No Charges to be Filed Against Phoenix Doc with AR in Airport


I just received an email from Alan Korwin stating that no charges will be filed against Dr. Peter Steinmetz, and that the scheduled hearings have been vacated. From Alan Korwin just minutes ago, quoting Dr. Steinmetz:

“No charges have been filed and my two hearings have been vacated.”

I expected as much, as I wrote the following a couple of hours ago . . .

The expected demonization of Dr. Peter Steinmetz has sprung full blown in the old media, in spite of everyone recognizing that the Doctor was engaging in protected strong political speech by carrying his AR-15 into the non-secured part of  Sky Harbor airport . . .

From phoenixnewtimes.com:

It seems Steinmetz, a Tempe resident, was doing nothing wrong up until the moment he pointed the weapon inadvertently at two women in the “B”-gate waiting area. Police tell New Times that, in general, it’s not illegal to carry a semiautomatic rifle into an airport terminal. In this case, the problem was “the way he was carrying it,” says Phoenix police Sergeant Steve Martos.

It seems unlikely that Dr. Steinmetz will be convicted of anything. The police acknowledge that he did nothing wrong up until he allegedly allowed the muzzle of his rifle to briefly point in the direction of two women in the coffee shop.

 The allegation is that the muzzle of his rifle briefly was pointed at two women at the airport, who later told police they were fearful of the gun. Steinmetz claimed he was just there to get a cup of coffee.

Here is the Arizona law that the police used to arrest the doctor. The arrest resulted in national publicity and his suspension from his job.  The only applicable part of the code seems to be number 6.  ARS 13-2904:

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

There are two elements to this law that must be met. First, the person has to have either the intent or knowledge that they are disturbing the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family, or person.   Then the law lists a number of ways in which it is impermissible to intentionally or knowingly do this.  The last one listed, 6., involves weapons, and is a felony.

The problem for the prosecutor in this case will be to prove intent or knowledge. The police have already said that the muzzle sweep was accidental and momentary.   They already acknowledge that the doctor was not doing anything illegal up to that point.

So how does a prosecutor show intent and/or knowledge for an accidental and momentary event?     I do not think they can.

What this shows is suppression of protected political speech by police who did not like what was being communicated.   Dr. Steinmetz is a known second amendment activist.   He was at the unsecured part of the airport in a previous event in November, demonstrating against TSA search techniques.

You see the two pictures of Dr. Steinmetz shown above.   I doubt that you have any difficulty determining which one is being shown on national media.  The old media is all in favor of police repression of  political rights that they do not approve of.

Alan Korwin sums up the case:

While reluctant to say too much about the case, given the lack of information or stated motive by Steinmetz, Korwin believes the “bottom line is if you have a right and you can’t exercise it, do you have that right?” 

“He’s putting his life, his fortune and his sacred honor on the line for his beliefs — it sounds like that’s what he’s doing,” Korwin adds.

Long after these images are shown, I suspect that Dr. Steinmetz will be found not guilty.  His arrest will have been just another attempt by the establishment to suppress the First and Second Amendments.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Good.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Defiantly. That being said I’d still suggest to the doctor to be a bit more subtle next time.

      1. avatar Veidt says:

        de·fi·ant
        adjective
        characterized by defiance; boldly resistant or challenging: a defiant attitude.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Are you assuming he got that wrong? 😀

  2. Thanks, Doc, for providing more ammo to the antis. Way to go.

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      Got to agree. The pictures of this guy make me think he’s retarded. I don’t mean that as a slur either. Literally, I saw his pick and thought “mentally retarded.”

      1. avatar Shane says:

        Ya, pretty sure a director at the prestigious Barrow Neurological Institute is not as smart as a anonymous internet troll.

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          Ya, pretty sure my names Shane and I’m not anonymous because I display a name, and then think I’m a tough guy for it, and I think I’m the shit, but I have no clue what or whom I’m talking about.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Yes. Regrettably, there were no ugly topless women shouting racial slurs at him to balance out the stupidity.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      As if they even need us to give them ammo, troll. They’ll roll their own when and wherever necessary, only all they ever get is squibs.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        That’s correct. MDA, MAIG, and the Brady Bunch are not above lying, they’ve done it before. They’d still be on the warpath if no one open carried anything anywhere. They are bound and determined to strip US citizens of our 2A rights. Most of their actions have nothing to do with OC, anyway (gun bans, magazine bans, registration, purchase restrictions, carry permit restrictions, other restrictions). They want to ban guns and accessories. Period. All the Fudds are doing is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Heck, there are still a lot of gun owners who think guns are only for sport and are against CCW!

        1. Right because unless we cheer on idiots like Steinmetz, we are all ant-Second Amendment. You people are just unbelievably daft.

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          @ Paul No, I just don’t believe in circular firing squad politics. Unless the person is doing something morally wrong or illegal, I wouldn’t bother making pot shots at all. Again, I wouldn’t open carry an AR-15, and certainly not at an airport, but that’s just me and I certainly don’t begrudge a person for making their own choices.

    4. avatar Scrubula says:

      He didn’t really do much. I suspect he turned or bent over to pick something up and his sling slid too far.
      Then the two woman ran crying to the nearest officer and got him arrested.

    5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Why can’t the message to the antis be:

      “See? Even a brilliant, extremely accomplished professional and pillar of the community is someone who OC’s an AR, and the police and prosecutors agree he’s just exercising his legal right? So quit freaking out, sit down, shut your burrito hole and quit bothering the police with frivolous calls.”

    6. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      I see our local Sadducee has shown up to join forces with the Pharisees to crucify an innocent man who has broken no law.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep. 🙂

        I suspect that Barabas is okay with them because at least he conceals like other criminals.

  3. avatar Illinois Minion says:

    Please doc, I don’t disagree with what you are doing. But I think the rifle in an airport(secure or not) is a bit over the top.
    Handgun/holster might be both less attention getting as well as possible more manageable in a crowded area, if needed.

    Author’s point to cops might have been a bit eager to ‘control’ the situation noted. Both sides seem to have been pushing the boundaries a bit more than necessary.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Why are you even saying this? He is a known LGOC advocate, so your “reasoning” won’t work with him–if he even reads TTAG–which he probably doesn’t. But if he did, do you think he’s going to read that and say, “Why, you know what? You are right! I never thought of that! Gee, thanks Mr. Obvious Illinois Minion, you’re a life-saver.”

      1. avatar XDs 45 says:

        The man is a patriot in my eyes.

        1. avatar lizzrd says:

          You need to have your eyes examined.

    2. avatar Jon says:

      “Both sides seem to have been pushing the boundaries a bit more than necessary.”

      If it was legal to carry weapons, the doctor wasn’t pushing any boundary, because there were none. Intentionally making a false accusation is not pushing the boundaries either, it is FLAT-OUT ILLEGAL!!!

  4. avatar Gunr says:

    Was it ever determined that his gun was loaded, or if he had one in the chamber?

    1. avatar Mighty Mo says:

      I thought that only mattered in Texas?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Actually that doesn’t matter at all in Texas. If the carry is otherwise lawful, loaded or unloaded doesn’t matter. Same as if the carry is otherwise unlawful.

  5. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Congratulations to the Doc. He’s playing with fire and when it starts, he will be burned along with others.

    1. I wonder how much the City of Phoenix will pay over this event. False arrest, leading to national media slurring of a well respected research doctor, suspension from his job…

      I suspect they will be more respectful of open carriers after this.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        “I suspect they will be more respectful of open carriers after this.”

        I wouldn’t bet on it. Cops have a way of making life difficult for people who they believe are causing problems.

        1. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          I dunno, I haven’t heard of anymore incidents in Colorado since the PO PO had to pony up $25k to an OC’er who was falsely arrested.

        2. The damages could be a good bit. But there are other options as well…

          There is remedial training of police…

          Maybe they can get the City to air “Public service announcements” that “Openly carried firearms are legal and not a threat”

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Curtis in IL: Nope. It has worked pretty well in most parts of Ohio. Government gets the message eventually and word gets around to other departments. In many cases, this is the only legal way we’ve found to get officers to stop harassing people. For the most part, they do stop harassing people after enough lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. If people don’t take the time to OC and go through this garbage, law enforcement typically won’t stop.

      2. avatar great unknown says:

        Another question is – does the security video at all accord with the claims of the complainant? If not, she might be another potential target – pardon the pun – for a lawsuit.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          What complainant? Two twits who may or may not exist? As far as video, I haven’t seen any, and I don’t expect that any viddy would prove anything unless it was aiming over one twit’s shoulder and directly down the barrel of the doctor’s rifle. The cops claimed that the muzzling was inadvertent, so it’s not like he actually pointed it at anyone.

          This whole brouhaha seemed bogus from minute one.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Agreed, big-time. When the cops themselves said the muzzling was unintentional, who made the decision to charge him? A superior, by radio or something? Because, given that info, that person should be charged and/or sued. And I bet a big doctor can afford it, too! If he wants to make his point, perhaps this is his chance.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        He doesn’t have a good case for civil rights violations. It was not a “false arrest’ if it was supported by “probable cause” to believe an offense had been committed. You talk about intent, but you have to remember that in criminal law, there are two distinct levels of intent: specific intent and general intent. Specific intent requires proof that the defendant intended to commit an illegal act, i.e., intended to kill. A general intent crime requires proof only that the defendant intended to act, e.g. intending to drive fast without intent to harm others is sufficient, but mere inadvertence, like dropping his gun, is not. Handling his gun in an objectively unsafe manner causing others to fear harm would be enough.

        1. It may work out that way. I am very interested in what the police reports actually say, what the video shows, and what the witnesses say.

          The fact that the police spokesman has stated that “he did nothing wrong” up until the alleged muzzle sweep is indicative. The evidence will come out eventually.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Observing officers said muzzling was inadvertent. Therefore, no “probable cause”. Did I miss something? So who decided to charge him?

      4. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Usual a good old lawsuit straightens out departments when they try these stunts. Sometimes it takes more than one but eventually they get the point. A tip of the hat to the Phoenix Doc… Well done.

  6. avatar rhampton says:

    I don’t think the second picture is all that flattering either — I wouldn’t want to meet a stranger with that expression carrying a rifle in an airport. Couldn’t you find something a little more dignified and restrained?

    1. avatar Sam Rudolph says:

      Well, he’s a neurologist, and having worked with many of them, they’re pretty weird.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    He did nothing wrong and there’s no trustworthy indication that he muzzled anyone. More than likely, two female twits were scared by the horror of a black rifle — probably travelers from a Slave State — and screamed for the po-po. It’s happened before at that airport.

    Another couple of female twits recently tried to report two men at a restaurant who she claimed muzzled her with their pistols, which were in shoulder holsters. Unfortunately for Little Miss Muffett, the two OCers were police detectives.

    And I just love the way a lot of guy’s testicles turn to raisins when completely legal open carry is mentioned.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Paul will become testy if you keep talking that way.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Paul who?

    2. I have considerable doubts as to who contacted who.

      The way the accounts were worded, it seems the two women were contacted *after* the arrest, not the police being contacted before. That is a little uncertain, but it was highly suspicious to me that the accounts were worded in such a way as to make it ambiguous as to who contacted whom.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Very interesting.

    3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      This is the second time this story about the police detectives has been brought up. I assume it made the news as that’s how people found out about it. I’d love to read the news story and see how the media covered it. Got a link by any chance? Or maybe a date and city I could search for? Thanks!

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’ll try to find the story. It happened in the last couple of weeks.

  8. avatar John in AK says:

    Fascinating. The man was performing a legal activity in a place he had a right to be, and the ‘authorities’ have determined that he did nothing wrong, that his ‘crime’ was inadvertent, harmless, and an overreaction on the part of two wilting maiden ladies who palpitated most cruelly at the mere sight of a gun muzzle that MAY have been pointed in their general direction while the firearm to which it was attached was safely slung and no human hand was remotely near the activating controls.

    Yet, still, the gun nannies here are railing against the man, screeching like members of MDAMAIGPDQ in heat, condemning him ‘fer makin’ usn’s look BAAAD.’

    Grow a pair like this man, stand up for your rights, and exercise them. If you do not, they are so much more easily taken away.

    1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      What you said.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      Yep.

  9. “What this shows is suppression of protected political speech by police who did not like what was being communicated.”

    What evidence is there to support that? As with the good doctor’s arrest, proof of culpable mental state is required. As you pointed out, that couldn’t be established as required under the statute cited for the doctor’s arrest. That does not mean he didn’t inadvertently point his weapon at the women, it means that even if it did happen he was arrested under a statute that didn’t apply. Evidence of intent is required to prosecute him under that law. To accuse the officers involved of falsely arresting him to suppress free speech requires evidence of intent as well.

    And it strains credulity to suggest the officers simply made up the part where he pointed the weapon. The women involved would have to give statements and personal information to the officers for the report. Did these officers and women enter into a spontaneous conspiracy to frame the doctor? That would be a monumentally stupid thing to do, considering that American airports are some of the most videotaped places in the world. If they lied, and it never happened, it’s 99% certain that video would show they lied.

    Sorry TTAG, but carrying an AR into an airport as a political statement is just stupid. It’s not illegal and shouldn’t be, but it’s just stupid. It doesn’t make us gun owners look reasonable or intelligent, and it’s practically guaranteed to produce results harmful to the overall 2A cause. Even without the arrest, the doctor did nothing but add to the likelihood that gun rights will be further restricted. I’d be surprised if OC in airports doesn’t now become illegal, thanks in part to this ridiculous form of protest.

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      Excellent post.

    2. Then show us the video.

      Hard to believe that there is no video of the event in question. The police gave video of the arrest, from airport security cameras, to the media when they were breaking the story. No video of the event.

      No interviews that I have found of the women in question. As noted above I am very suspicious of who contacted whom. It is not at all clear.

      The police are not allowed to simply arrest someone and break a national story to the media on a highly questionable event. On other events, video is held for days, weeks. Who controls who gets video from airport security cameras?

      Then, even if events occurred as the police claimed, there was no crime. So it is acceptable for the police to arrest for no criminal act? Ignorance of the law is a little difficult to claim here.

      1. “Then show us the video. Hard to believe that there is no video of the event in question. The police gave video of the arrest, from airport security cameras, to the media when they were breaking the story. No video of the event.”

        I agree. I’d like to see it as well.

        “No interviews that I have found of the women in question. As noted above I am very suspicious of who contacted whom. It is not at all clear.”

        I’d guess the women aren’t willing to give public interviews. I haven’t seen the report either, so I don’t know if the officers were already on the scene and saw the alleged incident themselves, or an uninvolved third party notified them, or the women themselves called them. But I don’t believe the officers made up imaginary women to use as complainants for the report.

        “The police are not allowed to simply arrest someone and break a national story to the media on a highly questionable event.”

        What? The police arrested someone for what they believed was an offense. What do you mean they’re not allowed to break a national story to the media? Arrests are public record.

        “On other events, video is held for days, weeks. Who controls who gets video from airport security cameras?”

        Generally, video of an offense is entered as evidence and then goes through the normal process of public release. Video of the arrest wouldn’t be evidence because no crime was alleged during the arrest.

        “Then, even if events occurred as the police claimed, there was no crime. So it is acceptable for the police to arrest for no criminal act? Ignorance of the law is a little difficult to claim here.”

        That’s not the same thing as what’s been alleged. As the original TTAG post stated, the offense he was charged with required intent. That intent was never alleged, therefore the charge was dropped. That doesn’t mean the weapon was never pointed at the women, it means that if it did happen the police acknowledge it wasn’t intentional, so the offense charged wasn’t correct. As an analogy, let’s say I’m on patrol and encounter one guy punching another guy in the street. I jump out and grab the assaulter while the victim runs away. I arrest the guy for assault and put him in jail. In Texas if I arrest someone for assault I have to have a complainant; however, my complainant ran away, so my assault charge is now invalid. If I had arrested him for Disorderly Conduct I’d have a valid charge, because that doesn’t require a complainant. In the doctor’s case, if he actually did point his weapon, the dropped charge doesn’t mean he’s not guilty, it could mean he was just arrested for the wrong charge. So you’re right, ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. But dropping the charge in this case doesn’t mean the incident never happened.

        “You did notice that the hearings were vacated and no charges have been filed. It probably happened that way because the evidence did not add up. You do not have to have a conspiracy if the women never said that the rifle was pointed at them.”

        If nobody claimed the weapon was pointed at anyone, and police arrested the doctor for pointing the weapon, then yes you have a conspiracy to arrest someone for something they didn’t do. If you’re claiming you know the weapon wasn’t pointed and nobody claimed it was, then yes you are suggesting the police entered into a conspiracy to frame the doctor. Again, this would be monumentally stupid. Airports during the day are FULL of witnesses. Cameras are everywhere. Many people would be watching the doctor because he was OCing a rifle. More people would watch the interaction between the doctor and police. So do you believe the officers decided on the spot to make up a story about the doctor pointing his weapon, even though they were surrounded by probably dozens of people who could testify that the doctor did no such thing, while the officers knew they were under video surveillance?

        My gut feeling isn’t that the “evidence didn’t add up”. I think they realized they filed the wrong charge. I don’t know AZ law and don’t know what the appropriate charge would be, if any.

        “What I have seen reported was later, they told the police that they were frightened’. Maybe there are reports out there where the women say the rifle was pointed at them. I have not seen them, and the timing reported has been ambiguous as to who contacted whom. I suspect that the police saw something that they thought they could hang an arrest on, then contacted the women and asked if they were ‘frightened’. We will find out as the evidence comes to light.”

        Agreed. While it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to call the police after an event happened and claim something about it, we don’t yet know the facts of the case and can’t make a determination. However, I still contend that the officers involved wouldn’t have conspired to falsely arrest someone in front of dozens of witnesses while being recorded.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          OTOH, we haven’t heard of the names of the twits, nor what their statements alleged, nor indeed if they even gave statements, and it strikes me as likely that if pressed, we would discover the hard drive failed and the records are not available.

    3. “And it strains credulity to suggest the officers simply made up the part where he pointed the weapon. The women involved would have to give statements and personal information to the officers for the report. ”

      You did notice that the hearings were vacated and no charges have been filed. It probably happened that way because the evidence did not add up. You do not have to have a conspiracy if the women never said that the rifle was pointed at them. What I have seen reported was “later, they told the police that they were frightened”. Maybe there are reports out there where the women say the rifle was pointed at them. I have not seen them, and the timing reported has been ambiguous as to who contacted whom. I suspect that the police saw something that they thought they could hang an arrest on, then contacted the women and asked if they were “frightened”. We will find out as the evidence comes to light.

      1. avatar great unknown says:

        If “frightened” is sufficient justification for filing “disturbing the peace” charges, then I am going file complaints against MSNBC, because every time Matthews, et. al., open their mouths, I get frightened. More precisely, terrified. Does that make them terrorists?

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      And it strains credulity to suggest the officers simply made up the part where he pointed the weapon.

      Riiiiiight, because cops never make things up.

      What strains credulity is that you would be so credulous.

      1. I’ll just quote myself:

        If you’re claiming you know the weapon wasn’t pointed and nobody claimed it was, then yes you are suggesting the police entered into a conspiracy to frame the doctor. Again, this would be monumentally stupid. Airports during the day are FULL of witnesses. Cameras are everywhere. Many people would be watching the doctor because he was OCing a rifle. More people would watch the interaction between the doctor and police. So do you believe the officers decided on the spot to make up a story about the doctor pointing his weapon, even though they were surrounded by probably dozens of people who could testify that the doctor did no such thing, while the officers knew they were under video surveillance?

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          As you say, there are cameras everywhere. Where’s the video evidence of the doctor pointing his rifle at anyone? The cops just released a very few seconds of video leaving that part out. Why did the case get dropped if he actually pointed his rifle at someone recklessly?

          You’re a cop, right? You act like cops haven’t been caught lying and framing people on their own dashcam video/audio. Or falsifying reports. Google is your friend. How many hundreds of cops have gotten reprimanded or fired for this? How many PD departments have had to pay out money because of unlawful arrests at best, and criminal cops at worst? You know it happens.

    5. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      I agree with Chris, I think that we should applaud the efforts of these hero cops who put it all on the line and risked their lives by making an arrest where no law was broken. If the cops see something they don’t like, they should be able to trump up charges and deprive people of their freedom without any justification.

      1. Ah, the de rigueur anti-cop comment. First of all, where did I say the officers should be applauded? Second, please point out where I’ve ever said cops should be allowed to trump up anything.Quote me. I’Il wait here until you do.

      2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        The whole farce was a complete waste of the police department’s time. I have no problem whatsoever with the an officer approaching the OC’er and inquiring as to his intentions. A non-officer carrying an AR is out of the ordinary, after all, even if legal. There are lots of things that are perfectly legal, but unusual, and may well attract police attention.

        Once they question the fellow for a moment and determine that he’s committed no obvious crime and does not appear intent to commit one, however, then that should be it. Send him on his way. If they want to continue to monitor him while he’s at the airport, as they probably should, then that’s up to them. But an arrest with no evidence of any crime? That’s just gun bully cops throwing their weight around. Sure, they’ll whine and cry that it’s for “public safety”, but that’s just ridiculous.

        If the man, who has dedicated his entire life and immense talents to saving lives, really wanted to hurt anyone, there are perhaps infinite means of doing so which the police are powerless to prevent. They arrested him simply because they could and doing so sends a message to all the other uppity peasants that they better not dare exercise their rights.

    6. Chris, stop interjecting common sense and sound thinking into this conversation!!!

      You are just proving you are really ant-Second Amendment, so just stop. Stop!!

      ; )

      LOL

  10. avatar Roscoe says:

    “…his rifle briefly was pointed at two women at the airport, who later told police they were fearful of the gun.”

    Hoplophobic “twits”, or MDA wanna be’s.

  11. avatar Another Robert says:

    If no charges will be filed, why the discussion of what the prosecutors will have to prove, and the prediction that he will be “found not guilty”? If there are no charges filed, there will be no prosecution, no trial, no verdict of any kind. Confusing write-up here.

    1. From the article:

      I expected as much, as I wrote the following a couple of hours ago . . .

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        OOPS, you got me. Sorry, I’m a bit distracted today, spent the AM in an e-mail back-and-forth with HuffPo anti-gunner and I’m still recovering. The damned intermittent keyboard isn’t helping.

        1. My sympathies on the keyboard issue. Been there. It is no fun.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          You should try the back-and-forth with the HuffPo writer issue :-0 ! How did you solve the keyboard thing? It isn’t the keyboard, it apparently is a side effect of stuff trying to load and re-load on the page here.

        3. In my case it was sticky keys. I bought an auxiliary keyboard, which I like better. They are cheap enough, but a little bit of a pain to carry with the laptop. I also prefer a mouse to the touchpad.

    2. avatar tfunk says:

      In the article it is stated that it was written before the announcement of no charges, explaining why the author believed nothing would come of the arrest.

  12. avatar Excedrine says:

    Doc, the only problem I have (and that anyone else should have) is with your muzzle awareness, which is vitally important if you’re going to open-carry a long-gun (or any gun for that matter). Yours is, evidently, piss-poor. It was incredibly stupid of you to sweep anybody, especially in a crowded place like that, at any time regardless of what you were doing — and yes there are ways of shifting your gat without muzzling people even in a busy airport, so don’t give me that line, either, Mister.

    Fix yourself, Doc, and carry on.

    1. We do not know that he had anything less than good muzzle discipline. There have been numerous cases, all across the country, where police just “made stuff up” with open carriers.

      There have also been numerous settlements.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Excedrine, you are far to smart to take the cops at their word. As I posted yesterday, there’s ZERO proof that he muzzled anybody.

    3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Fix yourself, Doc

      a) how do you know he actually muzzle swept anyone?
      b) how do you know the doctor is reading this?

    4. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      Heck, he could easily have been carrying on his back, muzzle down, dropped the change for his coffee and bent down to pick it up. If he had a collapsed stock, it could have easily swept someone sitting momentarily. There are just too many easy scenarios where this could have happened to count.

      Good reason to not OC a long gun in a crowd situation — not by virtue of law, but just the general safety I see preached here all the time. I would hope that he had dropped the magazine and made sure the chamber was clear. Making a statement isn’t an excuse to compromise on the safe habits you exercise everywhere else. I.e. it’s not an excuse to forget the 4 rules. Accidents only happen when you don’t expect them too.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        he could easily have been carrying on his back, muzzle down, dropped the change for his coffee and bent down to pick it up

        Or he could just have easily not muzzle swept anyone at all. So far there is no evidence he actually did.

  13. avatar tfunk says:

    @ Another Robert

    In the article it is stated that it was written before the announcement of no charges, explaining why the author believed nothing would come of the arrest.

    Man, are y’all ever gonna fix the reply for mobile thing?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Yes, I see, was a bit discombobulated by something else. Thanks–

  14. avatar rlc2 says:

    I’d really like to see more facts on background if they are ever available on this.

    Per Ralph’s comment, I almost wonder if the word has gone out in the loony left and MDA and WarOnWimment community collaborators to file hysterical charges, just to deter lawful open carry demonstrators. It wouldn’t surprise me, given thats the only thing that seems to be working for the left- hysterical accusations, and false claims of victory, when businesses and agencies have to respond, and issue pressers that say no harm was done, etc, weeks after the damage to reputations of the person and group have been done. (MDA Target, etc). With the trend towards MORE deliberately slanted accusations- the college rape claims and administrators extralegal processes to punish the men victims, while awaiting resolution- the false claims against political candidates, speakers, and anyone of influence, using the WarOnWimmen meme,…

    this does NOT surprise me a bit- ESPECIALLY if this Doc is a known activist, frequenting this location. An easy setup for a bogus muzzling accusation, supported by the womens solipsistic fears, rather than the facts- hey, its all about the narrative, and besides – check your white/patriarchical privilege!

    Too bad the consequences for filing a false report are not more severe, and chargeable.

    Is there a civil action that can be reasonably expedted to succeed against someone who makes a hysterical accusation, that results in someone losing their job, etc?

    1. I believe that we will find out who initiated contact, the women, or the police. I have not seen anything that clearly indicates that the women complained to the police, then the police arrested Doctor Steinmetz. It *might* have happened that way, but I have never seen it clearly stated.

      The verbage that I am seeing is consistent with the police contacting the women and asking them if they were frightened. I have seen this before on other stories about police contact with open carriers. We will find out eventually. I do not think the police will lie about it. Too much to lose, potential video, Dr. Steinmetz may have been recording, the women themselves are witnesses.

  15. avatar Chris Johnson says:

    He’s still an idiot who did nothing but hurt the cause.

    I live in AZ and hope I run into him at a meeting some place and can tell him that.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Actually, I’m kind of ambivalent on a lot of these open carry things. But when I see a statement like this, my immediate thought is something like, “If those damned Christians would just stay in the sewers with their prayer meetings, they wouldn’t get thrown to the lions…”

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        You mean, like, “Them Jews’d better stay in their ghettos and keep quiet if they wanna avoid a free train trip!” or “Them Blacks’d best be careful about that voting thing less’n they want to be fitted for rope neckties!” or “Them Gays’d best not be paradin’ around like that or they be askin’ for a good beating and maybe havin’ their heads curb-stomped some dark night!”

        No, of course you don’t.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Can’t tell exactly where you’re coming from, hard to “read” tone sometimes. But what I mean is that comments like the one from Chris, complaining about someone exercising their rights in a open manner rather than just keeping it all out of sight, put me in mind of someone saying basically that the Christians just bought it on themselves by being so “impertinent” as to attempt to worship out in the open, rather than staying in the sewers where they wouldn’t offend anyone. That’s the sentiment I am disagreeing with, not advocating.

        2. avatar John in AK says:

          As we’ve run out of ‘replies,’ I have to reply to ME. However. . .

          Yes, ‘tone’ is missing from print, and I have to be careful with the sarcasm; Of course, I am agreeing with you: Counselling people to not exercise their rights for fear of disturbing others makes those rights ‘privileges’. Either a ‘right’ IS a right, and can be freely exercised, or it is nothing.

  16. avatar Alfonso A. Rodriguez says:

    I see no reason to show up at an airport brandishing a semiautomatic rifle. Is he looking for terrorist or is he a vigilante. Accidents happen and this guy is looking for one. Discretion is the better part of valor. I have a safe full of rifles and handguns and no one in my neighborhood knows I have them. Of course I do not go around showing them to anyone. I take them to the range and practice a lot to keep in shape or compete in highpower and smallbore rifle. I and a former army officer, retired Customs and Border Protection Officer, have CW carry permit and have been handling weapons for over 40 years. Only idiots and untrained people have the itching desire to show weapons around for the hell of it. Maybe his penis is smaller than most, like the guys that drive cars too fast. Just because you can do something, does not mean that you should do it. Beside, this moron is giving up the element of surprise and in a firefight, he is the will be first target eliminated. Use better judgement (even if your actions are legal) and do not give ammo to the opposition, you moron. And you are a MD?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The fact that you called it “brandishing” when it was no such thing exposes you for what you are.

      If you want, I’ll give you a link to the Brady website. You’ll like it there. Birds of a feather and all . . . .

    2. Alfonso, well said, but of course, the tough-talking cowards hiding behind anonymity on this forum will dismiss any such common sense notions you are espousing. And so it goes.

    3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      this moron is giving up the element of surprise and in a firefight, he is the will be first target eliminated

      and a) you don’t have to aim a shotgun, just point it in the general direction and you’ll take out your adversary, b) just go out on your deck and fire off two blasts from a double barrel shotgun, that’ll scare criminals away and it’s the only protection you’ll ever need, c) the check’s in the mail, d) I won’t …

      Got any other myths you want to share?

      1. avatar Alfonso A. Rodriguez says:

        Yes, you forgot “I love you and I won’t come in your mouth”. Your point being….? I did try to perform a dialectic analysis of you arguments, but you have none that make any true sense so it is an impossible task. It was my mistake to interject myself in this discussion and give a common sense opinion to uneducated dilettantes. I did try to sound a bit like most of you but in reality I am a snob and rather use a more elegant style. Not the usual for an ex LEO and former USA artillery officer but there you have it, the curse of an expensive education when colleges used to teach people to think instead of just teaching facts to memorize. I have been around the world (literally) and lived in Europe so I have little patient for provincials like you. Do not bother to post a feeble retort because I will not read it; but go ahead if you think your dignity is being assaulted like the virtue of a Vestal Virgin. Keep trying, like Edward R. Murrow used to say: GOOD LUCK AND GOOD NIGHT.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          It was my mistake to interject myself in this discussion and give a common sense opinion

          Correct, that was your mistake, giving your opinion rather than facts.

  17. avatar Jon says:

    “The police acknowledge that he did nothing wrong up until he allegedly allowed the muzzle of his rifle to briefly point in the direction of two women in the coffee shop.” – Dean Weingarten

    This makes it sound like the cops might not have wanted to arrest him, but did so anyway because of the accusation. – So was it the cops that made the accusation, the women, or some other “concerned” third party?

    Whoever made the charge should be arrested for intentionally making false accusations, and the doctor should sue them for false allegations, mental anguish, slander, and reparations for the time in prison!

  18. Open carry fanatics are such complete and total pinheads. Like Pavlov’s dog, they hear “open carry” and start salivating, convinced every instance, no matter how brain-dead it is, is justifiable. I particularly enjoy it when these tough-talking guys start slinging insults at those they disagree with accusing them of cowardice, but they are the ones hiding behind anonymity on the Internet, with only a few exceptions, as demonstrated in this comment stream, as usual.

    1. Here is a list of personal insults that I found on this thread.

      From the Anti-Open Carry side:

      I saw his pick and thought “mentally retarded.”
      idiots like Steinmetz
      You people are just unbelievably daft.
      Maybe his penis is smaller than most
      this moron
      you moron.
      tough-talking cowards
      Open carry fanatics
      complete and total pinheads
      OC attention whores

      From the Pro-Open Carry side:

      anonymous internet troll
      Two twits who may or may not exist?
      two female twits
      the gun nannies here
      Hoplophobic “twits”

      By my count, the antis use personal insults at about a two to one ratio.

      Feel free to do your own count, it is somewhat subjective.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        If it weren’t for a certain preacher/pastor making a lot of those anti-OC personal attacks, the ratio would be more even, so I wouldn’t fault the entire anti-OC crowd. People are entitled to their opinions and to argue for their opinions. Some are just ill-equipped for the task, though.

      2. avatar lizzrd says:

        You need to look at it as insults per capita. The majority of posters seem to agree this kind of stunt demonstrates a certain lack of intelligence and is detrimental to the cause.

  19. avatar Gregory says:

    If the open carry people keep poking a stick in everyone’s eye, they will cause the libtard politicians to try and take the right to open carry away. Right or wrong, it will happen. Use your brains and some common sense. Baby steps are needed, we have to walk before we run.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The free exercise of this right won’t happen in baby steps. None of us will live long enough. Incrementalism won’t work. There are greater pressures against the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for a simple nibble or two to be successful. Things have gotten this bad because each generation had to be re-educated and retake ground lost. If the true individual right to keep and bear arms is not re-established in this generation or the next (at the very latest), it will be irreparably damaged and probably only exist in law as a narrowly defined privilege subject to the whims of government. The American education system and mainstream media are destroying the perceptions of Liberty and individual responsibility too rapidly in the minds of our younger Americans than any baby steps could possibly overcome, let alone keep equilibrium. Re-establish the free exercise of the individual right to keep and bear arms now or watch future generations settle for something neutered and hobbled by government. We would still be subjects of the Crown if the founders of this nation took the approach that you suggest.

    2. avatar lizzrd says:

      Worse than that, they’re giving moderates and anyone who isn’t already a vehement anti a valid reason to support new restrictions.

      What they’re actually doing is pointing out the illogical extremes allowed by our present gun laws. I hope the legislative reaction is limited to addressing those extremes, but I worry that they’ll overreach with new restrictions that adversely impact responsible carriers.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        the illogical extremes allowed by our present gun laws.

        What would those be?

        1. avatar lizzrd says:

          Well, for one, open carrying an AR in an airport.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          So you think the government should outlaw the open carry of long guns in an airport?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Do you believe in the truth and prudence of this statement; a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If you do then how can you say that the militia should be disarmed in airports?

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        the illogical extremes allowed by our present gun laws

        Yes, I’d like to know what those are, too.

  20. avatar BigDinVT says:

    OK. Good that the doc’s off the hook but, in case no one’s said it yet, those pictures still protray a pretty scarry lookin’ guy.

    Brain doc? Kind of looks like a brain-eatin’ doc. (“Well, hello Clarice…”).

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      Eons of our years ago, in beautiful downtown Anchorage, Alaska, one of my co-workers arrested the late Steve McQueen for DWI; His booking photo, which APD still had in their files when I retired, was VERY unbecoming–in fact, Steve looked downright drunk, although he was smiling.

      Very often, people do not look their best during booking. Go figure.

  21. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Well, that’s a big Duh!

  22. avatar Dano says:

    Like a moth to the flame, the OC attention whores can’t avoid the ass clownery. He’ll be back at the airport again.

    1. Precisely, and their adoring cheerleaders live for all this as well.

    2. You may well be correct that Dr. Steinmetz will again show up at Sky Harbor airport making his political statements.

      I have a strong suspicion that next time, the police will be a lot more careful about arresting him for non-existent crimes.

      1. avatar Dano says:

        And what’s the end game here for Dr. AR? What’s the path to victory? He’s playing a game where, given enough time, he will only lose. He’s going to be known as the crazy doc and he’s going to take a hit in the pocket when patients stop coming through the door? Maybe he’ll lose hospital privileges. He’s going to do something stupid, or god help us all, he’ll have an ND in a library or daycare. His OC antics are and have only ever been “look at me stunts”.

        He’s no better than a common OCT attention whore.

        1. avatar lizzrd says:

          The end game is getting open carry banned at airports in Arizona. He should be working for Bloomberg.

        2. The end game is simple. The police become educated and stop harassing open carriers. The people become educated and open carry of long guns becomes normalized as it was in the 1950’s.

          A TTAG commenter told about a man coming out of Abercrombie & Fitch in NYC with a shotgun in his hand. A President Eisenhower motorcade was passing. The man waved to Ike with one hand, shotgun in the other. Ike waved back. Nobody blinked.

        3. avatar Dano says:

          Your answer is plain and simple BS. First, the OC movement was about education. Now it’s about normalization? The OC tactics are as in your face as the WBC signs at a funeral. It’s pure ass clowing attention seeking.

          Rifle OC has never been common among anyone living. It’s just hasn’t. So stop with history lesson about a time that you either didn’t live or were too young to remember. Outside of big game season, you just don’t see, and haven’t seen people slinging rifles.

          Dr. AR is doing anything but being normal. He’s going out of his way to seek out the largest public space where he can grab the most attention. His behavior is not normal, it’s not even normal among gun owners. This clown is doing nothing to advance gun rights. He’s becomes the face of gun owners when he does this shit. Why don’t you see people standing on the corner of Front and Main, yelling Nigger in the name of free speech. These are both toxic tactics that don’t work. If Dr. AR is that concerned with gun rights, he’d be lining up non-gun owners and take them shooting. Make sure they have a great time while shooting, and converting them to pro-gun people. He’s only turning people against all of us.

          I wear a uniform and carry a firearm for a living. When people see us on patrol they don’t think it’s abnormal. The few times a year I do have to unrack the patrol rifle, it’s clear to people, that something out of the normal is going on. Rifle carry is not normal among any group. It’s always noticed as abnormal.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Dano: You are one of the reasons that we must keep on OCing everywhere possible. Your vitriol combined with your chosen profession demonstrates how necessary an ever present militia is. 😉

  23. avatar Oldman says:

    It is really a shame when a person like this “doctor” used loosely believes he has to do something so insanely stupid just because he has that right. This individual shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. We used to say people like him did what he did to make up for something he was lacking. With what is going on in the world today for him to think what he did was normal is just plain sad. With his actions he gave the anti’s more fuel about why sanity or the question of it in this case should be used as another tool to take 2A rights away from some. If he was trying to prove something he did…..he proved that he was a person who owns a gun and may have rights but his lack of concern for others around him did nothing but hurt the pro 2A cause. I as a gun owner and CCW permit holder would of been greatly concerned to see someone carrying an AR15 in a international airport. Even when I carry I do so concealed knowing that it can upset or make some uneasy. I know I have the right but you also have to think about perception and how damaging that can be to others if I knowingly carried haphazardly like this individual did.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      I imagine the doctor feels very strongly about 2A and disagrees with you. The problem with people like you who keep saying people like him need to “think about perception” is that you assume they haven’t. They have.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        The problem I have with this is there is nothing to be “gained” by the doctor’s actions, and a lot that could be lost.

        I live in Phoenix – it’s already legal to carry – open or concealed, and to a large extent it’s no big deal if you do carry openly. That’s *nice*, and it’s unusual among large cities – I think we’re the 6th largest city in the US, and the top *five* not only restrict open carry, but concealed carry. You can get a CCW permit if you want one, but it’s largely unnecessary the way the laws are written. Regular folks who just want to pick up a gun at a store, or go shooting at the range can do so with no hassles or fear of police activity.

        Getting into people’s faces about legal open carry can only have negative consequences. Trying to ban a certain venue here or there (like airports!) might well hold water even amongst the conservative crowd, and why push the issue and lose?

        The good doctor is an asshat, there’s no other way to express it.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Well, since you live in Phoenix it’s relatively easy for you to tell him that in person at some OCDO meet-ups.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The problem I have with this is there is nothing to be “gained” by the doctor’s actions

          That’s not true. OC will not be normalized unless people do so often. Also, the fact that he was arrested on such a flimsy charge clearly demonstrates that more OC is needed. If the officers were properly aware of what it and is not legal, they wouldn’t be following him around and fishing for a reason to arrest him.

          I live in Phoenix – it’s already legal to carry – open or concealed, and to a large extent it’s no big deal if you do carry openly.

          I live in Ohio where it is legal to carry openly and concealed used to be done by many without license prior to 2005. We still have to OC in some places to force departments to train their officers and to get city councils and park boards to fix their illegal ordinances and regulations. By so many of us carrying concealed for generations, masses in Ohio seemed to forget how many were armed daily. We ended up with licensing law because of “out of sight, out of mind.”

          Regular folks who just want to pick up a gun at a store, or go shooting at the range can do so with no hassles or fear of police activity.

          So that is the extent of the RKBA; going to and from the gun store or range? For the Second Amendment to have any serious meaning, there has to be more to the RKBA than target shooting and purchasing of firearms. Indeed, the 2A itself isn’t really about hunting or defense against ordinary crime either. The deterrent effect of the 2A can only work if open carry is not infringed and is a regular public occurrence. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

          Getting into people’s faces about legal open carry can only have negative consequences.

          Getting into peoples’ faces? That’s emotional clap trap. There isn’t any evidence that the Doc got into anyone’s face.

          Trying to ban a certain venue here or there (like airports!) might well hold water even amongst the conservative crowd, and why push the issue and lose?

          If airports are to be off limits to the militia then how serious is America about A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? Before DHS, TSA, FBI, etc have ANY function in any public space, the militia must be first and foremost. Government and the masses are concerned about terrorism at airports, no? Then why would it be at all permissible for the militia to be disarmed in an airport? It makes no sense if we really believe the first half of the 2A. For those who say that rifles don’t belong on free citizens in our airports; ask yourself if you really agree with and believe in the prudence of the plain language of the Second Amendment. I submit that one cannot and still believe that the People (militia) shouldn’t carry long guns at places like airports. In actuality, such statements are attacking the 2A and are squarely contrary to the ideas and values embodied by it.

        3. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

          John, I think you’re missing Mark’s point. There’s nothing to normalize about open carrying in Phoenix. Took a bit of getting used to when I first saw it in the 90’s – I spent a lot of time at the AHI doing clinical trials. I was going to toss in a Tempe/Mesa cowboy or snowbird joke, but it turns out that he does live in Tempe.

          Knowing the location, layout and parking of Sky Harbor I can even understand someone stopping there for a Starbucks. I’ve know some who’ve done so. I’ve also known a few who just had to have a Cinnabon and stopped there, as well. Usually by some who might shortcut from the 10 to Tempe down the middle of the airport (again, Phoenix has grown since I frequented it, so I don’t know if people still use that as a shortcut. I even used it to visit my inlaws when they were staying in Tempe).

          Reading the stories, it doesn’t look like there’s anything about OC protesting mentioned anywhere. I haven’t found anything about him trying to “make a point.” If so, please correct me. If I had to make a guess, he wasn’t about to leave his gun in the car. A couple of either travelers or anti-2A types or generally hoplophobic ladies freaked and pulled in the cops. If they were making an actual complaint, yeah, the cops would arrest and book.

          There are a few things worth noticing about this case:
          1. Notice how quickly the whole thing was dropped? That wasn’t a matter of fear of a suit by the police. That’s just Phoenix (unless it’s changed in the last dozen years). Even Dean expected it to go away quickly.

          2. Notice that his weapons weren’t confiscated, he was just told he couldn’t posses during the bond period. I wonder if his bond was his own recognizance? There was no mention of bail.

          3. There was a mention of “similar stunt” (as one story put it) with the police before for carrying at the airport. He was stopped, asked why he was there and sent on his way. End of story. Since it was just a couple days after a shooting at LAX, I can see police asking a question.

          4. Reading the news reports, I got the sense of their trying to inflate this as much as possible. Not much success. Some of the comments are amusing, though. Especially of the type of “how did he get that far into the airport?” Like I said, there’s no need to “normalize” Phoenix.

          5. Why in the heck was he carrying a rifle to begin with? Ok… that’s a valid question, but I promised no Tempe/Mesa jokes.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Why in the heck was he carrying a rifle to begin with?

          Dr. Steinmetz is a well-known LGOC advocate.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Raul Ybarra: I didn’t miss his point but it appears that you missed mine. A small part of that point is that it can’t be all that normalized since the Doc got followed and wrongfully arrested.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Raul Ybarra:

          1. He was harassed by law enforcement. Regardless of how quickly anything was dropped, he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. That means there is still work to be done.

          2. He was deprived his right regardless. This is unacceptable. He committed no crime but the officers did.

          3. Asking questions is a far cry from the harassment in this latest incident. Anyone can ask questions of anyone else. The subject can refuse to answer and walk on. He did not have that liberty this time. The officers were wrong and they need to know that they cannot do this again.

          4. Like I said, there’s no need to “normalize” Phoenix. I disagree. AFAIK, there weren’t scores of citizens carrying rifles in the airport that day and he was harassed by law enforcement. More work needs to be done.

          5. Why were more not carrying if it is truly normalized to the extent that you and Mark claim? The wearing of pants in the airport is undoubtedly normalized. A lot of people were likely wearing pants. Did any of them get arrested for it?

  24. avatar Anonymous says:

    OMG! Open Carry! The horror!!! People carrying guns openly!! OMG! Time to open up a can of fear and loathing – right here on TTAG from TTAGers no doubt. I’m going to side next to Ralph and refer to you guys as “Raisins” from this day forward.

  25. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Just one of the fun games that government often pulls out of its bag of tricks. Good for the Doc. Bring a lawsuit and make them reluctant to violate rights the next time. Carry on!

  26. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    I’m generally very optimistic about the state and future of gun rights until I see support for stuff like this. It’s alarming to me that so many of us don’t understand that behavior like this doesn’t have any public support whatsoever and damages our movement more than every gun control group’s efforts combined ever could.

    For the record, “constitutionally protected” doesn’t equal “good”. Racism and other forms or hate speech speech are constitutionally protected, but walking around in an airport wearing a shirt that says “I hate (name an ethnic/racial group)” doesn’t make the first amendment stronger. I feel like people here are more interested in ‘keeping it real’ than they are in actually winning tactical and strategic victories for gun rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Openly carrying a rifle in a public place such as an airport is at the very heart of the Second Amendment. If the militia ought not be armed at an airport, of what value is a militia? The militia has more purpose to be armed in a public place than does any government alphabet agency.

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        I understand that you believe that, but your argument is a philosophical one. It doesn’t change the fact that this kind of behavior damages the public perception of 2nd Amendment activism and does nothing to advance gun rights.

        The entire pretense of normalization is preposterous anyway – people rarely see anyone carrying long guns in public, be it police, military or average Joe’s. I remember how militarized New York looked and felt after 9/11 with Guardsmen hanging around subway stations with M4’s slung over their shoulders. I don’t know if that’s what we should be striving for here.

        I love guns. I love being around guns and people who also love guns, but I acknowledge that some people don’t and I respect that. I’m not going to forfeit my rights for them, but I also don’t see a need to rub my rights in their face either. “Live and let live” goes a long way in convincing people that you’re right.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s not philosophical. The militia is the centerpiece reason the Second Amendment uses to explain why the right shall not be infringed.

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

          The militia is necessary.

          the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          How is that philosophical? It is clear and in plain language. If government wants to claim privilege to have armed agents in place at airports then the militia has even more purpose in those same places.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          goes a long way in convincing people that you’re right.

          Frankly, I don’t care if most people are convinced of what is right. I’m a free individual. If government doesn’t wise up, eventually it will see mass civil disobedience or flat out revolt. If masses of Americans don’t wise up, they will see even greater tyranny along with mass civil disobedience or flat out revolt. I write to give a POV for those who might understand Liberty except for a slight lack of perspective or understanding. For all of the rest… I really don’t care. Let those with ears hear.

        3. “I love guns. I love being around guns and people who also love guns, but I acknowledge that some people don’t and I respect that. I’m not going to forfeit my rights for them, but I also don’t see a need to rub my rights in their face either. “Live and let live” goes a long way in convincing people that you’re right.”

          Except you have exactly forfeited the moral high ground with that posture. They can force you to hide your gun possession away, simply because they claim that they are “uncomfortable”. Such a stance is not defensable. There are numerous gun ranges all over the country under attack because some homeowner within a few miles feels “uncomfortable”. Other peoples “feelings” do not trump constitutional rights.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          BlinkyPete, does that mean we should forfeit our rights to openly carry a holstered pistol because it makes some people feel “uncomfortable?” Is handgun OC “rubbing my rights in their face?”

  27. avatar Victor says:

    I’m vociferously RKBA, but I do not OC here in Phoenix for several sensible reasons. I don’t begrudge anyone else’s right or choice to do so. However, I do take issue with ‘sloppy’ OC, the same way as I do with other sloppy behaviors. It makes the carrier look like an arse, and by association (to the sheeple), ALL gun folks.

    I would equate the Doc’s action similarly. No one walks around holding their handguns in-the-hand, nor dangling from a lanyard cord. If you’re out on the edge of town, where critters are a possiblity, sure, I can go with having a slung rifle at-the-ready….okay. IF you’re in town, and you don’t want to leave your expensive rifle in your vehicle, how about a soft-side case? If you decide you need to tote a rifle w/you for protection duties, why not a backpack-style scabbard?

    I would be utterly embarrassed to mimic the Doc’s actions unless there was an honest-to-goodness local issue with civil unrest. Think in terms of the days/weeks after Hurricane’s Andrew in Florida or Katrina in N’awlins.

    Okay, that said…. the cop/s should’ve given the nervous tourist women a quick rundown on Arizona-style freedoms, and placated them with a “We’ll have a chat with the gent, ma’am.” It wouldn’t take but a moment to ask them if, “When the barrel pointed at you for a moment, was his hand around the grip or trigger area?”. So, me thinks the cop/s involved are probably lefties, LOL. OTOH, they certainly had a duty to have that chat, just to make sure he wasn’t looking to play-out a local version of LAX’s shoot of last year….and suggest a couple more discreet methods he may wish to tote his AR.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      If you’re out on the edge of town, where critters are a possiblity, sure, I can go with having a slung rifle at-the-ready….okay

      Really? Because that’s the exact thing that happened to CJ Grisham and he was arrested anyway. That’s what started the whole OCT movement–unlawful arrest by law enforcement for carrying a rifle in the country for protection from wild animals.

      suggest a couple more discreet methods he may wish to tote his AR.

      Are you really of the opinion that the doc was clueless about what he was doing? Or do you rather think he was doing this with a purpose?

  28. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    Just one final thought…

    Since he’s a doctor, did he ask himself if he owned guns and if so, did he store them safely?

  29. avatar Alfonso A. Rodriguez says:

    Mr Griffin: In regards to you answer to my previous comment – Yes, you forgot “I love you and I won’t come in your mouth”. Your point being….? I did try to perform a dialectic analysis of you arguments, but you have none that make any true sense so it is an impossible task. It was my mistake to interject myself in this discussion and give a common sense opinion to uneducated dilettantes. I did try to sound a bit like most of you but in reality I am a snob and rather use a more elegant style. Not the usual for an ex LEO and former USA artillery officer but there you have it, the curse of an expensive education when colleges used to teach people to think instead of just teaching facts to memorize. I have been around the world (literally) and lived in Europe so I have little patient for provincials like you. Do not bother to post a feeble retort because I will not read it; but go ahead if you think your dignity is being assaulted like the virtue of a Vestal Virgin. Keep trying, like Edward R. Murrow used to say: GOOD LUCK AND GOOD NIGHT. I promise this is my last post but I just could not resist and you did not disappoint with your feeble retort.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      I promise this is my last post

      How many times are you going to say that? Obviously you lack the strength of your convictions.

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