvious…

  5. WHO ARE these new gun-grabbers at TTAG? Think about it. Are we doing a good job? If we’re being effective, in our way, who would like to sow serious dissent here?

    Listen: we’ve all had our differences, but something is happening here now. The eternal question that leads you to the question, “Cui bono?”… “Who benefits”?

  6. Can people PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, stop saying Texas is a pro 2nd amendment state. It’s not, it’s average.

    First off, no one down there could legally carry a handgun in ANY manner until 1995. Then it was concealed only after paying a crap ton of money for training, fingerprinting, and classroom time.

    Vermont respects the Second Amendment, Arizona respects the second amendment, Utah does as well since you can carry in schools… New Hampshire comes in at a close 2nd.

    You have some serious work to do in Texas, how about making the CHL affordable or make it optional and legalize open carry. For all the trash talk Perry did when he ran for President your state couldn’t even get knife preemption.

    If you are all happy with the mediocre gun laws in Texas, fine…. but please stop boasting about how gun rights are respected in Texas and all that jazz because the following states crap on Texas when it comes to gun laws.

    Idaho
    Nevada
    Utah
    Arizona
    New Hampshire
    Maine
    Vermont
    Pennsylvania
    Virginia
    North Carolina
    Georgia
    Mississippi
    Kansas
    South Dakota
    Alaska
    Indiana
    Kentucky
    Wyoming

    Even Guam has open carry (if you can legally possess a firearm)… get with the program Tejas.

    • +1,000. I’m moving to NH and have friends in TX, I’ve reasearched the laws. TX has NOTHING on NH. And I mean NOTHING in terms of all other freedoms as well.

      • Interesting. Yeah, I never saw Texas as a bastion of gun rights, like many here champion. Can we please here more about NH’s gun laws? It may turn out to be more an option to people from states like New Jersey and New York than Texas could ever be!

        • Permits are shall issue, max 14 days from application, $10 for 4 years (the first can be almost 5, it goes to your fourth birthday after getting it), and some police chiefs have gotten their hands slapped for trying to delay things, usually guys who moved up from Mass. Open carry is legal, no permit required except in a vehicle. Unloaded concealed carry is legal and the state supreme court just confirmed that having ammo in proximity to an unloaded firearm doesn’t make it loaded, you actually have to insert the ammo (duh). You can carry into the state house for business or to watch the government at work. Yeah, it’s not Constitutional carry, but it ain’t bad either.

          Oh, we also have a right to revolution enshrined in our state Constitution, which we hopefully will never need.

    • I’ve never been to TX myself, but I’m starting to get the feeling that instead of being a bastion of 2A support specifically, it’s a bastion of anti-Federalism that has not had a chance to be properly expressed.

    • I am a Washington resident by default (my ex-wife wanted to move here), but you should add Washington to the list. Per the state constitution Washington is a “shall issue” state with state pre-emption and legal open carry, although I suspect it would be worth your life to try to open carry in Seattle or Tacoma and many other urban jurisdictions, regardless of the legality.

    • You forgot Oklahoma which passed open carry late last year.

      There were plenty of gun friendly laws that died in committee that were never brought up for vote, open carry being one of them.
      We can thank a couple of RINOs in the Texas legislature for that.

    • Since when did this become an indictment on the relative state of Texas’ gun laws? I’ve heard NOBODY say that Texas’ laws are Super or Best or anything like that. As a Texas resident and CHL holder, I’ll be the first to say that they’re a bit lacking, but you won’t catch me moving to California or New York, either.

      You also won’t catch me moving to NH, either, since I couldn’t travel anywhere (excepting VT and ME) with a firearm.

    • Everyone keeps skipping Michigan. I’ve been looking around recently at various states and ours really aren’t that bad….open carry, shall issue……

  7. It’s called Civil Rights Activism, the same method used by Obama/et al. The WHOLE POINT is to show that the justice system is corrupt in that it only upholds the portions of the Bill of Rights that TPTB want upheld for their own corrupt purpose (destroying the nation and the People that make America work

  8. Tougher background checks do exist and the Navy Yard shooter underwent one and apparently passed. According to what I read he had a secret security clearance. Which means at some point he went through a background investigation conducted by the Defense Security Service complete with charector references from friends, neighbors, family and employers. If you of those people had spoken up about his prior arrests or hearing voices then he likely would not have gotten the security clearance that allowed him the contractor job that enabled him to access the Navy Yard.

    • Bernard, the security clearance does seem to be a fact. He seems to have been under psychiatric “care”, also, for, among other things, shooting through a neighbor’s wall because of a noise complaint. Heard something about him shooting someone’s tires out as, well, but it’s sketchy right now.

      He was on various SSRI pharmaceuticals, you can bet, and reportedly played DOOM (old school, eh?) and CALL OF DUTY up to 15 hours a day. Many who say this is harmless activity haven’t confronted what someone prescribed a shopping list of basically hallucinogenic drugs, and playing desensitizing shoot-first, ask questions later games, might become on such line-blurring compounds.

    • Also, regarding his firearm BG check, he was arrested in WA after claiming to go into a mindless rage and shoot out some car tires. And somehow there were never charges filed over this? As usual, the problem doesn’t seem to be existing laws, but rather one of enforcement. If the police and city attorney’s office had done their damn jobs, this guy would have had a record. And yes, the mental health info should have been there as well.

    • In Tennessee black powder guns are considered firearms. However, since there is no state preemption of firearms, in some communities the army or navy pistols may be carried openly in the hand.

    • in NY BP guns are firearms if you have the materials to make them fire, you don’t need a pistol permit to own a BP pistol, but if you ever intend to shoot it then you do need to get a permit and have it added

  9. Regarding the open carry idiots: How is a cop supposed to verify the manufacture date of a pistol? What are they trying to prove? This is moving open carry further and further back.

    • The killer carried concealed, and shot a guard to get more guns. What the hell does “open-carry” have to do with this case?

      I get that you have a favorite pet named “concealed carry”, but he doesn’t figure into this , or most, cases.
      GET A GRIP.

    • Skyler, the mfr. date doesn’t have to be known. Only that the weapon is black powder which can be determined visually without even removing from the holster in most cases. I guess the police will have to educate themselves about firearms.

      • The law says, to the best of my knowledge, the exception is a black powder pistol made before 1899. This would imply that a black powder pistol made in 1900 would still be a firearm and not legal to carry openly. How are the police supposed to verify the year it was made? The exception would seem to be more of a defense if you are arrested rather than permission to openly carry.

        Furthermore, there is nothing to gain from arguing with a cop. Courts have ruled that police departments can refuse to hire smart people as policemen. You should assume that they are not smart. Their job is not to debate, their job is to act. The time to argue is when you are in court. Unless you just want to make a video designed to show what we already know, i.e., that they are not smart, then get yourself arrested and be done with it. Debating with a cop doesn’t make either side look very smart, because courts have also ruled that citizens are not required to be smart either.

        • Wrong. The law covers BP weapons made before 1899 and Replicas. It specifically exempts them, its not some oversight or loophole in the law. There are only 2 major types, the Colt open tops and the Remington 1858 replicas. Its not like cops have alot to memorize, who hasn’t watched a civil war era western?

    • Obviously, you’ve never been detained. What do you think a cop is doing before they detain someone, let alone, arrest them? They are *verifying* that a crime is or has been or is about to be committed.

      • “What do you think a cop is doing before they detain someone, let alone, arrest them? They are *verifying* that a crime is or has been or is about to be committed.”
        In most cases cops forget that step. The cops detain on a hunch before they know a crime has, is. or was being committed. Most of the time they don’t know the firearms laws.

    • I’m unclear on the whole black powder thing.

      There were a whole lot of firearms made before 1899 that used metal cartridges — including quite a few smokeless in the 15 years before 1899.

      By “black powder” do they mean component ammunition — cap ‘n’ ball, flintlock and so on — or is an 1877 Colt or S&W .45 calibre Russian export revolver also considered a “non firearm,” and what would Doc Holliday say?

      If so, the manufacturing date might not be all that obvious.

      Just wondering.

      • I agree with you. They seem to be arbitrary dates (1899) that distinguish this firearm from that non-firearm. I had a Mosin Nagant shipped to my door last year sans FFL and I still cannot believe it happened even now.

      • I only watched the video one time through, but I thought I heard when they were reading the statute that it said something about “not accepting modern cartridges” or words to that effect. So an exempt black powder pistol would be one that was loaded with powder and ball one chamber at time and fired by use of primer cap or flint. Seems pretty straightforward.

  10. On another tack: damn, that kid’s dead ringer for Malvo. It’s GD spooky.

    I remember reading that John Allen Muhammad, the “Beltway Sniper”, was in the same Army unit as then-DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey, for a year or so. Last time I heard, Ramsey was chief of the Philly PD.

  11. Texas is an anti carry state, along with a few other southern states. If you don’t want other people to know you can meet force with force, that’s your right. Carry is a right, no matter if you want to do it openly or concealed.

  12. With freedom comes responsibility and consequences. If someone opens their mouth and says something outrageously dumb, he has a first amendment right to do so. But his right to do so does not take away people’s freedom to think he is a moron – you cannot dictate someone’s perception of you.

    Same with guns. If you want to open carry where it’s legal, you have a second amendment right to do so. But you cannot force another person to see it from your point of view. Their freedom to think you’re a nutball is still a valid freedom. Once again you cannot dictate someone’s perception of you. You may try to normalize it but at the end of the day we all have the freedom of our own thoughts and opinions. Isn’t liberty great?

    As for open vs concealed carry, I prefer to keep my cards close to my chest.

    • Frankly, I’m having quite a bit of difficulty realizing how the perceptions of some relates to the Constitutional freedoms of others. What you seem to suggest is that A’s freedom of expression diminishes B’s enjoyment of B’s “freedom”.

      By limiting A’s freedoms, what freedoms does B enjoy?

    • “…If you want to open carry where it’s legal, you have a second amendment right to do so. But you cannot force another person to see it from your point of view.”

      Tom, They are NOT trying to force any other person to see their point of view, they are trying to gain through “civil disobedience” some official judicial acknowledgment that the Second Amendment actually means what it says and that these absurd laws are in fact restrictions, “INFRINGEMENTS”, on our natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. See my longer post above.

  13. Douchebags……just what we need, more douchebags acting like that in public. Please stop acting like fools in public trying to force confrontations while your paparrazi-buddies stick cameras into the faces of Law Enforcement Officials and ignore their orders.

    You’re hurting the cause more than helping it.

    • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      No matter how annoyed that policeman became, whatever his personal reasons, the First Amendment, quoted above in its entirety, states that the people have a natural, civil and constitutionally protected right “…peaceably to assemble…” That being the case, by what authority can he or any other policeman ORDER those “paparazzi-buddies” with cameras to disperse or stop taping? Were they not peaceable assembled? Do they not have “freedom of the press”?

      It seems to me that the biggest issue in the Open Carry effort is not the concerns of a few panty-waste people calling the police in a panic, but the almost universal (I said almost) willingness of the LEO on scene to overstep his legal authority to find SOMETHING to intimidate the Open Carrier with and attempt to force him to comply not with the law, but with the policeman’s demands. These officers need to learn that getting through the academy and wearing that badge and gun does not make them Judge Dredd. They are there to enforce the law and to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America, not get all authoritarian and expect immediate obedience to their every command just because they are a cop.

      • I think you misunderstand some basic laws.

        The government can regulate peaceful assembly if the purpose is for public safety and applies to all assemblies I.e., is content neutral. In addition, when the police are arresting or detaining someone, they have lawful authority to give reasonable orders to others to stand clear so that they can conduct their work. You won’t find a court in the country to say otherwise.

        • “The government can regulate peaceful assembly if the purpose is for public safety and applies to all assemblies I.e., is content neutral. ”

          Where in the text of the first amendment does it say the government can regulate peaceful assembly? In fact, the first amendment SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS JUST THAT.

          I think you misunderstand some basic laws……

        • The government has also decided that it can regulate when and whether or not you or I or anyone else can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Does the mere fact that some government agency has decided it CAN regulate something (regardless of what the Bill of Rights has to say on the subject) and has not been successfully challenged in court (another branch of the same government) make what they are doing legal and not to be questioned or opposed. I think not.

          And by the way, SCOTUS be damned on this subject. I refer you to the book “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” by Mark R. Levin. And just for example, the “Dredd Scott” decision. These men are NOT infallible and as we can so plainly see often base their decisions not on the constitution but on their own personal political prejudices.

          Peaceably assemble means just that. They are a group of citizens assembled without violent intent for the purpose of petitioning the government with their grievances. Unless and until they become violent or disruptive no government agent has the authority to order them to cease and desist, I don’t care how many unconstitutional laws they put on the books. Videotaping the encounter with authorities is a legitimate function of a free press and so long as they do not actively interfere with his actions, illegal though those actions may be, they are still peacefully assembled and any attempt to bully them into doing as he commands, because he commands, is far outside his actual authority.

    • Show me one instance of a group of people engaging in civil disobedience that looks good….that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that all is good in the world. Boston Tea Party was violent and led to war. The black equality movement involved fire hoses and police dogs. This civil rights movement involves people getting arrested and mouthing off to cops. I agree, it ain’t pretty, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this cop gets sued under section 1983 and does not arrest or even detain another person holding a black powder revolver (not pistol)

  14. Here in Pennsylvania, we can carry openly. We also have concealed carry with a license. While I can’t remember if I have ever opened carried, I respect and defend those who choose to. I can see both sides of this argument, but frankly, I agree with Mr Burke in that your feelings don’t trump anyone else’s rights.

  15. To all the Adam Kokesh wannabes; your gun is not a fashion accessory to show off in public. It is a tool. It’s very existence is enough of a political statement, and does not need to be flaunted in people’s faces.

    • Carrying concealed (“legally” or not) is also a political statement. It says that, like me, you are not yet ready to stand up to government tyranny and demand that they stop infringing on your 2A rights.

      I have admitted that to myself. I can see that these people, while using tactics that I could not see in myself, are fighting for a right that I am equivocating on at this time. Will there come a time when I am willing to risk all the potentially bad things a tyrannical government can do to me if I defy them on this point? Possibly. As of right now I have made the difficult decision that I cannot afford the complications that confrontation could cause. It pains me, it shames me, but there it is. Posting here helps a little.

    • It’s a political statement. It’s a social statement. It’s an exercise of a natural, Constitutionally-protected right.

      So what?

      It’s not flaunting, unless you flaunt it. Merely carrying is not flaunting, nor more than any woman merely walking around in public (regardless of how she is attired) is flaunting her boobs.

  16. wow! Cops in clown outfits.

    Every police budget in this country needs to be cut in half. The police have turned into thugs, and it needs to end.

  17. Love living in AK. Everyone always assumes that Texas has the most open gun laws.
    In Alaska, I can, without a permit open carry or conceal carry any pistol or rifle I can legally buy.
    If I have a fancy $200 NFA stamp, those rifles or pistols can be equipped with surpressors, or be fully automatic (all other NFA rules followed).

    And no one bats an eye.
    It’s so common to see open carrying of pistols, and in hunting season rifles, that the most made of it is asking “what ya carrying?… Oh really?…. Nice. Have a good one”

    Quick edit addition-
    I once was stopped by a police officer for a broken tail-light. I was new to the interior and did not have a pistol, or any gun with me, as I was then used to keeping them at home. I actually got chewed out by the cop for owning guns and not carrying. Step out of the car and into the food chain. Phrase has stayed with me.

    • Texas is VERY hot. But it has its good points.

      What might help is if Texas declared itself a sanctuary state on condition that any “undocumented” aliens from other states (with no criminal history or gang affiliations) could to be traded one for one with some liberal currently residing in Texas.

      Once that was accomplished the conservatives could gain political majorities and fix all the damage that has been done legislatively. JMHO.

  18. I definitely did NOT notice the same anit-gun feeling in the trailer. The movie actually looks good, though if at the end it becomes all preachy I’ll be disappointed *cough*GreenZone*cough*.

  19. “We think we have made great strides in the last few decades with now all 50 states allowing some sort of concealed and/or (technically in most cases) open carry.”

    49. NJ effectively has no carry capacity for the masses, regardless if what other people say. The laws make it impossible to obtain such a permit.

    and yes, the commenting system sucks. I couldn’t put this as a reply where it belongs.

  20. President Barack Obama said the Navy Yard shooting could possibly have been prevented if tougher background checks existed.

    For once, I totally agree with Odumbo. If the Federal government had done its job, this guy wouldn’t have had a security clearance and a pass into the Naval Yard.

    • To be fair, as long as you can fog a mirror, you can probably get a secret clearance. TS/SCI is a bit different. Not that it matters, with the draw down in military personnel and furloughs for DoD civilians, contractors are doing more of the work that uniformed service members and GS employees were doing (at twice the cost to the government).

      This has created a huge backlog at DSS. Since he was in the Navy and likely held at least a secret clearance as a reservist, it would have been easy for him to be picked up in JPAS with minimal investigation or paperwork, even if he was out of scope. The shooters security clearance was likely not a huge priority for DSS. Not that it makes it right, that’s just how it is.

    • From the newest reports, the shooter told the cops on 8/7 he was hearing voices and crazy stuff. They alerted the Navy (or whatever Naval Department this information goes to). They then did not do their job in alerting all departments about this guy. If they would of done their job, the killings would of not happened. Simple as that.

      • Are you surprised that the government dropped the ball? We all know how well government agencies collaborate, a well oiled machine ain’t got nothin on the USG…come on now. What’s the saying – “If someone put the United States Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 6 months they would have a deficit of sand.”

  21. Sorry, but you can’t have legal open carry, or legal open carry of non-legal recognized firearm and then cater to the sensitivities and emotions of the public.

  22. On a different tack…When I was up in WA visiting family this summer, I considered rolling up to the great frozen Northland to acquire some 22lr, .223, and .40 S&W which was basically unavailable at the time. Then I looked at the import requirements, considered trying to smuggle it in…and decided against it. Feeling pretty good about that decision now.

    • I saw at least two people carrying long guns slung over their shoulder, including the AK without a shoulder thing that goes up. It seemed odd to me that the police were spending so much time one the one guy with his black powder pistol and totally ignoring the rifles. What was up with that? Does that mean that I can walk around in front of the Texas capitol building in Austin with a bolt action .338 Lapua accurate out to 1,000 meters or more but I will get arrested if I show up with a .36 caliber model 1856 Colt Navy pistol in a belt holster?

  23. Can we please stop with the open carry demonstrations? I get it we can open carry in some states. Does that mean we have to go around filming just to get a response from cops to put it on youtube? No. Stop being dickheads and be good ambassadors for gun owners. Case in point Starbucks,

    • …”I get it we can open carry in some states.”
      Ben,
      The problem is your tacit acceptance and use of the word “can” in the sentence above.

      There is absolutely NOTHING in the Second Amendment that gives any government agency the authority to tell us we CAN’T. As a matter of fact the Second Amendment very specifically tells the government “…the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s the point.

      If you tell them they should not do something that is perfectly legal, just because it makes you uncomfortable, where’s the difference from some paranoid citizen calling the police to report “a man with a gun” when no crime is being committed just because that gun or that man makes the citizen uncomfortable?

      Open Carry is NOT the issue here. The illegal, tyrannical and overbearing response of authority to citizens exercising their natural, civil and constitutionally protected rights is the issue being addressed.

    • Moore hit it right about the movie based on the big motor companies leaving Detroit and head south to Mexico just for profits.

      • If I were in Detroit I would most certainly be looking for SOME, ANY excuse to leave.

        If I were a for-profit corporation being sucked dry by union vampires and had an obligation to my stockholders to at least try to show a profit I would seek labor markets more conducive to that end. Mexico seems like a viable choice. Many large American corporations have moved their operations to rural areas in America where there was a large labor pool and lower taxes and less regulations and no unions. This does not make them automatically bad people.

  24. The cop with the military style uniform, complete with rockers and chevrons is the problem here. We’re militarizing our police. When the police look and act like the military, a police state is not too far behind.

  25. Geniuses! What an incredibly clever way to get Black Power weapons included in the definition of firearms, next legislative session! Brilliant! I assume that was there goal, since that seems to be the most likely outcome.

    • And while it was unclear what weapon system they were using at that point in the story and that any sight would have to be accommodated in their firing port, it sure looked to me like the rifle (supposedly an evil Bushmaster purchased at my favorite gun store, Bullseye Shooting Sports in Tacoma, WA) had an ACOG mounted. Seems an unlikely choice for a sniper.

  26. This Texas law about pre-1899 black powder guns is a bit ridiculous but does display the cowardice of the government by limiting of unregulated weapons to that of technology which is over a century old otherwise one must obtain a permission slip from said government to exercise a Constitutional right.

    They enjoy having a great advantage over those they rule.
    God forbid if there were a level playing field, most in government and law enforcement would crap their pants and run away if their great advantages were removed.

    What does 1899 have to do with anything?
    The bit about replicas made after 1899 could be much debated.
    Where does one draw the line on replicas?
    Were not the black powder guns made after 1899 replicating previous technology?

    • What many do not understand is the interplay between federal and state law. Many states will copy federal law, others will make up their own, and some w/o preemption will allow localities to make law.

      • And every level of government will ignore the fact that the law they are passing is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, as written.

  27. The REAL problem is the incorrect, arbitrary and occasionally violent enforcement of the law. This undermines public confidence in the justice system. These cops demonstrated they sought to create criminals in this minor instance. Think about what happened to George Zimmerman and how it affects your perception of state prosecutors. Given the mandatory minimum sentences that are continuously increased, where is the incentive to submit? I certainly have little to no confidence that the charges and/or trial will be fair in certain jurisdictions. If that is the case, suspects may as well shoot it out with the police. Is this what we really want? Are these side effects causing more violence?

  28. Ok, it’s taken some time, but this issue has really become crystalized for me lately: We simply cannot fight for a watered-down version of the 2nd amendment and expect anything but a watered-down version of the 2nd amendment. We should fight for the whole thing, and expect nothing less.

    To the point at hand: OC, whether or not I prefer it (I don’t), it should be legal in all 50 states (excepting prohibited persons, of course), and the police should not have license to be dicks.

    • If we are to fight for ALL of the Second Amendment, who gets to decide who is a “Prohibited Person”?

      “…the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Doesn’t say anything about making a list of “the people” who do not qualify.

      • Ok, perhaps we shouldn’t except “prohibited persons”, and go with the reasoning that if someone can’t be trusted with a gun, they shouldn’t be trusted outside of prison.
        Though I see the point, and would love to limit the government to that extent, I think it’s a pie much higher in the sky than universal OC.

  29. Who the hell open carries with an 1850s BP pistol? That should be on the wall somewhere in your house in a glass case. Rarely taken outside. Used rarely. Carry an updated firearm.

    • Some laws require the carry of antique type firearms. Some laws allow the carry of these “firearms” that are not considered firearms.
      For example, in Tennessee in 1871 the State Legislature made a law which said that the only pistol someone could carry was the army pistol and it had to be carried openly in the hand. that law was changed in 1989, but it survived more than 100 years. Since Tennessee state law does not preempt local gun laws written before April 1986 many Tennessee cities still require that if a firearm is carried it must be the army or navy pistol and it must be carried openly in the hand.
      Don’t believe it? Well look up Tennessee law.

    • You missed the point: the guns are legal, because they aren’t classed as firearms. Maybe some remedial reading classes would be useful.

      • I read it and understood it. I don’t give a furry rat’s a$$ if they weren’t considered firearms. The cops probably didn’t realize what they were until after the fact. What I don’t understand is the fasination with open carry. It ain’t all that. Where it’s legal, like Texas, carry concealed and quit crying.

        • Why are you burdening *us* with *your* lack of understanding? Both OC and CC are legal where I live; I choose to OC when I can, because…reasons. Quit being a “furry rat’s a$$” and telling us how to carry.

    • The officer undoubtedly had probable cause to investigate. Upon even preliminary investigation, especially since there were so many onlookers ready and willing to quote the actual statutes in question, the officer should have apologized and gone about his business. The fact that neither he no rany of the other officers who were present thought this was a reasonable outcome is the issue being addressed here, not the open carry of a pistol not designated under Texas law as a firearm.

  30. things like this does nothing to positively promote carrying firearms and in my opinion paints all of us in a bad light. At this time it is socially not acceptable to wear an exposed firearm in most places and alarms many people. we may not agree with that but we should respect it. I don’t understand the obsession some people have with open carry, to me it’s no different than walking around with money hanging out of your pocket. Sooner or later someone may make a grab for it and you’re in a fight you didn’t have to be in if you simply kept it concealed.

    • A group of young black men walk up behind you at an ATM, at night. That “alarms many people. we may not agree with that but we should respect it.”

      Now do you see how wrong, very wrong your statement is?

      “Sooner or later someone may make a grab for it” Please, one cite where this has happened, to just a normal joe OCing.

      “you’re in a fight you didn’t have to be in if you simply kept it concealed” – And if you OC and a criminal sees it, you’ve just interrupted his poorly-thought out plan of robbing that convenience store you just happen to be in with him, and you’ve averted, single-handedly and with no action whatsoever, a robbery that could have turned deadly. Yeah, we can all play the hypothetical game. Only, mine is much more realistic, provably and demonstrably so.

      [BTW, that group of young black men…just came from a church worship service, and they just needed to pick up some cash to hang with their friends at the local ice cream joint afterwards.]

  31. Carry your gun any way you like, tactics and strategy be damned. Do it just because you can…unless it’s illegal. I see nothing wrong with concealed carry, and sometimes wonder about the true motivation behind those who must show it off. Carrying a gun should be for protection of you and yours, not to make you feel like a man. If you must really show it off before you feel right about carrying a gun…you might want to get some help with that.

    • The Bill of Rights doesn’t make any distinction between weapons of different sizes; what gives you the right to?

      It also doesn’t delineate when and where you may or may not bear said arms; what gives you, or anyone else, the right to?

      SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, not “shall not be infringed, except in overpriced coffee shops.”

Leave a Reply

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