“Don’t point that f***ing gun at me!” Bill Polster yells at a cop in Calumet County Park in the video above. ”He’s got a gun pointed at me, that’s bulls***!” Indeed it was. “The [Wisconsin] Department of Justice says gun laws have been amended to allow open carry in state parks,” fox11online.com reports. “County officials met and say they will change their rules. The county’s attorney will write up the new ordinance and from there it will need to be approved by county board. For now, the sheriff’s department will not enforce the current ordinance.” So an open carry advocate schooled Calumet County on the law regarding open carry, at the point of a gun, while videotaping for YouTube. Kudos?

274 Responses to Wisconsin Cops Aim Rifle at Open Carry Advocate

  1. Open carry activist naysayers are ignorant. this guy did a very good thing at risk to himself because that city decided to hire police that don’t know the laws they are supposed to enforce

    • Well, the cop on the right, while apparently insufficiently informed about changes in the law, was certainly polite enough, but the one on the left looks a bit slow.

    • think the cops were doing there job upper management isn’t to smart for not seeing the problem with there ordinances.again the open carry don’t be a smart ass let the cops do there job then let the courts decide.still laws have to be inforced and that was all they were doing.

      • Let the courts decide, Tony??!?! Uh, the courts have decided…and they already decided that such an ordinance is illegal and superseded by state law.

        Police are NEVER allowed to simply issue citations and/or effect arrests based on invalidated ordinances. If they were, perhaps they could cite the “colored boy” for drinking from the “whites only” water fountain and “let the courts decide.” Is that really how you think things work? Back to civics class for you. smh…

      • Since the cops often decide that their jobs entail shooting and killing what turns out to be innocents, I don’t know that the courts would have anything left to decide. Dead is dead, there is no turning back the clock.

  2. In the meantime, a Sheriff’s Deputy has assaulted a man with a deadly weapon. How can those whose job it is to enforce laws claim to be unaware of changes in same?

    Where are all the cries of “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” now?

    • Nothing warranted throwing down on the guy. Wearing the badge is a privilege and if he doesn’t have the demeanor for it, get another job, perhaps as a librarian.

  3. And the le gets what for this? I’m guessing paid leave ie vacation time. I wish I got to point guns at people and get to take vacation.

  4. I really dislike these open carry advocates…they video this crap searching for attention and trying to cause a scene !!!

    • I know, right?

      They’re as bad as that Patrick Henry guy, with all those speeches about liberty. I mean just shut up Patrick, right?

    • Agreed. I get the point they’re trying to make, but their approach is terrible. Does this person really feel the need to carry a rifle and handgun with him wherever he goes? Probably not. So people like this should just stick to carrying what they need when they feel they’ll need it.

      Also, I get annoyed with the people that bash law enforcement for not remembering EVERY single law in the book. Yes, I understand their job is to enforce law, but you can’t blame them half the time for approaching open carriers that do so in odd situations. Should the sheriff in this video have pointed his rifle at the carrier, probably not, but other than that I feel the officers were calm and professional. And to all the people that bash LE for making a mistake from time to time, I highly doubt you are always 100% accurate at your job, or at anything in life for that matter. Mistakes are made, it’s how they’re handled that should be judged. I realize that there are cases where LE handles their mistakes terribly wrong, but feel this video warrants little to no bashing of LE.

      • Also, I get annoyed with the people that bash law enforcement for not remembering EVERY single law in the book.

        You mean the same laws that citizens are required to know and obey?

        Those laws?

        • The ordinances were probably posted at the park entry and so the expectation of most reasonable folks enjoying the park is that no firearms are allowed, or no open carry, whatever. The ordinance had not changed so the cops did respond based on an active ordinance. It is not their job to interpret state law as it applies to an ordinance.

        • I don’t know of many ordinances that are enforced at the point of a gun.
          If, as you say, it was posted. Your comment is entirely speculative therefore useless.

        • You had one job, Law Enforcer, one job. I don’t hear about firefighters using wood chips and gasoline on fires. Its in the name of the job! Literally half the job name is Law! Dog walkers know dogs, farmers farm, programmers program.

          Is it too much to ask for some standards from the people we are paying to put boots on our necks?

        • But that’s different, because being a cop is hard*, dangerous* work with low* pay.

          * Apparently being a cop is safer, in terms of injury and death, than almost all farm, factory, mining, logging, etc. jobs, and when traffic accidents are removed (the vast majority of cop injuries and deaths), being a cop is downright safe. Also cops tend to be able to retire with big fat pensions after 20 years. And in some states (like CA), they can transfer to an expensive jurisdiction (with a corresponding pay bump) for the last year, which sets their pension rate.

      • @Logez – I will admit that I make mistakes at work too, but mine don’t have the potential to kill. And if they did, I would lose my job.

        Any LEO that goes about pointing a gun at someone that isn’t threatening him or anyone else with imminent harm should lose his too. Or reconsider his career because he’s obviously too afraid to be in that positron.

      • [em]”Also, I get annoyed with the people that bash law enforcement for not remembering EVERY single law in the book.”[/em]

        So you’d rather LE make up laws on the spot or just enforce the ones they can remember?

        It’s their job to know the law!

        • What if the cop feels it’s illegal? Does that count? The anti-freedom crowd loves to use feeling in place of facts in other areas, why not here as well?

      • “Does this person really feel the need to carry a rifle and handgun with him wherever he goes? “

        Huh?

        Is it the boolean “and” that is giving trouble or the carrying?

        There’s a BUNCH of gun owners that carry everywhere they go. “Feel the need” is not the correct phrasing.

        “Have the right” is the correct phrasing.

      • Agreed. I get the point they’re trying to make, but their approach is terrible.

        What is the correct approach Logez?

        Does this person really feel the need to carry a rifle and handgun with him wherever he goes? Probably not. So people like this should just stick to carrying what they need when they feel they’ll need it.

        What about concealed carriers? I guess they don’t really need it either. In fact, lets have a discussion between the differences of needs vs rights.

        Also, I get annoyed with the people that bash law enforcement for not remembering EVERY single law in the book.

        Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is what the cops say. Maybe they should take their own advise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
        They might not be able to remember every law in the book, but those cops and the DA won’t hesitate to arrest a person for breaking one they do remember. Furthermore, if a person points a gun at anyone, the cop won’t hesitate to arrest him for “disorderly conduct with a firearm,” however why is it the cop can point his firearm at law abiding citizens breaking no laws.

        Yes, I understand their job is to enforce law, but you can’t blame them half the time for approaching open carriers that do so in odd situations.

        That is why the open carrier’s are protesting by… “open carrying.” The cops hopefully learn a lesson out of it.

        Should the sheriff in this video have pointed his rifle at the carrier, probably not, but other than that I feel the officers were calm and professional. And to all the people that bash LE for making a mistake from time to time, I highly doubt you are always 100% accurate at your job, or at anything in life for that matter. Mistakes are made, it’s how they’re handled that should be judged. I realize that there are cases where LE handles their mistakes terribly wrong, but feel this video warrants little to no bashing of LE.

        They did handle it better than others I have seen. However, they did point a rifle at an otherwise peaceful protester open carrying. And… that attitude it not within the scope of supply for the services we have hired them to perform as public servants. All parties should follow the same rules – none of this double standard garbage. It is against the law for me to threaten a person at gunpoint – cops should not be doing it either.

      • “Also, I get annoyed with the people that bash law enforcement for not remembering EVERY single law in the book. “

        Wow.

        This kind of comment is just plain stunning.

        Where did you go to cop school? Just wondering, because where I went to cop school, they kinda did make a pretty big deal about this sort of thing.

        You don’t go around ENFORCING the law if you don’t know what it is.

      • Warrants “little to no bashing of LE” ?!?!? Let’s recap: LEOs aimed a loaded firearm at an innocent citizen…a citizen who’d broken no law…a citizen who the LEO was prepared to gun down in an instant. And that requires little to no bashing of law (mis)enforcement? Umm…if I aggressively drew down on you while having a buddy detain and disarm you FOR NO REASON would that warrant little to no bashing? Or would it warrant your lawful right to lethal self defense?

      • I like how you make excuse for professional LEO not knowing all the laws. However, that defense didn’t work for the young lady in New Joisy. They are throwing the law book at her.

        • As a gun owner and lover of guns and gun rights I loatheeeee how many redneck super right wing gun folk there are on this site expecting human beings to be PERFECT ALL THE TIME and spending their time bashing them when they’re not. Most of you people make me sick and it’s weird to say as a 2nd amendment supporter that it would almost be worth it to see everyones guns taken away so I could hear your ridiculous bitching stop (along with anti-gun folk) and you could move on to a topic I don’t care about. Go to the range, shoot your guns, have fun, put foot in mouth.

        • Wow, sounds like Logez resides in Jersey city limits already; I think every last ‘fly over country’ stereotype was nailed in that (verbal) ejaculation.

          Logez, carrying and (especially) wielding guns MEANS being perfect. Every. Single. Time. Failure to do so is monumental-to-infinite in consequence. It is not an option or tolerable, and any failure you survive is attributable to luck alone (just like how the activist was NOT shot by the officer –pure luck). That’s what responsibility is, and that is what is lacking when you let people bend the rules; more so when you only bend them for certain people.

          The new Progressive Utopia: a safe place where humans can lazily devolve without consequence. Where none need strive for perfection, and mediocrity is the order of the day

      • You Said “Does this person really feel the need to carry a rifle and handgun with him wherever he goes? Probably not. So people like this should just stick to carrying what they need when they feel they’ll need it.” Tell how are you supposed to know when your going to need it? There is absolutely no way for anyone to know when they will need it. Like its been said before, its the Bill of RIGHTS not the Bill of NEEDS. And yes a police officer should know all the laws that he or she is expected to enforce and keep up to date on any changes. It’s their job.

    • i always cary a recorder when i OC to protect myself in the case of a LEO encounter and ensure my rights arent violated. i would prefer never to see a cop or have to interact with them but always record just in case. im not seeking attention. i carry a pistol during my normal daily activities.

    • I really dislike these open carry advocates…they video this crap searching for attention and trying to cause a scene !!!

      Shooting their guns would cause a scene. Since it is legal to open carry, It is the cops that are causing a scene pointing their firearms at people in an aggressive manner. They are filming for protection. If they did not the cops could change the story at any time and they would have nothing to back on to in order to “prove their innocence.”

    • I don’t see how this is even really an advocate type situation, in the sense of pushing for change. The change had already taken place, namely state preemption of county ordinances barring open carry in parks.

      At this point, it’s just plain exercising the right and not really pushing for anything. You might as well bitch about all those licenced concealed carriers going around exercising their CC right, privately and quietly, without any particular advocacy involved.

      • All these people concealed carrying are going to cause us to lose the right to conceal carry!

        Yeah, that sounds pretty stupid.

      • From what I gather, the local muck-muck had claimed he would have officers enforce the local ordnance, despite the pre-emption rule. I would say it is better to trust, but verify, that the situation has actually changed with an OCer weather balloon than to take a mere piece of paper (court ruling) at face value. If police are not found to be harassing carriers needlessly, there is no longer a need for them to carry in order to bring attention to the harassment. Like all activists, these guys strive to work themselves out of a job.

    • My only complaint is that he uploaded 10 minutes of pointless walking. It might have been better to start the video at the point where he’s watching the gorgeous sunset at the lake shore.

      Personally, I’m getting pretty sick of the armchair quarterbacking of civil rights activists. To some people, there’s simply no reasonable way to exercise the right to bear long guns – and even if there were, the mere presence of a camera somehow means that they are “provoking” an encounter with law enforcement. How on earth is walking down a road, and standing in a park watching a sunset provocative?

      How about this? If law enforcement upheld the law, and left law-abiding citizens alone, there would be no videos to upload.

      Civil rights activists should always have cameras at the ready. The camera is intended to document evidence. The only ones providing the evidence to be documented are the people acting under the color of law, violating the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.

      I’m a concealed carrier, but all of this repeated, nonsense criticism of open carriers is going to push me into their camp.

    • You’d rather turn a blind eye to local officials refusing to follow state laws? If you do that there is no such thing as a Bill of Rights.

    • For over three years, I was in private discussions with county officials about illegal firearm prohibition signs on a piece of county property. For all of that time, they kept telling me, “John, we know you and if you carry concealed no law enforcement officer will say anything.” One problem with that was a special privilege that they were extending to only me and others that they knew personally. I told them repeatedly of my disgust over the very notion. Those not on this private VIP list couldn’t exercise their right and I refused to take unfair advantage. Finally fed up, I open carried on the property in protest of the illegal signs. There was a law enforcement encounter. I presented my argument at a county meeting that week and the signs were removed within two weeks. Now, those same county officials and peace officers thank me because ALL law abiding citizens can now exercise their right to bear arms on this popular county property.

      Open carry is sometimes the best and only way to expeditiously call government into account. We’ve witnessed this time and time again in Ohio. My private discussions went nowhere. Those officials and officers freely admit that the signs would not have been removed if someone had not forced their hand and carried openly. They were thankful that it was me because I was less likely to sue them; a successful lawsuit was entirely possible under Ohio Revised Code 9.68.

      Props to the open carrier for standing up, especially while having a firearm unlawfully aimed at him. He’s a free man and I’m proud to call him a fellow American.

  5. Not sure what to say.
    Police that don’t understand laws are dangerous. Here in WA, you can legally make a left turn on red at a one-way street. However, pretty much no one knows that or does it, so if you happen to get pulled over for running the light you will probably get ticketed and have to waste money appealing it.

    In the case of OC, the consequences of ignorant police could be deadly.

      • Dumb. You realize it’s as ignorant to make a generalization about ALL of law enforcement as it is for people like Shannon Watts and Bloomberg to do so about gun owners, right? Think twice before posting a comment that adds nothing to the conversation other than negativity generated from stereotyping.

        • Only the police are going to break into the wrong house under color of law and shoot the family dog. How’s that for a generalization?

        • If cops quit doing stupid things and blatantly committing felonies, we’d stop pointing out how cops do stupid things and commit felonies. The cop who pointed a loaded weapon at a citizen while “enforcing” a law he should know is invalid should have been in cuffs.

        • I stand by my blanket statement. The mere existence of this group of people who are more equal than others is a danger to liberty and to public safety. The fact that a small minority of officers actually value liberty and use their moral judgement rather than enforcing laws does not make the concept of a police force less dangerous.

          The American founding fathers would balk at the concept of a mercenary law enforcement system, just like they would the mercenary standing army. If professional police forces had existed in 1789, I’d suspect there’d be a Constitutional prohibition against them.

        • The thought of a police chief being able to decide who can and can’t have a gun is more terrifying to me than a politician making the call. There’s the illusion at least that we can vote out the politician.

    • He is a hypocrite because much like the open carriers he complains about wanting attention he pretty much does the same behavior here. I guess Paul hasn’t been on one of his 50 daily coffee breaks yet today.

  6. You think this guy would of had the state law linked to his smart phone to show the cop, hopefully he’s more prepared next time. Or that the cops actually know what the laws are.

  7. Advance 10:14 in to see just another OC idiot intentionally provoking a confrontation. Because everyone straps on a GoPro and long gun to enjoy a pleasant stroll in a park.

    Cool.

    • Speak of the devil, the anti-carry anti-gun guy himself. Posted your comment a full minute before I could post a reply to another comment about how you haven’t made your appearance here yet today.

    • “Next time strap a gopro to your gun to prove you aren’t sweeping people!”

      Protestor straps on a gopro.

      “What are you recording people for attention w****?”

      Enjoy your freedom to belittle protesters. People who don’t even agree with you are fighting for your right to do so.

      • “People who don’t even agree with you are fighting for your right to do so.”

        +1000.

        Profoundly important concept. Rights are tricky things to respect when OTHERS are exercising them. Glad you get it, B. Not everyone here does.

    • Good point! After all, the best way to ensure we maintain our rights is to never exercise them.

      I think Paul is really Shannon’s nome de plume. That’s the only explanation that makes sense.

    • Well no shit Paul! That is how demonstrations work. News flash for you…we are at war for our rights. One side is “intentionally provoking a confrontation” and the other side is using the force of government to kill, threaten and disarm the populace. Which side are you on Paul? It is apathy from those like you on the right coupled with activism on the left that has eroded our civil liberties over time. Well some of us want to change that trend and it aint going to happen by “leaving your guns at home son”. You either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! Paul…get out of the way!

    • “Hey, Marty, you must be some kind of Wittenberg Ninja nailing the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of a church. You’re just causing trouble. Go home and keep quiet.”

      Rev. Paul T. McClain

      • Paul T. McCain
        Title: Resident Open Carry Troll
        Job Description: To use ad hominem attacks on all OC individuals, preferably using low IQ or idiot as a descriptor of aforementioned OC advocate.

        Seriously Paul, Get over it.

    • What constituted intentional provocation?

      Was it the act of openly carrying a long gun?
      Was it the act of walking down a public road?
      Was it the act of standing on a lake shore and watching a sunset?
      Was it the act of carrying a video camera?

      Which of these acts constituted intentional provocation? Or if not one of those, or some combination of those, what other action evidenced in the video constituted intentional provocation?

      Why don’t you just come out and say that you are against open carrying of long guns, and be done with it?

  8. Being my state, and my stomping grounds, I can say Calumet county has a lack of “real crime” to deal with….soooo….

  9. This guy was a lot more accommodating than most OC activists, letting the cops disarm him.

    Meanwhile, WHY WAS THE ONE COP TRYING TO CHAMBER CHECK/UNLOAD A GUN HE CLEARLY HAS NO CLUE ABOUT? I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the ND.

    Some OC activists are jerks. This man has the patience of Job.

    • WHY WAS THE ONE COP TRYING TO CHAMBER CHECK/UNLOAD A GUN HE CLEARLY HAS NO CLUE ABOUT?

      I’ve been through that personally. Seems a lot of cops think a badge makes them unsurpassed experts in firearms. My experience included him muzzling me with my own gun while trying to clear it (instead of just leaving it alone), then dropping the chambered bullet on the ground while yelling at me to “watch my language” about you-can-guess.

  10. Cops routinely make up what’s legal or illegal on the fly. If they just don’t like something they act and leave it up to somebody else to sort it out. Even if they know it’s not illegal they will still often act just to inconvenience/punish you for doing something they don’t like. In their defense they couldnt possibly be versed in every law on the books. Neither can we. But if we mess up it’s our ass. If they mess up it’s paid vacation.

    The other wonderful group this may involve is the idiot public who didnt know this was legal. Now that they know they’ll just have to “do something” and demand changes.

    • Here’s another twist on your post. In the larger jurisdictions the police have “invisible quotas” for stops and arrests. This means they must arrest a certain number of people in a week or month to maintain their “effectiveness.” So they arrest anyone who seems close in any way to breaking a law, whether it’s a good arrest or not. The idea is “Let the DA sort it out.” Meanwhile someone has an arrest record, and possibly gets a night or weekend in the slam.

      There’s your motivation.

  11. The scariest part of this is that the officer drew down on someone with he/she presented no threat. Even assuming open carry was illegal, the individual open carrying is not a threat while not actively touching the gun.

    Both cops are already armed, and having the second guy flanking is probably wise, but no reason to actually draw a bead if no threatening move is made.

    cops do not like to have someone actively aiming at them. neither do citizens.

    now, minus the active aiming, i think the cops handled this reasonably well. The state vs. county law makes their job enforcing the law murky, however, they acted with courtesy and with discretion by informing the person videoing of the law and citing a warning only.

    • But it’s okay, because they’re cops, not mere citizens. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

  12. The guy in the video is the bozo up there who parades around dressed in all black, often with his tactical kilt on, open carrying a sidearm and long gun.

    An attention whore and no ally of constitutional carry, just another poster child that Bloomberg can use against us.

    • Paul,

      In all seriousness please tell us some examples or situations outside the home where you adamantly support the right to carry firearms openly.

      As a thought starter, I’ll throw out my recent hike at a popular and remote tourist location that has black bears, wolves, and cougars as potential four legged predators. (Moose were also possible which have a reputation for stampeding people.) And given the popular and remote aspects of the location, human predators were possible as well. So I choose to carry a .44 Magnum revolver with an 8+ inch barrel. Because that revolver is huge, it is impossible to conceal while maintaining quick and ready access. Therefore I carried it openly with a modified shoulder holster which means that it was plainly visible to any of the tourists walking toward me. Was that okay in your mind?

      When do you support openly carried handguns? When do you support openly carried long guns?

      • You’re wasting your breath on PTM. He believes in the Second Ammendment BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT, (emphasis on BUT), only in certain situations. Open Carry is only for our beloved law enforcement officials. Ain’t that right Paul???

        (No offense intended toward any popo…..I just want the same rights they have.)

    • Ooh..an ad hominem attack. Those are usually the mark of a well reasoned position…oh wait, I meant the other thing.

      As long as the kilt stays down, I see nothing wrong with walking around wearing a kilt and open carrying. You and your Everytown (sic) buddies need to start respecting the rights of others, or just mind your own business.

    • “An attention whore and no ally of constitutional carry, just another poster child that Bloomberg can use against us.”
      Are you describing the activist, or yourself? You seem single-mindedly determined to sow discontent and disorder among a group of people that would be presenting a more unified and effective front of support.

      Concern troll comes to mind…the most subtle of small game

  13. Yes, kudos.

    This is a great example of how new laws can be passed and yet nothing changes – until an activist forces the change.

    It takes courage to do stuff like this. And an understanding spouse – my wife would kill me if I did something like this.

  14. Almost bailed after the burp at ~ 36 sec, and then scrolled through the great Wisconsin scenery to see the interaction. IMO the only issue is the cop pointing the gun. Seems to me that the ordinance is still in effect for the cops being that the “The county’s attorney will write up the new ordinance and from there it will need to be approved by county board.” If the state’s law does invalidate the ordinance it is the county board and attorneys that are negligent in not making the appropriate change(s) to all applicable ordinances or, as allowed making a desired ordinance that conforms to the law.

  15. Mr. Polster has a healthy set of brass ones in my opinion. I would not have the intestinal fortitude to argue with a police officer pointing a rifle at me. I’m glad it worked out ok, I’m glad no one was hurt and I’m glad that no dogs were shot. I mention the dogs as this police dept. seems like they might be avid dog shooters.

  16. There sure was a lot of incompetent dicking around in that video. Leaving the pro-vs.-anti OC debate out of it, why on earth did the cop take both of the guys guns, then try to figure out how to chamber check them with one in each hand? This was not all that different from the ND we saw the other day, where the cop transferred his pistol to his weak hand, then started clobbering a car window with this baton in his strong hand. One task at a time, people.

    Then – what’s with all the smart phone manipulation by the OC guy? That was just plain weird – was he organizing a flashmob onto the scene? Trying to play Angry Birds? It was incomprehensible.

    Lots of fail in this one.

  17. Idiots making the responsible gun owner look bad. If you can’t walk around somewhere with your dick out, you shouldn’t be walking around with your gun out. And really, the guy was just minding his business with a GoPro strapped to him? Yeah I see that happening every single day.

    • I think TTAG has been targeted by the Bloomberg Astroturf forces, what with all the Mobys pretending to support the second amendment, while trashing anyone who attempts to exercise the rights it protects.

    • GoPro –the guy’s an activist testing the police response for abusive behavior. What, you expect him to be some sort of mentalist and ‘divine’ that guns would be wrongly drawn on him for legal behavior? The purpose was to bring the abuse to light, and to hopefully ensure the police do not do it again as a result. Basic civics.

      Dick hanging out –guns aren’t dicks. People who cry “MWAG” are dicks, and they can show their faces anywhere. Cops who point loaded rifles at law-abiding citizens are dicks, as are those who would defend their actions

  18. I don’t understand these people against open carry activism. What’s the point in having rights if everyone is too afraid to exercise them? Might as well make it illegal and get it out of the way.

    • You have the right to free speech; that doesn’t mean you should go burning a flag at Arlington just because you want to exercise a right. And it doesn’t mean you should be celebrated if you do so.

        • The point is that the whole “I’m doing it because I must to make sure I can” line is bullshit, plain and simple. They’re not Rosa Parks and they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t on the pro-gun side already. So while I don’t think it should be illegal, I feel no need to support their methods any more than I would someone burning a flag.

        • To equate this act of liberty to that of burning a flag just proves you have no valid argument because you know among conservatives that flag burning is seen as incendiary. How does open carrying for a point or whatever reason cause any rational reaction? Carrying guns has a real proven purpose. Burning a flag? I call analogy fail on your part Hannibal.

        • @Hannibal

          How does normalization happen if open carry “activists” are kept in the back rooms and the rest of you quiver in fear of the opposition? What frightens me is that you, as a police officer make generalizations and character judgements based on the fact that this guy (and everyone else who practices “open carry activism”) is operating within the law. How do you handle someone who actually DOES violate one of the various laws that are so numerous and arbitrary you “law enforcement officers” can’t even keep track of them? Moving violations should be a capital offense, no doubt.

          I’m disinclined to believe you have the moral authority speak to who is or isn’t “on the pro-gun side.” You and guys like Reverend McFoot-in-mouth may need to reexamine your prositions and start donating to MDA instead of the NRA.

      • If I proceed to burn a flag I don’t deserve a state sanctioned beatdown or rifle pointed at my head. If there are consequences dolled out by the government for exercising my rights then it’s not a right at all. It might as well be illegal.

        Now if individuals who have no governmental authority have a problem with it and they want to use their words to show me they have a problem with it, that’s their right as well. This is about the state telling you something is legal then turning around and shoving a rifle in your face when you partake in said legal activity.

        I’m personally not going to go around open carrying a rifle into Chile’s but if someone else wants to I have absolutely no problem with it. The people who do have a problem with it, too bad. They have a right to express their objection but they have to suck it up like adults.

        • I don’t believe it is even protected by the first amendment. I call it an act of treason. Very different from petitioning the government for grievances. The same people that think flag burning is protected think that pornography should be openly displayed.
          And here’s the thing…once they get our guns, try burning their flag then.

        • Then from your point of view would it be A-OK to shoot or arrest people who burn the flag? That’s rather authoritarian and tyrannical. I hate to see people burning the flag, I would even ask them to stop but if they don’t comply I’m not going to execute them on the spot.

          It IS speech whether you want to recognize it as such or not. We may not agree with it, but isn’t that why free speech is protected? Free speech isn’t only valid as long as you personally agree with it. If we don’t stand up for the speech we don’t like, who’s going to stand up for your speech if the majority doesn’t like what you have to say?

          If someone’s actions aren’t genuinely harming anyone then it doesn’t deserve a response from authorities. It’s a waste of time, resources and tax money. Save the arrests and the ammo for people who actually deserve it such as rapists and murderers.

        • Then from your point of view would it be A-OK to shoot people who burn the flag?

          Well, isn’t that the mother of all Straw Men.

          Sorry, but I don’t waste my time on such sophistry.

        • Well you did call it treason. Do you know what we do to people who commit treasonous acts in this country? We either lock them away for life or kill them. Do you really think people who burn the flag to make a political point should be locked up or killed? I think it’s a valid question unless you were exaggerating your opinion on flag burning.

          Again, I’m not a personal supporter of flag burning but I can’t deny that it IS a form of free speech. People need to learn how to not want things to be illegal just because they personally don’t like it. I hate smoking with a passion, I think it’s disgusting and abhorrent but do I think the government should be allowed to tell businesses that it’s illegal to smoke on their property? No!

        • Flag burning is political speech (the most protected form of speech) you dolt.

          Burning the flag, while disgusting, is, and should be, legal.

        • EXACTLY Thomas! I’m glad someone around here gets it! If you want people to get arrested for burning flags just replace “burning flags” with “bearing arms”. Now you know how a gun grabber thinks. That same emotional response that is devoid of all logic and reason is the same type of thinking that fuels the anti-gun folks.

        • Thomas and Brad, Try burning the American flag around me. Good luck with that. Some of us give a shit about losers desecrating the symbol of the greatest society in history. Read the story of the lives lost during the inspiration of the Star Spangled Banner. I will not let those deaths go in vain.

          Open carry demonstrations are hardly the same as flag burning. Open carry is meant to bring awareness. Flag burning is meant to piss people off.

        • Flag burning is meant to send a message just like open carry of long arms is. I think both practices are stupid, but I don’t think either should be illegal.

        • Open carry has a specific message. What specific message does desecrating the American flag send except total lack of respect, common decency, ignorance of history and a willful desire to instigate outrage? Just stop it. It is not the same thing.

        • Michael,

          Thankfully pissing people off is not a crime. I’m not an advocate for flag burning. Never have burned a flag and I never intend to. I’m aware of how disrespectful that is. That said, I recognize that if people burn the flag as an expression of their free speech, I don’t want them to go to prison. Putting people in prison for expressing themselves, no matter how stupid it may be is what third world despots do. This is America. We don’t throw people in prison for saying or doing things we don’t agree with.

          This is what makes America great. The ability for everyone to express themselves no matter how ridiculous or stupid. People are allowed to do whatever they wish up until the point of them actually harming someone else.

          Flag burning makes me upset but I am able to use my cognitive and higher brain functions to recognize that it should not EVER be considered a crime. The day we start locking people up, attacking them or killing them for expressing themselves would be a very sad day for America.

          Just because something is disrespectful or it pisses you off doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Period.

        • People burn flags in response to specific issues. People don’t go out and burn flags because they enjoy the smell of smoke. It is meant to send a message. Stop pretending it isn’t. I bet you believe the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church aren’t protected by the freedom of speech either.

          “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” That is the view of someone who truly believes in Liberty. You are nothing more than someone who has the mentality of an anti-gunner with a different agenda.

        • Right on Thomas. I’m a Black man and I would fight to the death to allow the KKK and other hate groups to stand outside on the corner and spout their ignorant nonsense about me and my family. I would allow them to desecrate the memory of my slave ancestors and the victims of Jim Crow. Why? It’s their absolute right to do so.

          I may not like it. I may even hate it but it gives me no right to throw them behind bars just because it stirs an emotional response in me. I weep for the future of this country because I see a lot of people in government who believe just because they personally don’t like something it should be illegal. This kind of thought needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.

          If I won’t stand up for others to speak freely, no matter how crude or offensive who will stand up for me when I have something to say? Symbolically or not, free speech in all its forms MUST be protected to the same degree that we defend the 2nd Amendment. I am a constitutionalist. I don’t cherry pick amendments I want to or don’t want to follow.

          Anything less than 100% of the constitution is unacceptable and if anything less than that is acceptable to you then I don’t know what to tell you, but it certainly frightens me.

        • Where is your honor sir. We may not need a law that prohibits hate speech but we need a law that protects you for defending your honor and bitch slapping a person yelling obscenities at you and your family. This country used to be self policed by men of honor. The American culture of integrity has been invaded by people of weak character and they have been given permission to disrupt the natural harmony of a free society.
          There is a difference between freedom of speech and creating a nuisance. I don’t care what contortion the court has done to interpret the 1st amendment. You try to burn my flag and I can get to you, I will put a stop to it. I am free to do that. Flag burning is a stunt, not a specific grievance. I believe you want to simplify the 1st amendment so you don’t have to sort out what should not be allowed and that is a slope that we can’t go down. I don’t agree with the flag burning is open carrying analogy. A better comparison is a group of people having an orgy in a public park. By your logic, that is freedom of expression and you would fight to the death to protect that freedom.

        • Exactly.

          First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
          Because I was not a Socialist.
          Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
          Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
          Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
          Because I was not a Jew.
          Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      • If you have reason to believe the police will threaten you, arrest you, beat you, or shoot you/yours for burning that American flag…you’d better pray someone is willing to burn it on your behalf so you won’t have to.

  19. I’m quite disappointed in TTAG giving these open carry trolls the attention they so desperately crave. I personally despise YouTube open carry trolls.

    I’m all about promoting and advancing the cause of open carry, but these people who just walk around with cameras strapped to themselves SOLELY for the purpose of recording the inevitable confrontation with law enforcement are just plain dumb. There are better and more intelligent ways of educating local law enforcement and local government concerning laws and ordinances.

    I feel no pity for people who pull this crap and then wind up having officers point guns at them. He was looking for a good confrontation and he found it, end of story.

    • Ever thought that perhaps…just perhaps…officers Friendly here may have learned a thing or two about the law? That the LEOs may have recounted this encounter with their fellow jackboots back at the donut shop thereby educating them? That perhaps next time these LEOs see a man legally carrying a firearm they’ll actually KNOW THE LAW?

      THIS is just one of the many reasons for OC activism.

      • Like I said in my post, there is a much more intelligent way to approach the issue. I’ve open carried a pistol in the state of GA, I’ve never even received a second look, not even from law enforcement. What I don’t advocate, is walking around with multiple pistols and rifles on my person with the sole purpose of video recording the inevitable confrontation with responding law enforcement for my YouTube channel. I’d like to think intelligent 2nd Amendment advocates would hope and wish for far better than blindly praying that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the officers involved in this MIGHT have learned something and that they just MIGHT bring it up at the doughnut shop. I get it, the guy was protesting the local sheriff and yes , he did prove his point , he just didn’t go about it he most intelligent way.

        • “Like I said in my post, there is a much more intelligent way to approach the issue”
          Gaging the actual, ground level response of the police force to a law-abiding but controversial behavior is actually the most direct way to ensure that the State’s claims regarding the subject match their actions. It’s not a tool for change (as claimed) so much as a way of measuring progress. Was he shot? No. Was excessive force displayed? Yes. Was police corruption on display? No. Partial success, trending toward success, I think. A few uneventful follow-up test walks should ensure the abuse has cease for the time being.

  20. i support open carry. i open carry my pistol where it is legal in my state, i always have my recorder going or my video glasses recording. this is purely that in the event i encounter a LEO i have evidence of violation of my rights. have i had interactions with Leo’s? nope not in the 4+ years i have been open carrying. if i do one day will i have my recorder running? you bet! will having a recorder protect my rights and ensure the Leo doesn’t violate them?? damn straight. ill also say i don’t support LGOC except for hunting purposes. i don’t feel a need to walk down the road with a AR strapped to my back. but please believe i will have my .40 on my hip in its holster

  21. @uncommon sense

    I have answered your question many times. Sigh.

    I have no objection to open carry, looks like we will finally have it statewide in Missouri here very soon. Plan on doing it myself. Have done it, with my handgun. No biggie.

    I am opposed to the stunts pulled like the idiot in the video who goes out looking for attention and confrontation with the cops.

    Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand?

    • Paul,

      While I read TTaG a lot, I honestly do not remember any of your comments in support of open carry.

      Do you support my recent hike where I carried a large revolver in plain sight?

      What would have to be different for you to support the man in this video? Would his open carry be okay if he didn’t have a video camera?

      I honestly don’t understand your beef with the man. Suppose he liked to carry an air tank and respirator mask around … something which I have never seen nor heard of anyone doing. Would that be “wrong”?

    • So, let me make sure I have this correct-

      If I open carry a handgun to protect myself in the unlikely event I have a need to defend myself, you’re cool with it.

      If I open carry a handgun to protect myself in the unlikely event I have a need to defend myself, AND have a camera to protect myself from possible persecution by law enforcement officials (or anyone), I am an attention seeking whore?

      • Don’t entertain an argument with the guy, just shame him. He isn’t one of us and we should give him as much of our time as Mrs. Watts…

        • I like where your head’s at…

          It’s funny, I remember an article on TTAG that I couldn’t believe was written by him, I don’t remember the title, as I agreed almost wholeheartedly with what was written. In stark contrast to the “should lose gun rights without due process” (any male accused of domestic violence) and constant “Chipotle ninjas” and 99% of open carriers are attention whores posts.

          At one point I thought maybe there was an inner “pro-freedom” Paul T. McCain trying to come out. Pretty sure I was wrong.

        • Agreed. I don’t post on here like my life depends on it but, I have certainly never seen PTM anything but, extremely unfriendly, derogatory, and rude towards any OC’er. Let’s see a pic of you OC’ing Paul! OOPS! Right….my bad……can’t carry a camera with you or you’re making a political statement. That’s ok, I can just imagine it…..or not.

    • Paul’s not a boat rocker.
      Unfortunately, when they come for Paul’s rights nobody will speak up, because there will be nobody left.

    • The OC/Police interactions are a test of the State response to controversial but legal behavior; you know, the type that a tyrannical state seeks to reign in. In this case, the police partially passed; there was no arrest/violence and thus no gross injustice (unless possible PTSD counts), but excessive force was displayed (possibly recklessly, and some negligent gun handling, to boot) so you can’t claim the police response was in top condition here. I would suggest a couple more test walks are done, and if they pass uneventfully, with nothing more than dutiful curiosity by officers at hand, we can safely conclude there is no threat to the rights of OC’ers by the police. At that point, more mundane logic of daily personal utility takes over and there is no longer a need for carried long guns; but so long as the police are abusive, it is very important riflemen are present to remind them what their legal boundaries are.

  22. General question for you folks who open carry: Do people who just carry a handgun on their hip get hassled this much? It seems like any time i hear stories about it it’s always a long gun, especially when it’s for activism purposes. Do i just not hear about it as much, or do handguns just not get bothered as often?

    • nope 4+ years OC a pistol in a holster on my hip. not one LEO encounter. yes i have a concealed license but prefer OC

    • I open carry a Glock 21 frequently, and have done so with no comments at all in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho. However, the fact that it was in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho might have something to do with it.

    • In Texas, the open carry of pistols is illegal. We tried OCing non-firearm pistols, such as airsoft, black powder, and replicas, but the police either didn’t know or care about the legal difference between black powder revolvers and modern revolvers, and actual defense with the other two is only a bluff/deterrent..
      The other reason is simple time and money. If you want to carry for defense, but only have a cheap rifle, like an SKS, or Hi-point carbine or what-have-you, you can just strap it to your back and be on your way. Alternatively, you can try and pay for a pistol, then pay the government $ for a license, then pay for the class, range time, fingerprints, license photos and wait a few weeks for the license to finally show up so you can carry a tiny pistol under what few clothes you dare to wear in August in Texas. So that’s why we down hear in Texas OC long guns. The recording is just to cover our butts when officer Barbrady shows up.

    • I do get hassled a bit, but I’m also in Florida where not a lot of people know about our little fishing exemption for open carry. Also my fishing spot is on a fairly high traffic walking path full of soccer moms.

      Oh and to be fair if bait’s scarce I’ve been known to pop out out of the brush with a machete and net in hand with a live mullet between my teeth, besides the gun on my hip. I can’t really fault people for reacting a little shocked.

      Wait. Yeah I can. Damnyankees

    • It used to be just as hazardous to open carry a pistol as it is now to open carry a rifle. About 15 years ago, a second amendment supporter in Tucson took his pistol from his truck to his home. An anti-neighbor saw him do it and called the police. He was charged with disorderly conduct. I am convinced that he was charged because he was politically active. Forturnately, David Hardy agreed to take the case. When they appeared before the judge, he asked for the police officer’s notes about the event. There were none, and the judge threw the case out. Consider. That was in Arizona, where we are now arguing about open carry of rifles in the unsecured zone of the airport.

      In Wisconsin six years ago, a man was openly carrying a pistol in a holster while planting a tree on his own property. His name is Bradley Kruse. Again, a neighbor called the police. They came and arrested him for disorderly conduct. Charges against him were dropped several months later. Now we are arguing about open carry in state parks. The police in Milwaukee had used the “disorderly conduct” ruse to keep people disarmed for decades.

      Open carriers have learned through hard experience to document their encounters with police, because the police memories are often selective, and sometimes police lie. One of the most effective means to obtain a change in police behaviour is a court settlement that requires the retraining of police.

    • Open carry my 1911 any time it’s legal and wont get me fired. Never even been kicked out of a restaurant. Last week I was carrying in a Chipotle with a cop standing right next to me. No issues whatsoever. This is in Central VA btw.

    • We did get hassled, worse than this in some cases, while OCing only handguns. We then began OCing long guns and hassles focused on that and ignored the handgun OC. Now, we can OC handguns most anywhere without problem and long guns in many places. I suspect that if we stop OCing long guns then the focus will return to hassling handgun OCers. If we stop OCing both then I imagine that CCers who print would eventually get hassled. This is all in spite of the fact that OC is perfectly legal in Ohio and has been all over the news and in successful lawsuits.

  23. And nothing was accomplished except that soon it will (again) be made illegal to do that. Good freakin’ job.

    There are people who open carry every day while hiking, hunting, fishing, and walking in the woods or other areas. These people aren’t recording and aren’t just waiting with a (figurative) hard-on for some attention; they’re the reason open carry should be legal. Guys like this just manage to convince people why they should pass ordinances against carry. Great.

    • with my sunglasses no one can can tell im recording. i doubt state laws will change, wisconsin is a pre-emption state. had that person been fined or detained he would have a lawsuit. WI statute 66.0409

      meaning county/city cant make gun laws stricter than the state gun laws. they are enforcing a illegal ordinance.

    • Spoken like a true Fudd.
      Open carry should be legal…but only for outdoorsmen…and it’s for hunting, so you really you only need to open carry a bolt action rifle…and there’s probably nothing wrong with registering it with the government…what’s that? mandatory confiscation? Ah, crap!

    • I agree entirely. Here in Texas the OC crowd is doing its damdest to completely discredit a thoroughly traditional, completely legal practice that was not in question . . . until they politicized it.

      • Dang peasants hunting on the kings land! It was better before all these peons started doing traditional things I like! Without those OC activists this wouldn’t even be in the public eye, and now we have the Dem and Republican candidates for governor arguing over who supports open carry and the 2nd amendment more.

      • You have your opinion. Mine is different. Open carry support appears to be growing in Texas, as I see it.

        I admit, it is hard to measure precisely. But I see a strong and growning open carry movement, who universally report that they get far more approval from the public than they get disapproval.

        You also had both governor candidates come out in support of legalizing open carry of handguns *after* the open carry of rifles demonstrations had been well under way.

      • A little game theory for you:
        If OC activists are so efficiently destroying support for their cause, why are the Bloomberg folks so fixated upon misrepresenting and outright slandering their activities? If they are so truly damaging to our side, I mean. You never, ever, ever interrupt your opponent when he is self-immolating, so why do they seem to almost daily come out with a selectively cropped photo or what have you specifically designed to illicit a negative reaction from causal readers who lack context?

    • The world according to Hannibal:

      And nothing was accomplished except that soon it will (again) be made illegal to do that. Good freakin’ job.

      Meanwhile, back in the real world (FTA):

      County officials met and say they will change their rules. The county’s attorney will write up the new ordinance and from there it will need to be approved by county board.
      For now, the sheriff’s department will not enforce the current ordinance.

      Seriously, some of you must be Bloomberg plants.

    • How is it presently legal if it gets a loaded gun drawn on you? Think about that for a minute. What other legal activities, controversial or otherwise, get a loaded gun drawn on you? If there are any, would the activity or the sighted firearm be the ‘wrong’ part of the scenario?

    • That has not been the result in Ohio at all. Because we were recording, cases were successful. The right to keep and bear arms has been fortified and strengthened because of people openly carrying handguns and long guns; recording was essential in most of the cases.

  24. @uncommon

    Do I support you carrying your handgun in plain sight? Sure, assuming you were doing so legally.

    Do I agree with your choice? No way.

    If I was in active bear and moose country, I would carry my trusty Remington 870 police magnum loaded for bear! Nice and full of slugs.

    I do not support the idiot in the video for the reasons I have already provided.

    Nuff said.

    • …except you never actually gave a reason. You called him an idiot and claimed he was intentionally provoking a confrontation, without any evidence, or reason why provoking a confrontation would be wrong.

      Here’s an example of a reasoned criticism of someone’s behavior:
      Paul T McCain’s TTAG posts against open carry are wrong, because they consist of name calling and feelings, without any substantive content or logic.

      Now you try.

    • “Do I support you carrying your handgun in plain sight?”
      Does that include all pistols? AR or AK pistols? With a brace? Desert Eagles? Or just large polished and expensive revolvers and 1911s? What about PDWs that fold up nearly as small as large pistols, like the Uzi, or those that weigh less than the above pistols or big N-frames like the MP7 (one can dream)? What about Buntline revolvers with long barrels, do those count in your estimation?

      The ATF can barely decide what constitutes a pistol, so how can you claim to support ‘pistol’ carry but not ‘rifle’ carry? These are distinct, legal terms, but with broad and arbitrary coverage in practice. If what you really meant was that you support carry of pistols that can’t easily be seen, you are hardly a supporter of open carry (subtle carry?) If you support pistols below a certain size, what size, how did you arrive at that particular size, and what logical argument is there for not tolerating a gun a fraction of an inch larger? There’s so much fault in your line of reasoning that I doubt you’ve given this more than half a glass of thought.

  25. Fortunately the open carrier lived. Maybe the open carrier should be offer an LEO job since he is more aware of the applicable laws than the cop was.

  26. Ah, and the Anti-OC Clown Patrol rides again! Look at their fat faces squished up against the windows as they stack their dime-a-dozen-selves up in the back like cordwood! Watch in awe as they slowly and clumsily pile out, and begin wheezing as they spout their anti civil rights agitprop! It’s even complete with deliberate mischaracterizations combined with willful utter ignorance and historical illiteracy as to how demonstrations actually work and how rights are preserved with them!

    Amazing. Truly amazing.

    Seriously, you nay-sayers really well and truly are every bit as nutty as you falsely claim that these demonstrators are. You all are also just as detrimental to our cause as you falsely claim that these protestors are. Worst of all, not a single fucking one of you in the Anti-OC Clown Patrol can even articulate exactly why or how they are, and how you aren’t.

  27. I’m from IL. Even though I paid for my IL FOID, (because GUNS!) I am not paying anything more for my 2A rights. I have a family reunion trip planned for WI next month. Will I OC? (WI allows non-residents to OC) Hell Ya!

  28. Not exactly the best decision for the cops, but hey, everyone needs to be carrying around a Draco pistol on a sling, as well as a pistol with a drop leg holster on it…because that’s totally normal.

    If I was in a park on a nice day like that and I saw him, I too would be cautious…and so would all of you.

    Defending this guy and what he’s doing isn’t helping the political situation for any of us. This is not normal…ever…

    • “Defending this guy and what he’s doing isn’t helping the political situation for any of us. This is not normal…ever…”

      A singularly solipsist remark.

      History did not start with your lifetime.

      And, if you check US history, you might find that open carry of arms was not only “normal” in the US until fairly recently (OC of long guns was ordinary enough into the 1950’s for example), but completely unremarkable.

      It’s amazing how the other side has manipulated the population’s thinking on the exercise of Second Amendment rights, and guns in general.

    • Nope. I see people OC regularly, and the only reason I pay more attention to them is because I’m checking out the gun.

    • Cautious, Hans? Okay. Sure. Mostly because the antis have passed so many anti-2A laws that OC is uncommon. But cautious is entirely passive: observe the guy from afar, perhaps. But that’s a far cry from LEOs drawing down on the guy. That’s not cautious…that’s abusive, dangerous, and in this case ILLEGAL.

  29. Context. It would help to have been able to see this from other side. If this guy was all dressed in black and has a history of confrontational behavior, then I understand the cops caution.

    Now any one who twists that to put words in my mouth, dont bother. There is good PR and bad PR.
    This is not. Its appears to be self aggrandizement for the Youtuber, IMHO, and
    remember, that frank feedback is from someone who is SUPPORTS an strategic goal of securing OC, AS PART OF CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.

    Now Imagine how counter-productive this video is, for someone new to guns, that you want to educate…

    ItS LIKELY TO come across as weird, angry, A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL, fulfilling the fears of the MDA types…that ALL 2A supporters are like this guy. And justifying the caution of the cop in low ready, in support of the contacting officer. Do I support THAT tactical decision? Well….I wasnt there. All I see is this video.

    Get it?

    • I might agree with you from a PR standpoint but, I think even that view is a bit short sighted. You are assuming that everyone who watches this is a minivan driving soccer mom who is potentially going to be terrified at the idea of someone standing up to the cops. What about up and coming Call of Duty kids (just an example) who might think it’s cool to stand up for yourself against the cops or anyone else? What about any woman out there who has ever been harassed, belittled, or whatever by a cop during a traffic stop? I’m not advocating being an ass to the fuzz but, standing up for yourself is not a bad thing and is not generally viewed as bad by most people, I think. Just my HO.

      • Mo, thanks for the reasonable reply. One of the many benefits of TTAG, as a relative newb, just as in your example of the up and coming COD gun kids, is wee can all have a reasoned debate on facts, and agree to disagree, without organizing a circular firing squad. Kind of what some trolls hope to do…

        So just a tiny quibble, no I dont expect the prototypical soccer mom to be terrified by the youtuber standing up to the cops. I’m more concerned that she would be terrified by a lone gunman stalking about a county park dressed in black tactical clothing, with an evil black rifle held in a frightening manner.

        Its context, that the Youtuber and his defenders seem determined to ignore here.

        I also question some of the underlying motivations, and your own words “standing up to the cops” is a hint of that attitude, that all by itself, taints the message. In fact, that is the sub-text, that it seems is too often what is going on with the youtubers acting like jerks, y’know “fight the pigs, man” , etc, etc…

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4ufIrMtXg

        Thats where the PR message about OC can go sideways, because most people with life experience, even soccer moms, get that its about the person, and their issues with “authority”,
        rather than the somewhat arcane legal definitions about right to carry that you are trying to demonstrate.

        Thats a very gray area, of course, entirely up to interpretation, but if you dont consider the message and presentation, in context…how your audience might perceive it, then you not only miss the target, but shoot yourself in the foot, to use a gun analogy.

        Again, thanks for the reply, in the tone of TTAG, “a clean, well lit place” (Hemingway), for thats why people come here to learn the facts.

      • Thanks Mo.
        To your question about “standing up to the cops”, thats what I mean about self-aggrandizement.

        If you act like a weirdo, all black tacticool, being confrontational, then most people, not just soccer moms, are going to conclude YOU have issues, and dismiss what you have to say on the OC issue…;).

        (i’d link to the classic Monty Python clip “I am being repressed” but the comment filter seems to be hating that, or my kindle…you get the point, I hope…)

        • I get what you’re saying and don’t disagree with that at all. I’m not going to tell anybody on here how they should or should not OC but, when I OC I have a strict policy of being extra mindful of my appearance and my attitude. I believe that every time an OC’er interacts with anyone out in the wild he or she is speaking for all of us. I try to be extra friendly and talkative which is not in my nature but, I think it is very, very important. None of that is required of course but, I do think it helps our cause. I also don’t OC with a camera in hand but, I’m not going to bash others for doing it. The front line of any conflict is often a murky, ugly place and we’re not all going to agree on how to advance the cause. So, maybe these youtubers are doing the right thing and maybe they’re not but, doing nothing is definitely NOT the way to go!

        • One more tiny quibble, in service to the hypothetical COD kids Mo says might take a lesson here.

          I do NOT recommend escalating any situation where someone has a rifle pointed at you, by yelling and swearing. The YouTuber already has his camera evidence, he has made his point,

          and if anything I’d be talking very calmly, to that cop, careful to move slowly and do as told, and reminding him that his partner has us both in his line of fire…

          I think back to the Costco Las Vegas shooting for why. One false move with an amped up cop…

          Its like stepping into the crosswalk when the light changes…yeah, you had the right, but the speeding car driven by the clueless driver took your life…

          Live to fight another day…

        • I personally find it convenient and telling we never seem to get the context needed to vindicate controversial behavior like this. Heck, remember the big stink about the ‘mall-ninja’ OC’er in Starbucks –who happened to be at a base in Kuwait or something like that where it was perfectly acceptable/expected? Too many of these things smack of media manipulation, wherein a lie is sent ’round the world before the truth (about guns!) can get its shoes on.

  30. A couple of comments. We could have done without the first 10 minutes of the video.
    I thought sure we were going to have another “No you can’t see my ID” deal, like the guy who got arrested the other day on an “obstructing an on-going investigation” deal, because he said he would not show the officer his ID.
    This guy (Polster) didn’t have any problem with the ID demand, and stayed out of jail!

    • So you should give up your ID to stay out of jail? SCOTUS ruled that you don’t have to. With some exceptions they’re a pretty smart bunch. I’ll stick with them…..the cops can shove it.

      • I think we all hashed this out the other day, so I’m not going to get into again except to say “Whats the big deal about showing your ID?”

        • SCOTUS would not have ruled that I don’t have to show my ID if it was no big deal. This is not Nazi Germany and thank god no one can demand your papers. Even if it’s as minor as a cop jotting down your name on a report I feel that you could end up labeled as a trouble maker especially if it’s repeated encounters. More to the point it’s just as much my right to not show my ID as it is to carry a gun. You can submit your papers to the powers that be if you want to.

        • Indulging Officer Friendly can win you no victories, and can only result in his getting more information that can be used against you. The trick is in making you think that he thinks you are guilty of something and need to appease him in order to win back his perception of your innocence. But if he thought you were guilty of something, and had any articulable reason to, you’d be brought in. So the only reason he continues to illicit information is because he is not that far down the path –yet. And the only reason he would go down the path at all is to land an arrest –not to further satisfy himself of your innocence on top of a lack of evidence of criminality.

    • This guy (Polster) didn’t have any problem with the ID demand, and stayed out of jail!

      He allowed the officer to take his ID because the officer cited a specific ordinance that he was violating, thus meeting the burden for compulsion of ID. He needed the ID to issue the written warning. At that point, it doesn’t matter that the ordinance was invalidated because it was preempted by State law. He did exactly the right thing – as did the young man in the previous video.

  31. Mhm. I see no problem with this. He is not breaking any law & the people are in no danger. If I want to carry a Barrett .50 around, it’s still my 2nd Amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution to do so. When you limit what you carry based on “looks” or what you believe should suffice, then you are actually defending the Pelosi argument of “Why does a civilian NEED an assault rifle?”
    No free American should have to justify why he or she caries their weapon of choice. We shouldn’t limit people’s right to carry. 

  32. The best analogy for provocative open carry I can come up with is flag burning. They’re both provocative but constitutionally protected activities that serve no purpose whatsoever other than calling attention to the jackwad doing it. Flag burning resulted in the passage of a lot of blatantly unconstitutional, reactionary laws against it. It took years of wasted time and effort to undo those laws through the court system. That’s where I see provocative open carry heading.

    If open carry is already legal, you don’t need “activists” for it. I bet dollars to donuts if this guy had strapped a Glock to his waist, he could have walked around the park until Kingdom Come. Because he wanted to put on a show, he had to carry a couple of military-style weapons and a Go Pro to make sure somebody got worked up enough to call the police.

    There’s a big difference between exercising your rights and trying to bait somebody into calling the police so you can make a YouTube video.

    • You’ve just made the argument FOR provocative open carry! Flag burning–a 1A right–was so provocative, insulting, distasteful, (and politically useful to the politicians) that they passed a bunch of illegal laws against it…thus elevating the issue to SCOTUS level review where it is now absolutely established as a right IN ALL 50 STATES. Perfect! A small price to pay for enforcing 1A protections, not wasted time and effort.

      • The burning flag is one thingy but The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is another. That wording is set up as it stand. Any limitation of bearing arms of 2Amendment is infringed upon bearing arms. I strongly dislike when people say, I’m All pro gun but.. There shouldn’t be no but. If someone wants to carry a 50 Cal. Let that individual be.
        Any Gun grabbers don’t care what your firearm you carry they simple don’t care.

      • I bet it’s either:

        Any open carry with which he does not approve due to (select one or more) mode of dress, mode of carry, type of firearm, vintage of firearm, place the arm is openly carried, if pictures of said open carry were taken, weight of the carrier, it was done solely as activism.

        -OR-

        Any open carry.

      • Go look up the definition for provocatIve. I’m guessing you know what open carry is. Once you figure out what provocative means, then you’ll know what provocative open carry is.

        Some signals that open carry is provocative: Your only real reason for carrying is to draw attention, you choose your firearm to carry based on how well it draws attention, you’re carrying a firearm that’s highly incongruous to your surroundings, you’re running a video camera . . .

        • Provocation =/= escalation or threat. Sorry, but that’s how it is in a free country. People will do things you feel are inappropriate, but which have no impact or bearing on yourself.

        • @TT:

          Go look up the definition for provocatIve. I’m guessing you know what open carry is. Once you figure out what provocative means, then you’ll know what provocative open carry is.

          Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I didn’t ask what the dictionary definition of “provocative” is; I asked what, to you, constitutes “provocative open carry.”

          Some signals that open carry is provocative: Your only real reason for carrying is to draw attention…

          You’ve described intent. Provocation requires action. I can intend to provoke you all I want, but unless I take some action toward that end, no provocation exists.

          …you choose your firearm to carry based on how well it draws attention…

          So, which firearms are acceptable/suitable, and which ones aren’t? Are any long guns acceptable/suitable, or is open carry of all long guns inherently provocative?

          …you’re carrying a firearm that’s highly incongruous to your surroundings…

          What makes a firearm “incongruous”? (Note: I dismiss out-of-hand the offended sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved and hoplophobes.)

          …you’re running a video camera

          How is running a video camera “provocative”? To suggest that merely running a video camera is provocative is absurd.

          Bottom line: in legal terms, provocation cannot be passive; it must be active, and intentional. Merely walking down the street, conducting lawful activities (open carrying firearms, both handguns and long guns, running a video camera) is in no way whatsoever provocative.

          Calling the police because you observe someone conducting a lawful activity is a matter of personal decision, not provocation. The police responding to a report of lawful activity is a matter of personal choice (or policy), not provocation. The police overstepping their duty/authority, and mis-stating state law and/or local ordinances is a matter of personal choice, not provocation.

          If none of those personal choices were made and acted upon, this guy’s video wouldn’t show anything other than him taking a stroll in a park.

        • I’m kind of a stickler for using words correctly. These definitions are from Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.

          Provocative: adj. 1. tending to or serving to provoke; stimulating, exciting, or vexing.

          Provoke: 1. to anger, exasperate, or vex. 2. to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity). 3. to incite or stimulate to action. 4. to give rise to, induce, or bring about.

          Whether something actually provokes or is provocative ultimately depends on the beholder, not the actor. For example, people sometimes provoke animals into attacking them without having any intent to do so. Strippers try to provoke people into giving them money. If no money is forthcoming, no provocation has occurred regardless of the stripper’s intent.

          Provocative open carry is an accurate description of this activity. In this case, the actor’s intent is to provoke a police encounter. Sometimes it works. When it does, the activity is by definition provocative. If you don’t like the use of the word provocative because of its negative connotations, maybe you should re-examine your opinions about this issue.

        • Whether something actually provokes or is provocative ultimately depends on the beholder, not the actor.

          Legally speaking: you’re wrong.

          There is a reason that SCOTUS has held consistently that merely exercising the right to bear arms, where lawful to do so, does not constitute unlawful activity. There is a reason that disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace ordinances require proof that the accused intended to cause a disturbance.

          I don’t care about the colloquial meaning of a term; I care about the legal meaning of a term. Why? Because I can’t control the irrational fears or behaviors of others, and I refuse to allow the exercise of my rights and freedoms to be restricted based on the irrational fears and behaviors of others.

      • “Your only real reason for carrying is to draw attention”

        The blind, speculative assumptions are strong here.

        • Not so much. If the dude didn’t intend to draw attention, he wouldn’t be running a Go Pro.

        • Not so much. If the dude didn’t intend to draw attention, he wouldn’t be running a Go Pro.

          Intending to draw attention, and anticipating that one will draw attention, are two entirely different things.

          The only thing that he has stated that he intended to do was to draw attention to the illegal stance of the county sheriff, who had stated his intent to continue enforcing a county ordinance that had been preempted by state statute. And in that effort, he was completely successful. The county has stated that it will rewrite the ordinance, and the Sheriff has relented, and stated that he will no longer enforce the preempted ordinance.

        • “Not so much. If the dude didn’t intend to draw attention, he wouldn’t be running a Go Pro.”

          Justify your own blind assumptions any way you want. That does not make you correct.

    • Open carry is legal, yet cops aimed a rifle at him. Is it really legal then if it can’t be done without being attacked by the boys in blue? This injustice needed correcting, and he got it corrected. What if it had been a man with his family and not this guy? Now it won’t be an issue once the cops all get their updated powerpoint training.

    • And yet public schools specifically teach children it is legal to burn a flag on the ground, now (even though it rarely is, due to fire ordnances). No one questions this, and the act has even become something of a symbol for the 1st amendment. Talk about a dismal failure.

  33. I have WV State Code (***and DNR regulations***) for firearms printed in any/all of my range bags, as well as in my car.

    Informed officers of the law are not uncommon.

    Recently, WV state law clarified that individuals are allowed in the (public or personal/private) woods with firearms. This was like a hellfire and brimstone offense to the DNR up until June 2014. Their operational power would have you in jail, and confiscated guns on hand taken permanently. Any chance of someone in the woods potentially “hunting”, even if just plinking or target shooting would be deemed as illegal hunting.

    Now, as long as you don’t have dead game, hunting dogs, or traps, you’re allowed to do whatever the hey you want. if the DNR confronts you, they’re permitted to ask for name / ID / ask to take a look at any/all firearms you’re carrying *and not have the ability to arrest or confiscate* unless you are deemed to clearly be hunting illegally. (GOD BLESS the WVCDL.)

    We were plinking near a cliff face in a WMA a few days ago, and a state trooper pulled by saying he heard shots.

    We had a cardboard sign about 100 feet away from us (one entrance to the cliff wall) letting people know we were pistol practicing. Lots of people fish here too. Officer states that it is illegal to be possess firearms in the woods out of hunting season. I waited until he was done speaking, and asked him if I could pull out the state code that shows that laws had been updated.

    He agrees.

    He goes back to his SUV with my printout packet, makes a few calls. Thanks me for being polite and informing him. Went on his way.

  34. “He has a rifle pointed at me.”

    “I know. It’s for our safety.”

    So, if a badge-wielding civilian can shoulder a rifle and point it at a person who poses no reasonable threat, and claim that the action is “for his safety”, that means that non-badge-wielding civilians can do the same thing?

    (Hey kids: don’t try this at home.)

  35. So when do the OCer win the big lawsuits or ever change any laws for pro 2A issues? Seems like they do more harm then good.

    • There have been several settlements in Wisconsin. After the Brad Kruse case, the Attorney General said that open carry was not disorderly conduct, the state finally passed a shall issue concealed carry law, one of the best in the nation, which included an explicit definition saying that open carry of guns was *not* disorderly conduct.

      Similar results have occurred in Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Arizona. There are numerous open carry walks occurring in Arkansas to show that they now have effective constitutional carry in that state. I recall settlements in Colorado and Washington State as well.

      http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html

    • When have OCers ever changed laws? You mean, like in this very case, where the County finally admitted that it needed to rewrite its ordinance, and the Sheriff finally relented, and stated that the current, invalid, preempted ordinance would no longer be enforced?

      That sort of change?

  36. “County officials met and say they will change their rules. The county’s attorney will write up the new ordinance. So Shannon Watts takes credit for all of this?

  37. I am all for open carry but I am not as brave as this man to actually practice because of ignorant police officers as demonstrated by this video. Who is to say that they shoot first ask questions later? Lucky for him twiddle dee and twiddle dumb didn’t do just that. Being a police officer should involve keeping up with every law that has come into effect and also laws that have been invalidated. You would think his boss would send out a monthly or weekly newsletter informing the department on recent changes to county, city or state laws whatever it may be which obviously would include firearms laws. A citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law if charged with something they do wrong so why can’t the cops be held to the same if not higher standard. Why do they get paid? Do they receive performance reports yearly? If so the bottom of the barrel officers need to be let go. Men and women that are empowered to enforce the law and can easily take a persons life should be held to a higher standard.

    • Because the individual officers are rarely held accountable in criminal and civil court, there isn’t motivation to be that current on the issue. Usually, unless there is a video and the OCer does everything near perfectly, the agents of government are relatively safe from legal and financial repercussions. Even then, the individual officers involved are often free from personal liability. In other words, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of government while the OCer is damned if they do and damned if they don’t, so to speak.

  38. Funny how they let him off with a warning. It’s almost like they already knew their little ordinance violated state law or something. Harass (muzzle) innocent law abiding citizens and nobody will come down from Madison to put your little department in it’s place, but actually prosecute someone and you’ll be in big trouble.

  39. Pointing a gun at someone, outside of assault or them presenting a threat is called ASSAULT. The cop should be arrested. Approach the guy…until he goes for it, he’s not a threat. Ask him to leave the property and problem resolved. He’d have been much calmer at the police not assaulted him.

  40. I usually think Open Carry is a bad idea but this guy was doing it to protest a sherriff who said he “Didn’t care what the state law was.” Because of this, I applaud this guy for acting in the long tradition of Civil rights protest.

  41. Can we stop bitching at cops about the Constitution? For one thing, there’s no such thing as an absolute right. For another, the cops are there to enforce state and local laws, not to be scholars of constitutional law. As soon as you bring up the Constitution to a cop, you’ve lost the argument.

    • As one who has been a cop, let me be the first to say this has got to be one of the most asinine comments I’ve seen on TTAG in a very long time.

      Good cops are the very embodiment of what the Constitutional protections represent. They don’t violate INALIENABLE, natural rights. There is no reason to do so, for a good cop.

      If cops are not supposed to understand these Constitutional provisions, they why on this earth did we have to do “Legal” training EVERY SINGLE MONTH? That training was almost always on reviewing case law having to do with 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment issues.

      In other words, they (the powers that be) were trying VERY hard to make sure cops in that state were not violating people’s rights in the exercise of their duties.

      • Not to mention that they took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

        It means very little if their supervisors get to tell them what is constitutional or not.

        The very nature of the oath means that they have an obligation to study and understand the Constitution in order to follow their oath.

        • I don’t think you have any idea of the scope of constitutional law. One time I checked out a textbook on constitutional law from my college’s library to look at. It was three inches thick. And it just a selection of cases covering a variety of topics. It wasn’t an encyclopedia of all the constitutional law cases ever.

          What you said is like saying a biology professor should have an intimate knowledge of physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, meteorology, and oceanology in addition to biology . Police officers deal with very specific aspects of the Constitution. It is not feasible for them to be experts in all areas of the Constitution.

        • “I don’t think you have any idea of the scope of constitutional law.

          This is pure nonsense. We are not asking cops to be scholars on the history of case law, but only what the laws actually ARE in their jurisdiction.

          Have you ever taken the oath? If so, did you not feel the responsibility of what you were swearing to as you said the words?

          To be as blunt as I can be, but not with malice, you are wrong. I know it is anathema in this day and age to say that to people, but if you think it is necessary to equate Constitutional Law scholarship with the practice of Law Enforcement on the street somehow absolves cops of know the laws, that’s VERY dangerous thinking.

          “One time I checked out a textbook on constitutional law from my college’s library to look at. It was three inches thick. “

          Again, so what? What difference does that make?

          To repeat, cops don’t need to know all the case history and legal justifications for WHY judges have ruled certain ways, but they darn sure need to know what the law it in order to apply it.

          In the state where I worked, it was a FELONY to arrest someone without being able to tell them…ON THE SPOT…what they were being arrested for. Not the next day after looking it up, but RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

          We had three ‘degrees’ of burglary, for example, and three degrees of Criminal Sexual Conduct (sexual assault). When you arrested someone, you had to know which applied…RIGHT THEN AND THERE, or you were committing a felony yourself.

          So, I did not care what the law was in 1873 or some such, or what Judge Scalia wrote in a dissent in 1962…those are the realm of “Constitutional Law” but meaningless to law enforcement.

          But, that’s a FAR cry from a cop not knowing the laws of his state or ordinances of his jurisdiction.

      • So what you’re saying is that cops are trained specifically on areas of the Constitution where they’re most likely to run into problems? You realize that has nothing to do with being an expert on constitutional law, right?

        Basically what I’m saying is, while I’m sure a lot of the guys on this site could practically write a dissertation on 2A cases, I doubt very many of them could have an intelligent conversation on the implications and limitations of, say, the article 1, section 8. Same thing applies to cops. They don’t need an intimate knowledge of the second amendment, so they don’t get one.

        • “You realize that has nothing to do with being an expert on constitutional law, right? “

          Seems like the only person mentioning them being experts on Constitutional Law in its full depth is you.

          So, I have to call “straw man” on this.

          My calling your remark “asinine” was an over reaction, so sorry about that.

          I was conflating your comment with one above saying it is reasonable for cops to not know all the laws they are enforcing. My bad. Again, I apologize.

  42. This is absolutely absurd. Open carry is one thing. I open carry a side arm frequently. When you go walking in a park with an AK-47 is a totally different ball game. Honestly he looked like he was hoping to be confronted. He really wasn’t walking in the park. He were essentially walking down the middle of the street with what I assume is a GoPro hoping someone would call the local law enforcement on you. The way he spits out the ordinance/laws was shear proof that he knew exactly what he wanted to happen the moment he strapped on his gun and camera and decided to go for a walk. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the second amendment but people like him take it way too far. He and people like him are the reason open carry is such a debated law. You have absolutely no need to carry a rifle in a park. Just stop.

    • You are correct, he did want to have an interaction with the sherrif’s deputies. He was carrying openly in the park because the Sherrif had stated that he didn’t care that the local ordnance was illegal under state law, and would still enforce it. Which to me is messed up for that Sherrif to do. The OCer was bringing that to light.

      And I’m not sure “I’m all for the second amendment but…” means what you think it means.

    • “You have absolutely no need to carry a rifle in a park”

      Since when is the exercise of natural rights defined by YOUR sense of “need?”

      Who gets to be the arbiter of “need?” I nominate Shannon Watts. That way, she can say we don’t have a “need” for any gun whatsoever and the issue of Open Carry of long guns in parks is moot.

      Would that be better?

      Or, does this game only work when YOU are said arbiter of need?

      What the dude was doing was legal. “Need” is irrelevant.

  43. Last time I checked, some form of a 2 way communication device was a required piece of equipment for LEOs. I would think that a man in a park OCing, citing code, might be a good reason to call in for some clarification of the applicable law or ordinance (or lack thereof).

    That being said, bad call on pointing a rifle at the man, and good call on the interaction after that was resolved, minus the poor procedure for making the weapons safe.

  44. had a simler incident a few weeks ago walking to work and had to stop and use an atm at a local gas station, i wa open carring my glock 17 in a shoulder holster, i didnt make it a block away when i had 6unit cars on me guns drawn. they were told to back down by their sgt who knows me but a few tried to pull a that gunlooks like it could be counted as concealed under my arm and forced me let themtake it for “safe keeping” while they talked to the DA. i went the very next day ( didn get done work untill 11:30pm) and got my glock back. the one that took my gun said that the da said they could easyly build a case on me but decided not to. Once i got home i called said DA and she said she told themto go fuck themselfs and that they give my firearm back ASAP or they would lose their badges and to call her if they try anymore shit. This is also in Pennsylvania

  45. Just SMH. I’d hate to see more restrictions placed on carrying, but idiots like this are making me think it might be necessary.

    • Just SMH. I’d hate to see more restrictions placed on carrying, but idiots like this are making me think it might be necessary.

      More restrictions might be necessary? Really? Who’s side are you on, exactly?

      You fools always out yourselves; you just can’t help it. Go back to wherever Bloomberg sent you from.

      • Yeah, because supporting long gun OCing in inappropriate places and completely banning guns are the only positions one can hold, right? lmao

        • “OCing in inappropriate places”

          More self-outing.

          Define “inappropriate place” to OC.

          Oh, and while you are at it, define for me the appropriate places for exercising the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Seems like your position is consistent with the BLM’s setting up “First Amendment Zones.”

          Or, maybe we could some places where sworn affidavit is not needed to present probably cause for arrest and “well, I think he might be up to something” justifies hooking someone up and taking them down town.

          Your Statist, government loving “we get to decide WHERE people should carry” worldview is showing.

        • Well, let’s start with airports and public parks. And no, I don’t hate our government and don’t feel particularly repressed by onerous laws. I love my country – go figure.

        • Well, let’s start with airports and public parks.

          And why should open carry be considered inappropriate in such areas?

          Does that include police officers (i.e. those who commit gun crimes at a rate an order of magnitude greater than gun-carrying, law-abiding citizens)?

        • OK, why would anyone have to OC an AR at an airport or public park? Just because a tiny percentage of gun owners think they should be able to carry everywhere? There’s no point in arguing this. The vast majority of Americans agree that there should be reasonable restrictions (as defined by society) on carrying. The absolutists have already lost this battle.

        • OK, why would anyone have to OC an AR at an airport or public park?

          That wasn’t the question. The question was: why should open carry be considered inappropriate in those areas.

          Just because a tiny percentage of gun owners think they should be able to carry everywhere?

          Tiny percentage? Citation needed.

          There’s no point in arguing this. The vast majority of Americans agree that there should be reasonable restrictions (as defined by society) on carrying.

          The vast majority? Citation needed.

          Also: what, in your opinion, constitutes “reasonable restrictions” on carrying? And why do you consider such restrictions to be “reasonable”? What public good do they cause? What crime do they prevent?

          The absolutists have already lost this battle.

          You mean, like the “absolutists” who wrote shall not be infringed?

        • Well, let’s start with airports and public parks. And no, I don’t hate our government and don’t feel particularly repressed by onerous laws. I love what my country has become – go figure.

          FIFY lizzrd

          Yeah, go figure. 😉

        • @Bill:

          Yes, that’s right, lizzard. You either agree with Chip or you’re against us.

          Actually, I am questioning statements such as the following:

          I’d hate to see more restrictions placed on carrying, but idiots like this are making me think it might be necessary.

          Yeah, because supporting long gun OCing in inappropriate places and completely banning guns are the only positions one can hold, right?

          Well, let’s start with airports and public parks [as inappropriate places to open carry long guns]

          OK, why would anyone have to OC an AR at an airport or public park? Just because a tiny percentage of gun owners think they should be able to carry everywhere?

          The vast majority of Americans agree that there should be reasonable restrictions (as defined by society) on carrying.

          (I left out the ad hominem, which is tangential but only further moves comments such as these into the camp of the Bloomberg types.)

          What is the meaningful, practical difference between “reasonable restrictions” and “sensible gun control”? How is this language any different from the Bloomberg camp?

          Either we have rights, or we don’t. Either those rights are enshrined and protected in the constitution, or they are not. Either shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, or it doesn’t.

          The fear of someone open carrying a long gun is simply irrational. The vast majority of crimes and murders are committed with handguns. Those who commit crimes and murders with long guns don’t open carry them en route to their crime.

          Is it rational to fear someone open-carrying a hammer or a baseball bat slung over the shoulder (or even held in the hand)? It is even less rational to fear someone open-carrying a long gun slung over the shoulder, because more murders are committed each year using either hammers or baseball bats than are committed using a long gun.

          Thus, there is no reasonable justification for restricting the free exercise of law-abiding citizens to open carry long guns, anywhere – just as there is no reasonable justification for restricting the free exercise of law-abiding citizens to carry, openly or concealed, any firearm, anywhere.

          If you’re so worried about the reaction of the masses of common people to witnessing law-abiding citizens exercising their rights, maybe your time would be better-spent, and more productive, working to educate people about their irrational fear and hoplophobia, instead of insulting people who are doing nothing more than exercising their rights.

    • Then you are anti-RKBA and ought to stop wasting your time posting here and get on with letters and calls to your legislators for more gun control. You’re issuing a veiled threat and I’m calling you on it. When you have to shoot, shoot; don’t talk.

  46. Take the written warning and make the call to the lawyers.
    Do not argue with the police even when they are wrong.

    Lawyers exist for a reason, to deal with violations of laws…

    • So, we should all just say “Yes, Massa” and take whatever is dished out upon us?

      I disagree.

      There are quite a few videos on youtube where folks “educate” cops on the law and the cops admit they were incorrect (sometimes after being corrected by a supervisor).

      I’d say at best it’s a case-by-case thing and it may be hard to judge which way to go.

  47. No kudos from me. He was walking around with a camera looking for attention. Is that the best way to “school” local law enforcement? No. He could just as easily been passing around flyers with the state law.

    Having said that, the cop pointing a gun should be disciplined. The chief of police should be taken to task for not having informed his officers of the changes in the law.

  48. These open carry idiots are going to be the reason why we all lose our gun rights. This guys clearly went out looking to cause a scene.

    • Of course he did but the OC-Fanatics in these parts are incapable of rationale thought on these points. They just foam at the mouth at any suggestion that there are BAD tactics and GOOD tactics.

      I honestly doubt most of them are competent with their firearms to begin with, but just like to talk a big game, but would probably have hardly any idea what to do if they actually had to use their firearm in a crisis situation.

      • “Rational[] thought” – you keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        Once again, “rational thought” is defined as an assertion that such open carry efforts as depicted here will result in a loss of gun rights, when back in the real world, the specific open carry effort depicted here actually resulted in an increase in de facto gun rights.

        • And yet they don’t. But keep saying it and maybe someone will believe it.

          Chalk it up to reading comprehension failure, then?

          FTA:

          County officials met and say they will change their rules. The county’s attorney will write up the new ordinance and from there it will need to be approved by county board.
          For now, the sheriff’s department will not enforce the current ordinance.

          “Obviously there is no hunting in the county park. Those were covered under that ordinance. We’re going to have to redo that ordinance to cover those specifically while allowing open carry,” said Bowe.

        • So county officials had a meeting and changed an internal rule. Is that the 2nd Amendment victory you’re talking about?

          The 2nd Amendment disaster will come when enough voters get turned off by these sorts of asinine behaviors and show their displeasure at the ballot box. Really, I just can’t see how that is hard to understand.

          We should be presenting a positive image as gun owners, not being clowns, troublemakers, and attention seekers. We need public opinion to remain pro-2nd and that means not scaring people or offending them unnecessarily.

        • @Bill:

          So county officials had a meeting and changed an internal rule. Is that the 2nd Amendment victory you’re talking about?

          “Internal rule”? That’s a novel euphemism for a county ordinance.

          And yes: I would consider a county council and a county sheriff relenting to statutory subordination to a state statute that preempts their authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to be a second-amendment victory.

          The 2nd Amendment disaster will come when enough voters get turned of by these sorts of asinine behaviors and show their displeasure at the ballot box. Really, I just can’t see how that is hard to understand.

          Why is it so hard to understand? Because it hasn’t happened. Open carry of firearms was the norm for hundreds of years. It wasn’t irrational hoplophobia by the common people that caused our rights to be eroded; rather, it was the Fabian socialists who overtook our government over the course of the twentieth century, who slowly legislated away our rights. We’re now continuing to fight to restore those rights, and thus far, the only real opposition comes from the government.

          Did it happen in Colorado, when the state legislature enacted stricter gun control after Sandy Hook, and the people of the state promptly recalled two state senators (and a third resigned to avoid a recall)?

          Did it happen in New York, when the legislature passed a hasty, middle-of-the-night bill that was immediately challenged by the people?

          Did it happen in Connecticut, where the legislature passed a registration bill, and all but a handful of people engaged in willful civil disobedience by refusing to register their firearms?

          Where? Where has it happened?

          We should be presenting a positive image as gun owners, not being clowns, troublemakers, and attention seekers.

          How is a person walking down a public road, and watching a sunset over a lake in a public park, being a “clown”, a “troublemaker”, or an “attention seeker”?

          What, in your opinion, would constitute the appropriate behavior, time, and location to open carry a long gun?

        • clowns, troublemakers, and attention seekers.

          It’s odd to me that so many against open carry won’t seem to express themselves without resorting to the language style of the anti-gunners. The comments often come sprinkled with name calling, emotional argument, and sometimes projection.

    • These open carry idiots are going to be the reason why we all lose our gun rights. This guys clearly went out looking to cause a scene.

      Usually, it’s helpful to read the article before commenting on it. If you’d done so here, you’d know that this person’s efforts in this video resulted in the County committing to revise the preempted ordinance, as well as the County Sheriff, who had previously stated his intent to enforce that preempted ordinance illegally, agreeing to discontinue enforcement of the preempted ordinance.

  49. The guy in the video above mentioned that his co-worker mentioned that he would kill anyone openly carrying an ak47 by shooting them in the head even if the carrier was not doing anything wrong. I hope that the open carry critics here all agree that executing someone for simply openly carrying a rifle is wrong.

Leave a Reply

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