Shawn Nixon of Royal Oak, Michigan recently strapped on a pistol, slung a rifle and went for a walk. In the process, he locked down a local high school and got into a spirited debate with the local constabulary over his Constitutional rights and whether the school has the authority to ban him from the property while carrying. Among other things. Mr. Nixon is apparently unfamiliar with the old adage that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar . . .

As he’s quoted in the freep.com article linked above,

“I hear this a lot — ‘You’re scaring people.’ But I firmly believe, you can’t put your rights in a glass case” such as those used to display firearms, he said.

On the pro-RKBA side, the merits of open carry can be almost as contentious as the .45 vs. 9mm debate. But do confrontations like this advance the Second Amendment cause, or set it back?

198 Responses to Question of the Day: Does This Further Second Amendment Freedoms?

  1. OCing a handgun where legal (it should be in every public space as long as it remains holstered) is perfectly acceptable. OCing a long gun is distasteful and tacky.

    • “OCing a long gun is distasteful and tacky.”

      Laughable. As in…I’m laughing AT this statement, not with it.

      • I never said it was wrong. It just makes the carrier look like an attention whore, because thats what long gun OCers are.

        • Just like all those women showing cleavage are attention whores too, right? Why, even though it’s legal, the way they dress is so silly they probably deserve to have bad things happen to them.

          All that “what’s legal” and “what’s not legal” definitely gets in the way of how everyone should look, talk, dress, and act exactly as some people want them to.

          I get it now. We all need to be exactly like some_guy immediately.

        • “Why, even though it’s legal, the way they dress is so silly they probably deserve to have bad things happen to them.”

          I guess since you don’t have an argument you’re going to pretend he said something stupid so you can argue against that?

          Nobody is wishing for ‘bad things’ to happen to open carriers- at least not on this site. But you’re somewhat right about your lead-in. There is something similar about open carriers and women dressed skimpily. They both DO want attention. At least the women usually don’t pretend that it’s about fighting for constitutional rights or something. Well except for the ‘free the nipple’ ones.

        • “It just makes the carrier look like an attention whore, because thats what long gun OCers are.”

          That’s your subjective OPINION, not a fact as you state it as.

          Your “I want to be the arbiter of how other people behave” bias is showing, just like it does any time an anti-2A Statist speaks.

        • @Hannibal – apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I was comparing similar (utterly ridiculous) arguments.

    • I wholeheartedly agree. There is absolutely no reason to “open carry” a long gun, period. The OCT folks could have just as easily gotten their message across carrying empty holsters at strategically targeted and timed locations and garnered much better media attention. The in-your-face attitude never actually achieves the intended goal without unintended consequences. @JR – Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Even when it comes to rights.

      • So… if i’m hunting with a MSR and get lost in the woods and step out of the woods into a park with my rifle – does that fall under “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should?” Maybe I shouldn’t have been hunting at all. Maybe I shouldn’t have gotten lost? Maybe I shouldn’t open carry on my way to range either yea? And that is the issue here. Freedom.

        Look at these people in Switzerland on their way to the range:
        http://i.imgur.com/V2TCu.jpg

        http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0705/switzerland_guns0502.jpg

        News flash – nobody cared.

        • A,
          You contort my words. We’re not talking about walking down a country road with a hunting rifle, we’re talking about IN YOUR FACE ARs. There is simply no reason to act this way in downtown major city USA. It doesn’t matter IF it’s legal, it’s all about optics. The cause doesn’t need that kind of press, period.

        • And thinking like yours…has worked wonders? The anti’s went away and left us alone because we pretended like we don’t have guns, right? Your thought process fits the definition of insanity.

        • Gman, remember, the entire OCT movement was started because a man was walking down a country road with a hunting rifle and got arrested for open carry.

        • “it’s all about optics. “

          No, it’s NOT. That’s “Shannon Watts” type thinking there…that PR and images are fundamentally what matter.

          What it is really about is leaving people exercising their natural rights the hell alone. What you think is “necessary” in a modern US city is, in a word, irrelevant. Completely, totally and unequivocally irrelevant to how another free man or woman behaves.

        • On the contrary, JR, it IS about optics. A demonstration is done for the purpose of being noticed, and surely you want to put across the message you intend.

          If I am just walking around doing my thing with my gun on my hip, it doesn’t matter if I have a bit of spinach hanging off my teeth. I’m not trying to be noticed, I am not trying to be an ambassador for gun owners. If I am in a demonstration, everything changes, and since I am pushing a cause and want that cause to succeed it’s in my own best interest to do it in the most effective way possible; and that could well include warning a fellow demonstrator when he’s doing something stupid (for example, something that looks bad enough the other side could exploit it).

          What it isn’t about, however, is about making sure the demonstration is putting across what Shannon Watts considers “good optics”–good for HER cause that is. Ideally the demonstration would have optics she’d have to, in her professional capacity, admit are effective for what WE want to say.

      • “@JR – Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Even when it comes to rights.”

        After reading your post, I seriously think you don’t grasp the fundamental meaning of the word “rights.” Basically, what someone else does has NOTHING to do with what YOU think they “should” do.

        That’s the core problem with these discussions. It’s not whether you agree or disagree with OC of long guns or under what circumstances you think it is ok or not okay.

        The core problem is that you VOCALIZE what you think about what someone else is doing when that behavior does not impact your life in any way. THAT is the problem. The comment is born of a mindset of controlling another person…you may not support controlling them with a law or whatever, but you sure as heck are seeking to control them with social/peer pressure.

        Liberty is messy. That’s why it is so difficult to achieve, and maintain, a true state of liberty. Nearly everyone thinks what everyone else does is their business and that they have a proper place to criticize.

        I also have the hypothesis that the lion’s share of anti-long-gun OC complaints come from urban and suburban dwellers.

        I recall a few decades ago that long gun OC was NORMAL where I grew up…up to, and including, bringing rifles and shotguns to SCHOOL, especially during hunting season.

      • I used to think that it was distasteful to have to stand up for rights, but what I have learned in Connecticut, is that you need to push back or there are people that are more than willing to take all rights. Hunters “open carry” rifles and shotguns, would you expect them to somehow conceal their firearms while hunting? Of course not, the real issue is that there are opportunists that try to exploit every little thing in the name of “public safety”.

      • I am sooooo freaking tired of people like you, spouting off with your BS.

        If I, or anyone has a right, it can be exercised, regardless if your feels are hurt, or anyone else’s.

        “Gman” huh….very fitting title for someone with such ideals.

        You sound very much like the FUDS that talk about “I’m all for gun rights and the 2nd….but these types of guns aren’t needed”..

        Your BS stinks like Giffords.

    • People used to freak out about dudes in assless chaps in gay pride parades. Now we are probably less than 10 years away from nation-wide legal gay marriage.

      Sometimes if you shock people enough with the over the top stuff, the norm is not so shocking anymore.

      • I thought all chaps were “assless”. If they had a seat in them, wouldn’t they just be leather pants?

        • Assless chaps = chaps worn without anything underneath. One seems to roll off the tongue easier than the other (no pun intended).

    • Well, if OCing long guns is inherently laughable, I suppose anyone who wants to carry a long gun can just shove it down their pants, like the felon from the story the other day?

      And what other natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights do you declare yourself to have authority to dictate to others the manner by which they lawfully exercise those rights?

    • Good or bad, confrontations like this keep people thinking about open carry. And concealed carry. And home carry. people who previously had no opinion are choosing sides.

      I think that’s a good thing myself.

    • simple concise wrong answer. high attention events like this make police everywhere in the state aware that
      OC is legal. yes it does help . It informs people of what is legal. it does help 2nd amendment rights.

  2. A thousand times set it back. Anyone sitting on the fence, that isn’t as fired up about their rights yet, looks at this and thinks that this guys is 1. wasting the resources of law enforcement, 2. trying to get attention and that’s it, 3. probably unhinged (even though they aren’t), 4. potentially dangerous. It casts a negative light on all of us.

    There is a substantial difference between holstering a pistol, dressing well, and engaging in polite conversation (including discourse with less than friendly people) about the healthy use of our second amendment during open carry, and slinging a rifle and walking down the road near a school. It’s a good way to get yourself killed at worst, and a good way to make yourself known to LEO in a bad way at best. Not a good thing.

    • Blaming the victim for police overreaction. Pathetic. Always remember, the police have no legal obligation to do anything at all.

      LOL @ police resources, because its not like cops actually do anything useful anyways.

      • There are a lot of Fudd, police apologists in the 2nd amendment community. It doesn’t surprise me anymore

        • I prefer fishing to hunting. I can stereotype too:

          You fat-old keyboard commandos who hate the police but whine about all the minorities coming in and stealing your social security checks really make me sick.

          Or hey, here’s a good one: All i do is piss and moan all day about how important my privacy and lack of firearms registration is, but I have absolutely zero problem announcing that I’m armed to every single person around me in public.

      • If we read, which is something we do when we start from the left and move to to the right, generally at the top of the page first and working our way down, we can see that I was describing this guy in the eyes of a moderate, of which there are MILLIONS in the US.

        The victim? Really? I’d say that considering what most LEO’s are capable of doing, the officers were pretty calm with the guy through most of the video.

        LEO’s do plenty useful. God you people make me sick. You’re no different then those people down there in Ferguson. Everyone hates the po-lice until your loved ones are injured, or missing, or you’re bleeding out, or someone is breaking into your home. Get off the grid. Just pack up, stop paying taxes, stop using hospitals, stop collecting any and all government assistance (read: medicare) and just go.

        • LOL, you sound mad.

          You know what else was “moderate” in this country? Slavery. Social consensus doesn’t make a view right, moral or just.

          It is amusing to see the total contempt police-fellaters have for their community. If it wasn’t for government-badged goons, everyone would be MURDERING EACH OTHER! THE HORROR!

          But hey, sucking up to the cops is the accepted, approved view. Courtesy of government propaganda of Officer Friendly, except he magically turns into a baby-burning, dog-murdering goon as soon as one demonstrates the slightest offense towards the State.

        • First, Jake, not all languages read left to right. Second, when I am stopped or surveilled for doing nothing wrong, it is the police who are the problem. Simp!e, huh? And Ferguson has nothing to do with it.

        • If you stop paying taxes, you eventually will have to accept “government assistance”. They’ll forcibly assist you with room and board for many years…

  3. Well, he didn’t lock down the school. A hyper-paranoid culture of fear, administrators who want to keep omniphobic parents happy and local politicians who pander to short-bus riders for votes locked down the school.

    School lockdowns are inane for many reasons. The what may come? pre-crime preparation is but one. If they were serious about keeping your children safe they wouldnt let anyone into the building and put up fifty foot gates behind a moat. But lockdowns being useless and half-assed tell me the only thing they are serious about is saving face with morons.

    • You beat me to it. Blame the person breaking no laws for other’s over-reaction? I can still remember walking down suburban streets as a pre-teen with our pump bb guns in hand or over our shoulder. Nobody freaked.

      • I remember riding with a bunch of friends through town in a Chrysler 300 convertible all of us with our shotguns sticking straight up on the way to dove hunt. People waved or wished us good hunting. Now days SWAT would surround us.

    • What you say is true if you actually believe that lockdowns come from a desire for safety.

      The cynic inside me see it a way too convenient. What better way to condition the next generation of gun hating hippo phones than to expose them to terror and disorganization caused by lockdowns both real ones caused paranoid knee jerk reactions and the drills. What better way to make guns the boogeyman that to play “let’s hide in the closet and pray the bad man with a gun skips pour classroom”. Lockdowns also have the added benefit of presenting a highly concentrated target to the shooter of/when he does come in. So either way it wins for the purpose because the higher the casualty count the more horrific the news headlines get to be.

    • Because of school shootings and mass shootings overall, the school employees were just seeking to do the safe thing. For all they knew, this could have been some guy walking up to shoot up the school. It is sad, but there is logic in their reaction because of past events.

  4. Gradual increases in firearms visibility furthers second amendment freedoms.

    This is a giant leap that causes disturbances and doubt.

    • Damn straight. The anti-gunners enjoy marketing. A “we care about your safety” attitude. Of course it’s a lie, but it’s an sweet liitle pill for the ignorant masses to swallow.

      OCing a long gun, close to a school, is proper 2nd Amendment truth. But it’s a “You can’t handle the truth!!!” for those same ignorant masses dumb enough to vote for Obama, Democrats, etc. Fighting for the cause in such a manner causes great setbacks. There’s a difference between being an ambassador and being a pain in the a$$. Looks like this guy took the latter choice.

      When I see KJW, Colion, Jerry M, and company I see ambassadors. When it comes to guns, style and class are much more valuable than shock value.

      • It has worked so well, it totally secured our rights! No need to try any alternatives in light of all that success. Right, New Yorkers?? Jerseyites? Cali? Etc…….

        • I guess I’m unclear if he walked into school property thusly adorned. Which I would consider over the top. If he merely walked in the vicinty of a school, and the histrionics shut it down, then I say more power to you. Er, him.

          I’m also from CA, where OC banned OC. Well, statism and idiotic voters banned OC. While I support OC, I just think it needs to be tastefully done. I’m not a Chipotle Ninja fan. I personally agree with Jerry Miculek’s stance. I’m not sure if this guy looked like he was patrolling Afghanistan or was dressed like someone who is in his right mind. OCing in a deliberately shocking manner tends to cause us setbacks.

          Here’s the opinion of a much better shooter than me:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGslzXxDhEU

    • Your wording was well chosen. Now you can throw out all the times that open carry has led to more restrictive laws as being “not gradual” and embrace the others as successes.

    • Remember, no matter what we do, gun-grabbers are going to cry foul. They will exploit anything or nothing (make up content if necessary) to paint us in a horrible light. They have to because they have no other play. (They have no facts, data, logic, or reason.)

      In a related article a person attended a school concert with an openly visible handgun in a holster. (It was the only “legal” way the person could carry into a school.) The carrier was dressed nicely, was polite, and didn’t draw attention to himself or his handgun. In other words he was the quintessential perfect ambassador. That didn’t stop someone from going up on stage at the end of the concert and shouting to everyone about the armed person in their midst — a clear attempt to demonize and publicly shame the armed person. It even led to a school board meeting with public comments about how “dangerous” and “crazy” people are who wish to be armed in schools.

      No matter what we do, gun grabbers are going to excoriate us for it. Doing nothing has served us poorly. How are the masses ever going to see that exercising our rights does not endanger them if they never see it? The only chance of ever converting anyone is to show them how we have exercised our rights countless times without incident. That demonstrates reality to them and trumps hypothetical “the sky is falling” scenarios every time.

      Note: this is what converted long time gun control advocates James Craig (Detroit Police Chief) and Jack McCauley (former Maryland State Police Licensing Division Commander). They saw that people carried firearms without harming the masses. That cannot happen if no one ever does it.

  5. On the substance of the question, I go both ways: The fact that visible assertion of civil rights upsets people–or that certain protests are designed to upset people–is not, a priori, a problem. Someone has to stand up and be counted. But there are better and worse ways to protest/exercise–some of which will further the cause far more than others. We need to have the “tactical” debate and encourage a good conversation of how we best push the comfort zone outward or challenge unjust laws and abuse of power. BUT the fact of protests that upset people is not the problem.

    What I really want to say, though, is this:
    I have no idea where the old adage originates, but it is absolutely evident that you catch more flies with vinegar. Vinegar is the primary bait for catching flies. How would you even go about catching flies with honey?

    • “How would you even go about catching flies with honey?”

      A select-fire honeycomb with a 30 drone clip. With a hive thing that goes up.

      As for the article’s question.

      Not

      Helpful.

      • if you swing a stick at a hornets nest, you will get LOTS AND LOTS of hornets…. all very angry as well.

  6. Sigh. One of the problems with grass-roots activism is that there’s just not much to be done about the loose cannons that get attracted to the cause. If you visit the ‘tube you’ll find some very effective strategies being used in open carry encounters. In all of these the demonstrators were anticipating being stopped by the cops and were prepared for the interaction. In particular, they kept control of their temper and,whether or not the cops behaved badly, they held the moral high ground in the subsequent video posting. An experienced activist once gave me some good advice: Mad Never Wins. This guy’s feigned indignation was misplaced. When I was a school principal if I saw some guy walking around outside my unarmed school with a rifle, you can damn well bet I’d call the cops. Especially after Sandy Hook, can you imagine a responsible principal not calling the cops? This guy’s bad imitation of the Rev. Al is just tawdry.

  7. Having opened carried for 2 years in Virginia before cowering and obtaining my CWP I always believed in one basic premise. That I am representing not only myself, but all gun owners of Virginia. That how I present myself to others in dress, word, and deed reflected upon that community for good or bad. NEVER in those two years did I EVER have a police encounter. NEVER in those two years did I EVER have a negative response from anyone, EVER. Curiosity was prevalent and all questions answered with facts and cordiality. I asked myself how I would respond to a police encounter and decided very early on that equal courtesy will be afforded to all. My son and I attended one of the annual city celebrations at our city park. Concerts, fireworks, and the like type thing. Attendance was probably 20,000. Local police abounded and every single one of them took note of our carrying and went about their business as if nothing was wrong. As it should be. Now, even though carrying of long guns is equally legal, I would expect that would have garnered a wee bit more attention with a pair of ARs on our shoulders. It really doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. So, my answer is; HELL NO. To these idiots, please stop doing us any favors.

    • Good to have you in the Commonwealth, GMan. I see lots of OC’d handguns around (always 1911s, for some reason). I take it as a sign of a healthy republlic.

    • “That I am representing not only myself, but all gun owners of Virginia. “

      So, we really are just part of a “collective,” then, and “individual” liberty has nothing to do with anything?

      You don’t represent anyone but yourself. You certainly don’t represent me. If you rob a convenience store, I am not going to prison for you. Likewise, if I act like jerk in public, how on earth is that a reflection on YOU?

      Stop letting the Progressives paint the picture that “group membership” is the core metric of human worth. It is highly likely that even with the common ground of being “gun owners,” you and I are far, far more different than we are alike.

      This is part of the problem we face…we let them set the narrative on EVERYTHING, including the basic rules of the debate. First step: pigeon hole everybody into groups, then use the group identify to commit over-generalization fallacies left and right to define “individual characteristics” from “group characteristics.” It is how, for example, they try to claim all gun owners are felons just because some felons were also gun owners.

      • Exactly this. This thread was made possible by the supreme court recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms.

        The 2nd is not a collective right. You can have an opinion about it, but seriously shut your suck when it comes to anyone exercising their individual right. If you find it tacky, distasteful, uncomfortable or odd pause for a second and then put your adult pants on and support them publicly.

        Doing anything less makes you the person eroding the strength of the gun rights community. It’s your lack of support that has the potential for more damage to the 2nd than any one person walking with an openly carried weapon of any kind.

        Because if gun owners start treating the second as a collective right by throwing those who exercise their individual right as they see fit under the bus, it’s only a matter of time before the courts and politicians begin to see pick up on that and revert to the collective right viewpoint.

      • So, we really are just part of a “collective,” then, and “individual” liberty has nothing to do with anything?

        Not the point. If people see one person acting badly while open carrying, what opinion of other like him would they form? This is the nature of prejudice which if rife among human kind. It doesn’t matter if it is rational, it just is.

        You don’t represent anyone but yourself. You certainly don’t represent me. If you rob a convenience store, I am not going to prison for you. Likewise, if I act like jerk in public, how on earth is that a reflection on YOU?

        Causality by association. People group things, events, and people into categories. It brings order to their lives. This is human nature; undeniable. People see what they “want” to see, not necessarily what they actually see. If we can be grouped by association, those guys who openly carry guns, then yes, we are a reflection of each other.

        Stop letting the Progressives paint the picture that “group membership” is the core metric of human worth. It is highly likely that even with the common ground of being “gun owners,” you and I are far, far more different than we are alike. This is part of the problem we face…we let them set the narrative on EVERYTHING, including the basic rules of the debate. First step: pigeon hole everybody into groups, then use the group identify to commit over-generalization fallacies left and right to define “individual characteristics” from “group characteristics.” It is how, for example, they try to claim all gun owners are felons just because some felons were also gun owners.

        In this I wholeheartedly agree. The left controls the narrative with imagery, emotion, and hyperbole. They are particularly weak minded, and need to group us all together to put order in their lives. Yes we need to change the narrative. But to do that we need to present ourselves, both individually and collectively, above the rest. You see us all as individuals, with individual rights and responsibilities. GR8. But they don’t. They see collectives. If we wish to convert them, any of them, then we need to change the optics of what they see, both as individuals AND a collective.

        • Causality by association. People group things, events, and people into categories.

          This is a problem in more cases than gun carriers. Many people, especially progressives, would be aghast if that same grouping were applied to blacks. I know many law abiding blacks are offended that they get grouped in with the thugs, “gangsters,” and other criminal rabble-rousers.

        • I am reminded of all the black men that worked hard all their lives and never even took a penny when a cashier returned too much change even though they never made more than the poverty level, every time the media excuses the crime rate in the “poor black community”.
          Imagine the disgust on the face of such a man every time he is lumped in with the thugs.

  8. You can catch even more flies with feces than honey. I personally feel that you get what you sew.

    The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd is amazing and sewing plenty! I’ll love watching all of that come to roost. That includes republican leadership too. The wave is building, I expect a viable third political party very soon.

  9. An individual OC rally would be more likely to have a negative effect like this one did.
    A group rally, with signs and families, would have more of an appearance of a public protest and be more likely to have positive results, like the non-Chipotle OCT rallies.

  10. I like to fight from the moral high ground.
    – Fighting to protect our 2A rights is only part of the issue.
    – Self reliance and respect for other peoples rights is larger than just the 2A

    Doing silly things that waste the time of so many other people (like locking down a school) is not showing respect for others. There are too many other alternatives suggested above that would have made the point and maintained the high ground of being respectful of others.

  11. As a responsible gun owner yes I have the right but why go out of the way to create an issue? This dipshit knew exactly what he was doing and meant to do it, he planned this confrontation, he’s tying up a big part of the PD dealing with his bullshit and some innocent person could be in true need of a cop.
    I’ve carried a handgun almost all my life and have been glad to have it, I’ve never ever needed to walk around with a rifle.
    Waving a red flag at the bills will only get you gored and it only takes a second for this to turn into a very bad happening
    People like this guy are actually working for the anti-gun movement, hell he may be getting paid to do this.

    • hell he may be getting paid to do this.

      That’s a pretty ignorant comment. Shawn is well known by local PDs for doing this as he does it all the time. The cops know him. I guarantee you he’s not getting paid by MDA and Bloomberg.

    • Tripwire,

      Your statement

      “Waving a red flag at the bills will only get you gored and it only takes a second for this to turn into a very bad happening”

      tells us the magnitude of the problem. And the problem is not a person walking peacefully with a rifle over their shoulder on a sidewalk. The root problem: all the people who say to themselves “visible firearm and no uniform == violent psychopath or terrorist”.

      We will never break that association if we keep hiding.

    • he’s tying up a big part of the PD

      On the bright side, he might have saved a few drivers from getting BS traffic citations that day!

    • I thought the guy was pretty polite given the circumstances. They send out half the PD because he has a rifle over his back on a sling. So friggin what?

      The only time he got a little rude was when the one cop felt the need to rest his hand on the butt of his gun. I don’t care what the cops said about it, it’s and escalation. The guy was no threat and they knew it. If you or I did that while open carrying we might well get shot.

      I personally don’t have a problem with the guy, and the Madison Heights cops were being dicks in my opinion. It’s a right, not a “gotta be PC and not offend anyone” privilege.

  12. There are many valid reasons to carry a long gun down the city sidewalk, especially If you don’t have a car available to you (wife has it, you’re broke, it’s broke, college student, suspended license, exercise, etc). For example, you need to walk home from the gun store with a purchase, you are going to or from the gunsmith, you are on your way to meet a buddy for a trip to the range, you are on your way to the edge of town to go hunting/shooting on nearby lands, you’re a hunter and you want to pack your gear on hikes to build up to hunting season, etc.

    If any of the above can be seen as a valid reason to carry a long gun then you have to realize that some times you can’t avoid walking past a school as well. My house is a stone throw from a middle school so one of three routes out of the neighborhood requires walking past a school. In the house I lived in before the only route out of the neighborhood that didn’t pass a school would require a 2 mile detour. If I’m walking my rifle to the gunsmith I’m not going to walk 2 miles out of my way because someone might frown on my chosen and legal path of travel.

    However, this guy clearly had no objective other than to verbally abuse the police and get off on it. He initially ignored the police, but when they backed off and moved into observation mode he wasn’t getting the response that he wanted so he initiated contact. Several times the conversation had died down and he had opportunities to leave but decided to hurl abuse at the police simply because they were following him. His sole purpose was not to pass through the area with his rifle but to go to the school and cause as much alarm as possible. His insults were unjustified and the police were complete professionals except at the end when the sergeant started to lose his cool a bit, but I can overlook that considering the well planned verbal abuse they were being subjected to.

    No, he didn’t help the 2A cause but it wasn’t because of the rifle that he was carrying.

    • There are many valid reasons to carry a long gun down the city sidewalk, especially If you don’t have a car available to you (wife has it, you’re broke, it’s broke, college student, suspended license, exercise, etc). For example, you need to walk home from the gun store with a purchase, you are going to or from the gunsmith, you are on your way to meet a buddy for a trip to the range, you are on your way to the edge of town to go hunting/shooting on nearby lands, you’re a hunter and you want to pack your gear on hikes to build up to hunting season, etc.
      SteveM – AND PIGS WILL FLY SOMEDAY. Come on, try staying real. If you don’t have a car, get picked up. You need to walk home from the gun store, put it in a case. And we’re not talking about hunting areas here, we’re talking IN YOUR FACE downtown big city USA.

      • Royal Oak, the same suburb that tried to disallow firearms carry on city streets because it allowed a free festival to take place on them. (Arts, Eats and Beats). The courts disagreed. Sometimes you must be assertive lest you look like easy pickings.

      • I wasn’t defending this man’s actions, I was articulating reasonable examples of why someone might open carry a rifle down a city street without any intent to alarm or engage in conflict.

        Did not U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia carry a a rifle around NYC as a boy? Why yes he did, for use on the rifle team at his….. SCHOOL! The Second Amendment has not changed since then so why are we now cowards that apologize for and hate on each other?

    • While those are nice sentiments SteveM, we don’t have to justify any “reason” or “need” to have a rifle slung on our back as we walk down a sidewalk. It is our right do so for any reason or no reason at all.

  13. If you really feel the need to do this sort of thing, being a jerk about it and needling the cops is not the way to go. All he needed to say was, “Am I under arrest? If not, I will be continuing on my walk.” He could have just as easily taken the stance, “Fine, they don’t want me around the school. I don’t believe they have any legal right, but I’m not here to be aggressive, just make a statement, so I’ll go somewhere else.”

    And in all fairness, I have no problem with people carrying guns, long or otherwise, including to make a political statement, but if I see a lone guy walking down a busy suburban street with no sign or anything else to indicate that he’s making a statement, or has no apparent reason to be doing what he’s doing, I’d probably call the cops to check on what he’s doing too. To my mind the cops didn’t roll up on him overly aggressively, they just wanted to know what was going on. If he hadn’t been confrontational and had merely said that if he wasn’t being arrested for anything he’d like to leave, it probably wouldn’t have been an issue.

    Yes, buddy, there IS such a thing as bad publicity.

      • It made a statement all right, but that statement wasn’t “support the 2A”, it was, “I might be dangerous”. Some indication of why he was there to people who were observing him prior to the cops showing up (along with not being antagonistic) could have gone a long way. Like I said, I see a random person I don’t know walking around my neighborhood with a rifle on his back and no obvious reason to be there, I’m going to be a little concerned too.

    • the cops… just wanted to know what was going on.

      The cops knew what was going on. They know Shawn because he does this all the time.

      • The cops may have been curious about his intentions initially, but the whole thing degenerated into a chest-thumping pissing contest really quickly. Just embarrassing for both sides, since nobody in that video appears to want to act like a mature adult.

  14. One day a stroll past a school won’t be controversial; that day isn’t today. If it comes it will be in the distant future.

    I think our INITIAL OC demonstrations ought to be at once:
    – non-threatening and
    – flamboyant.
    If done carefully, the flamboyance can serve to reduce the claim that the demonstration is threatening. E.g., I’ve read of demonstrators in kilts. How about a fife & drums? Parades on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, etc. In front of police stations, city hall. Pass-out flyers.
    It’s pretty clear that if you are demonstrating in front of a police station or city hall you aren’t on a suicide mission; you must be making a political statement. If you choose a school or a Toys R Us, you can be accused of scaring the hell out of people who aren’t prepared to hear your message.
    Americans have demonstrated their tolerance for quite a bit of non-normal behavior in the context of political expression. John/Jane Q Public might not approve but will respect one’s right to expression. In such a context, they might actually listen.
    Once OC passes in TX it would be great if Texans could OC in great numbers on the first day the law becomes effective. Thereafter, how to keep it up? I think that’s the real issue that we ought to start thinking about.

    A very few OC enthusiasts will routinely OC; but, that’s not enough and it may be counter-productive. If it’s rare to see someone OCing then it will continue to remain an oddity; a fashion-statement that invites condemnation. That’s what we DON’T want. We ought to try to figure out a way to maintain the new “fashion” of OC beyond the first day/week of OC in TX. E.g., maybe pick a day-of-the-week like Saturday or Sunday when we strive to maintain a practice of OCing.
    Suppose, for a couple of years, it becomes commonplace to see people OCing on Saturday simply as an expression of solidarity in support of the 2A. Well, then, the practice will become normalized and more folks will be inclined to OC the other 6 days of the week. Still others will carry semi-draped; i.e., a bit of holster peaking out from below the hemline of a jacket or a pronounced bulge on the right side of a polo shirt.

    We need to think about the next step beyond legalizing OC. There are plenty of States where OC is legal but never practiced. There are very few where OC is both legal and practiced.

    • The best “flamboyance” I have ever seen for OC demonstrations is the holstered banana. Nothing gets the message across better. No one can miss seeing that.

      • “Why are you carrying around a banana in a gun holster?” “In case I’m in need of an emergency pratfall.”

      • If you want flamboyant, we should consult with the ‘Pink Pistols’ and others in the LBGT community.

        The left isn’t intimidated by them (unlike some in the fundamentalist right).

  15. If the best reason you can think of for doing something is “It’s not against the law”, perhaps you should re-think doing it.

  16. So a bunch of nitwits went all gaga about a guy legally open carrying and it’s his fault that they’re nitwits who went all gaga about a guy legally open carrying.

    Got it.

    • Pretty much this.

      My more liberal friends/acquaintances were throwing race into it too, like, “If he were black, those cops would have shot him!”

      ::eye roll::

  17. Watched most of the video.

    Police overreaction not his fault, but fault of a culture.

    That said, presentation matters. Could really do with out the camo army cosplay.

  18. This guy is the definition of a jack off who thinks he is smarter than he is. It does NOTHING for the rest of the pro 2A movement. All this does it cause friction, animosity and anger.

    People that feel that this FU, confrontational type of behavior is ok, simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand that this isn’t going to convert anyone with an anti gun mentality, it is only going to push them further to the others side, right or wrong.

    And that hurts all of us.

        • Truth hurts, huh? And blacks too. And illegals are getting their way as we talk, no? The list is looonnggggg…….

        • Lets try to answer that question without naming groups of people that are openly known to support democrats, and see what you come up with.

        • Why? Successful methods are successful methods. Are you afraid of success? Methods don’t have cooties.
          2 million bikers to DC?

        • “truth hurts” lol… just because you say something to try and justify your attention-craving ways doesn’t make it truth.

          Gay pride parades didn’t help the gay movement, it succeeded in spite of them.

  19. I have no problem with his open carrying as it is his constitutional right. I have problems with him being a dick, which is also his right, but totally unnecessary.

    • I agree. This guy by being condescending and confrontational escalated the situation into a tense standoff. I have to say that the police for the most part in that video did a good job of being professional. Having a civil discussion about OC and calling cops jack-boot thugs are two different conversations.

  20. They are going to ruin it by drawing negative attention, kind of how the constant questions to the ATF ruined the sig brace, and gave them a reason to start looking at AR pistols and rifle ammo. OC of a rifle is a right that should be reserved for a time of need such as disaster! Its ridiculous to have a school locked down, and the police spun up because some wierdo wants to carry a rifle in the city! No one wearing plain cloths and rifle can be distinguished between an oc’er and a terrorist, so the police have to arrive regardless. Reality of The world we live in. And what about a CC’ER who gets over excited thinking hes about stop you from going to shoot a school up? To much can go wrong

    • No one wearing plain cloths and rifle can be distinguished between an oc’er and a terrorist, so the police have to arrive regardless.

      Oh, come on. Every person driving a car could be a terrorist Hell bent on plowing into the children piling out of the school. Should we call the police for every car that approaches a school?

      And what about a CC’ER who gets over excited thinking hes about stop you from going to shoot a school up?

      There is an easy formula for this:
      Person with rifle shooting at children == spree killer or terrorist
      Person with rifle on back NOT shooting children == good guy

      Use a little bit of your brain for crying out loud.

        • Hannibal,

          Every person wearing a trench coat could have six semi-auto handguns with 17 round magazines for a total of 102 rounds of ammunition without having to change magazines … or an AR-15 with two 60 round magazines for a total of 120 rounds of ammunition with only one magazine change. For that matter every person who has a brief case, purse, or backpack could have six semi-auto handguns with 17 round magazines for a total of 102 rounds of ammunition without having to change magazines. Should we call the police every time a person approaches the school with a purse, brief case, or backpack?

          My point is that almost everyone who approaches a school has or could have the means to kill dozens of people. Until a person expresses the intent to harm people, we should (a) go about our business and (b) leave them alone.

      • Use a little bit of MY brain? I have an AR in my closet right now, and yet I would still be concerned if I seen some guy approaching a high school with a rifle on his back! Your formula is joke! Your either trolling, or your a complete jackass! The possibilities are limited on what ones intent would be for carrying a rifle in this manner, so your car shit is irrelevant, and not pertaining to the incident at hand! police have no other choice but to respond when dozens of people are making emergency calls panicked that a guy is waltzing around with a rifle, and seemingly talking to himself! im not saying it should be illegal, but people need to use better judgment and stop using this as an excuse to have a confrontation, and be disrespectful to police! This could easily go wrong, and if it does who’s fault would it be? A cop responding to these calls, or some fucking idiot who slings a rifle in the suburbs and goes walking about looking for confrontation! This kind of shit needs to stop, or we will lose the middle ground on gun rights all together.

        • What crimes have been committed by people who sling long guns over their shoulder and take a stroll through the suburb?

          Should police respond to calls about people walking around with hammers or baseball bats? After all, those implements are used to commit more murder annually than the rifle.

  21. There’s right v wrong, there’s legal v illegal, and there’s rights v privilege.

    Our side of things often gets these mixed up and we should make an effort not to, as they can best be applied in differing circumstances.

    My take is:

    Use the right v wrong argument (and maybe rights v privileges) when trying to convert a fence-sitter.

    Use a legal v illegal argument (politely) when discussion occurs with local law enforcement.

    Use legal v illegal and rights vs privilege when in court.

    Use right v wrong and rights vs privilege when interacting with lawmakers.

  22. I saw a video recently from Jerry Miculek on when to open carry versus conceal carry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGslzXxDhEU) . He makes some good points in the video. He chooses to open carry when on his property doing lawn work, etc., and chooses to conceal carry when in the public eye, such as a grocery store, so as not to make others uncomfortable. Quite frankly, I think this is the more appropriate approach. I’d rather inconspicuously conceal carry in public and blend in with the crowd instead of potentially drawing attention to myself. This other approach as depicted by this clown in Michigan continues to portray gun owners in a poor light. Anti-gun groups are going to focus on this clown to push their agenda instead of reasonable, responsible gun owners. This guy is not helping the cause to convert anti-gunners. I’d rather advocates of the gun such as Former Maryland State Police Licensing Division commander Jack McCauley speak for 2A rights before this clown.

  23. I guess in America it is only acceptable for the cops to lose their cool with a “subordinate”. It is not acceptable for a peon to get irate when he is hounded by several cops even driving down the wrong side of the road.
    “What is this? Madison?”

  24. Nope, doesn’t help. This isn’t too complex it amounts to simple action -> reaction.

    Action = an unknown individual carries openly displayed firearms in areas that are not only out-of-place, but generally unwanted. Doesn’t help things that he’s highly agitated and actively interested in those school grounds.

    Reaction = People acting out of fear and concern will push their legislature to pass new laws to make this illegal.

    Effect = Assuming a majority of people will prefer or demand such action to be curtailed, laws will be passed limiting this and likely other firearm freedoms. Police will then be empowered during the next “Drama-bomb” to take action.

    Editorial: As the police said…he was apparently breaking no law – that’s why he’s not been arrested. Honestly hats off to the officers in the front for dealing with this calmly and for keeping Officer McSlobster Firebrand Furious the 7th (who looked ready to bump things up to a firefight) in the backfield. They really did show restraint and I’m surprised they didn’t charge the OCer with disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. Keep in mind though – “not illegal” does not mean smart, thoughtful, or beneficial to our rights. The OCer here for waltzing around the school grounds, repeatedly taunting officers, and ratcheting up the tension IMHO exemplifies the title of “Jack-wagon”. You sir get no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    • Reaction: shitloads of people now knowing that the rifle OCer broke no laws. As a side benefit, nobody got shot and there was definitely a gun present.

    • Assuming a majority of people will prefer or demand such action to be curtailed, laws will be passed limiting this and likely other firearm freedoms.

      That is not how it works in the United States of America. How many people have to demand that beautiful women walk naked in public (on warm days of course) before legislatures pass laws to curtail wearing clothes in public? How many people have to demand that “ugly” people be covered from head to toe before legislatures pass laws to curtail openly visible “ugly” people in public?

      The state is NOT Almighty God. Most things are not the legitimate domain of the state. That includes what personal property a person possesses in public … or whether beautiful women must be naked in public.

        • Sure, and what the police in Washington D.C. are doing is highly illegal, immoral, and unethical. The only reason it continues is because no one holds them accountable.

          And before you tell me that the police in Washington D.C. are in the right and just doing their jobs, I ask you two questions:
          (1) How is enforcing laws that prohibit the bearing of arms the right thing to do when the United States Constitution says in plain English, “… the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” and that United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land — superior to any act of Congress, Executive order, or Judicial decision?
          (2) How can bearing arms be a “crime” in Washington D.C. and be totally legal in Arizona? Which is it? How can holding an object be A-Okay in one jurisdiction and “illegal” in another? Either it is a crime or it isn’t.

  25. If you have to ask the question in the first place, the answer is that it sets it back.

    On the plus side, it’s probably a net wash when you consider the absurd kill-the-NRA comments I see from anti-gun groups.

  26. If you can divorce your opinion on OC, objectively consider the effects of Nixon’s (oh, the irony) actions on the battle for hearts and minds.

  27. As a LEO I think it’s all about context. I saw a guy open carrying a 1911 in a restaurant the other day and never approached him. Did I alert my fellow officers? Yes. Did I keep an eye on him? Yes. But I never felt threatened or felt the need to confront him. An AR is a little bit different… If there are riots and you are protecting your home/business by all means carry an AR. If you are protesting open carry laws against pistols in Texas and have an organized rally with long gun open carry, be my guest. But carrying an AR to a school while wearing a camo jacket? You bet an LEO is concerned… Also, being hostile (in attitude and language) is not the best way to win people over. If a man was open carrying an AR at a school and officers just brushed it of and said “have a nice day” and then the person went in and shot 26 students/teachers, the public would want the cops heads on a platter.

    So by all means, exercise your rights, but don’t go around screaming in people’s faces so you can exercise free speech. Exercise your religion, but don’t come knocking on my door every day trying to convert me. And, to the same respect, don’t carry an AR around for the sole reason of stirring up shit. I believe we as Americans have rights given to us by God, not a state, and we have the responsibility to exercise them reasonably.

    Now please, tell me more about how I’m a jack-booted (which I have no idea what that means) thug who wants to take your rights away and shoot homeless people and black people for fun…

      • Well thank you for following the law, it makes my job easier. And absolutely, I will be happy to follow the law as well. Man, it’s nice that we can have these exchanges where we respect one anothers opinions and not exchange pejorative remarks……..

        • Now if only we could stop LEOs from offering “advice” that has no basis in law, attempting to use their position as false authority.

        • I’m sorry you misunderstood me and interpreted my identifying myself as an LEO as an attempt to assert false authority. I was simply trying to give one LEOs perspective and opinion so that you, and the gun owning community, might understand why an LEO might be alerted by an individual carrying an AR at a school. I apologize for the confusion.

          As to silencing LEOs from giving opinions or advise, there are two ways you can go about this: 1. Have the website moderator delete my comments, or 2. Lead a campaign to rewrite the first amendment to exclude LEOs from the right to free speech when said speech is a piece of advise or opinion. I encourage you to pursue both of these avenues.

        • Bullsh*t. You are still trying. Stuff your advice, follow the law. Thanks, have a nice day.

    • Anonymous,

      The fact of the matter is that anyone could approach (or storm) a school at any time with any manner/quantity of firearms, bombs, or anything else to cause harm. If lots of responsible adults were armed at schools, they would be equipped to greatly reduce the potential body count of any spree killer. And police wouldn’t have to feel so edgy about the potential for someone to cause harm.

      The problem here is NOT an armed person who harmed no one and never expressed any intention to harm anyone. The problem here is school staff and police attitudes … and laws that forbid responsible people from being armed in schools.

      Note that it is absolutely and utterly impossible to prevent all spree killers from attacking and killing. They have the element of surprise and advanced planning. There is nothing we can do about that, period. What we can do, however, is be prepared to respond to an attack immediately with as much force to bear as possible. That, and that alone, will seriously reduce the casualty count of an attack. Anything else is at best theater to pacify the masses or outright lies to harm the masses for some nefarious motive.

      • I think you are absolutely correct in saying it that we can’t prevent spree killings. Mind you, I was a gun owner (and AR owner) before I went into the LE profession, so I am not in favor of limiting gun ownership. But my point is that you cannot be upset with LEOs who respond to a situation of a person walking with a long gun (be it an AR, mosin nagant, etc…) on a school’s grounds. This is especially relevant in today’s environment/culture where school shootings have become a regular. I do not believe that the person who made this video intended harm to any person, but he did intend to incite a reaction, and a reaction he got. Also, there is a lot of talk about the LEOs being out of line in how they spoke to the person making the video, to that I would say this: LEOs are people too (yeah, I know, crazy thought…) and the person making the video was obviously anti-law enforcement (in the sense that he does not like the current mindset/actions of LEOs throughout the country today). LEOs, though called to rise above there personal feelings, will deal with you according to how you deal with them (not accounting for “rouge” officers/agencies). If you treat them with respect, they most likely will treat you with respect (or at least “should” treat you with respect, again, there is a minority that are hostile). With that being said the person making the video never treated respectfully, though he knows they are obligated to respond to calls for service. And when those officers encountered a person who was angry with law enforcement, they reacted the way that they did (which I seriously don’t think was bad at all). If he simply entered into a dialogue with them it could have turned out differently.

        Ultimately it comes down to this: if the people of this site (who, for the most part, I resp their opinions) would simply try to understand the law enforcement perspective we could be much more productive. There are A LOT of changes needed in modern law enforcement, but demonizing one another is detrimental to that change. Why don’t we work together and have productive dialogue in sted of attacking one another.

        • A couple points:

          This is especially relevant in today’s environment/culture where school shootings have become a regular.

          No, sir, they have not. They are an extremely rare incident. And if you want to prevent (as in: essentially eliminate) them, eliminate the Gun Free Zones, and let teachers and staff arm themselves, if they so choose.

          With that being said the person making the video never treated respectfully, though he knows they are obligated to respond to calls for service.

          The police are not obligated to respond to calls for service relating to reported lawful behavior.

        • Though I am not against the idea, eliminating gun free zones would not “eliminate” spree killings. And Most cops can’t shoot strait in a use of force situation, but teachers can? Yes, teachers will be the savior of our children….

          And cops do indeed respond to calls for service for “lawful” happenings. Regardless, if you are a cop and get a call about a man with a gun near a high school, what are you going to do?

        • All spree shootings happen in gun free zones. Eliminate gun free school zones, and you eliminate them as viable spree-shooting targets.

          If you want mutual respect in order to reach a common goal, why disparage teachers like that? The point is the deterrence factor. And many (most?) carriers practice and train more than the average police officer, and hold their own in hundreds of thousands of defensive gun usages every year.

          Police may choose to respond to calls regarding lawful activity, but they are not obligated to do so. Technically, per SCOTUS, police aren’t even obligated to respond to calls of unlawful activity. If more dispatchers learned to say, “open carry of firearms is legal; call back if you see something unlawful,” things would go much better for everyone.

    • He wasn’t carrying an AR-15, Mr. Anonymous Cop. He was carrying an antique, bolt-action Mosin-Nagant, as he always does when he goes on his 2A walks in that community — and he’s gone on dozens — including several past that very high school in past few months, according to his attorney.

      The local cops have long known who he is, by name and address, and also know, from his dozens of 2A walks within that community and the neighboring town of Royal Oak, that he is a threat to no one.

    • I’m also curious to know why you felt the need to “keep an eye on” the 1911 open-carrier in the restaurant when you clearly stated that you didn’t feel threatened by him. Is is because you take the attitude most anti-gunners take — that a law-abiding gun owner is just one bad day from going *SNAP* and going on a killing spree?

      Yeah, hardly a day goes by where I don’t read about some lawful OCer somewhere suddenly snapping and shooting up the local restaurant. {eyeroll}

      • Haha yes, I thought he was going to “snap” and begin and to kill people (sarcasm). No, it is simply that I knew that he had a gun and that guns are used to kill people. It is not the gun doing the killing, but the person. That being said, I did not know this person. Do you assert that I should ignore a person who I know has a gun and focus on everynoe else but him? That would be ridiculous. And by “keeping an eye on him” I didn’t stare at him the entire time I was in the restaurant, but watched him every time he got up/made a move. You may still be upset about that, but I’m just telling you how it is. I know one thing, it didn’t prevent me from enjoying my lunch (and it didn’t preve me from observing other people who weren’t openly carrying a firearm)

        • I open carry in my community — a 1911, as a matter of fact — and often go to the local diner for lunch. It is not uncommon for local cops to come in for lunch, as well. They’ve seen my 1911 on my hip. I’ve seen them look at it as they pass me and then look at my face….and then go sit at the lunch counter with their backs to me the entire time. I guess they’re not paranoid.

          Then again, it’s a sleepy little community with nothing but the pettiness of crimes.

        • Do you assert that I should ignore a person who I know has a gun and focus on everynoe else but him? That would be ridiculous.

          What is the statistical likelihood that such person is going to commit a crime? Would you consider it ridiculoud to “keep an eye” on another police officer? Statistically, that police officer is an order of magnitude more likely to commit a crime than the open carrier.

    • I saw a guy open carrying a 1911 in a restaurant the other day and never approached him. Did I alert my fellow officers? Yes. Did I keep an eye on him? Yes. But I never felt threatened or felt the need to confront him. An AR is a little bit different…

      Why?

      How many crimes are committed using an AR? Of those, how many were committed by someone who open carried that AR prior/en route to committing the crime?

      • If a police officer pulled you over for speeding then approached your window carrying an AR should you think that is inappropriate? I would. That’s be that level of weaponry is excessive given the situation. That officer would have a sidearm that is perfectly appropriate for a standard contact with a citizen. I think the same logic applies to the average person walking down the street carrying a firearm.

        • You’ve created a non sequitur here, but I’ll address it anyway.

          A police officer who has pulled me over for speeding has detained me under color of law. I am at his disposal for the duration of the detention, and the officer chooses to introduce the firearm into the interaction.

          Someone merely walking down the street does not compel any second party to be detained or otherwise engage him. He does not initiate an interaction into which to introduce a firearm.

          That said: I couldn’t care less if an officer approaches my car with a rifle slung over his shoulder. It presents no more threat to me than his holstered handgun.

  28. He might be an attention whore, he might be a freedom fighter standing up for his rights, that’s not for me to judge. But mad props to him for this exchange, which cracked me up:

    Cop: “Can I talk to you for a second?”

    OC Guy: “No thanks. Have a nice day!”

  29. It alienates both gun owners and non-gun owners on the fence. Every time I get into a gun control discussion “Nuts with long guns in Starbucks” is their first comment.

    Simple answer is that there are better ways to approach it that don’t alienate people that we’re trying to win over.

  30. Well. I’ve OC’d a 1911 for the last seven years here in NM. No swatting from the populace and the police have been respectful and accepting of my practice.

    If I was to OC a rifle as a statement and the cops stopped by to check me out I would be polite but firm about the fact that I am practicing a right and if they weren’t detaining I would be on my way.

    I wouldn’t have verbally abused the cops the way Sean did but I would have to say, if Sean was legal, then Sean wouldn’t have the chance to verbally abuse them if the cops weren’t following/harassing him.

    Because in the end, the cops were harassing him non-verbally by tailing him.

    I’ll repeat what said. The cops were in the wrong, not Sean. So in the end, the cops got what they deserved for not respecting the fact that Sean was practicing a civil right.

  31. I live in Madison Heights. It’s generally a pro gun community as far as I can tell, we even just got a brand new Field and Stream that just opened which people are pretty stoked about. I am supportive of open carry and I see people around occasionally open carrying pistols at Meijer and other businesses and nobody says anything or bothers them. That being said, this kind of confrontational open carry is damaging to our cause. These guys that go out and strap up a rifle and start their camera rolling are just baiting for police contact. It always feels to me to be more anti-police than about guns. They say that they don’t want police to stop or bother them, but what do you think is going to happen when you strap up a long gun and go walking past a school, which is also the area for the local police/fire/court/library. Then of course the police ask for an ID. They do this to be thorough, not to violate your rights and ruin your day. Why not just give them your ID, spend a few minutes being friendly and forming relationships than screaming you don’t have to and acting like an ass? Making friendly and putting on a good example is the best way to support the cause, and maybe next time you or someone are out open carrying the police roll by and give you a wave or a nod. Open carry is legal, so isn’t that the long term goal anyway?

      • If you think my statement was at all some anti-gunner in disguise junk like we are used to seeing in the media, which by your reply is what I think you are implying, then please elaborate and tell us all how you disagree with what I said. And please add what you think is gained by these one man open carry confrontations. This is a website where we can all have a real discussion, and leaving a one liner where you attempt to call someone out as anti gun does nothing to help or advance what we are talking about.

        • And please add what you think is gained by these one man open carry confrontations.

          If it had remained only one man, there would have been no confrontation. The law-abiding citizen conducting his affairs in a lawful manner did not instigate the confrontation.

      • You mean the local Sheriff deputies who tell peaceful 1st Amendment demonstrators to leave and then detain/arrest them after they leave … the same deputies who refuse to arrest festival attendees who throw crates, rocks, and bottles at those peaceful 1st Amendment demonstrators?

  32. We can’t resolve our differences unless we talk about them.

    OC of long guns certainly gets the conversation started. I’m for that.

  33. Does it help gun rights? No, if done incorrectly. It all hinges on why you are OC. If you do it on your way walking to the local range or if it’s hunting season and you are popping in to a convenience store down the road from your hide, no issue. You have a reason to be OC your long gun. This can help. If you simply want to take your long gun for a walk next to the local school, while hoping to spark a LE overreaction. NO you are not helping. Even though something is legal, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid thing to do.

      • I’ll say it again. Just because something is legal, that doesn’t mean that it is not a stupid thing to do. Doing stupid things with guns rarely works toward maintaining or furthering our rights.

        • Ok, sure. So why are you being so senseless in utilizing your 1A rights? You are an embarrassment

  34. I can guarantee that OC in Texas would not have had near the publicity that it did this year that it did if people just did empty holster protests. Did some people go to far? Yes. But for the most part, OC of rifles got attention, when the anti-gunners would have gotten attention from the liberal media anyways.

  35. I think the OC’er showed poor judgment by choosing to be near a school. I understand that he was legally on sound footing. I understand that he had no intention of harming anyone. However, it’s not for the school administration to guess what’s in his head. School’s must always err on the side of caution. You can imagine the headlines had the school done nothing and the guy was actually an active shooter.

    We shouldn’t be ruled by other’s opinions of us, but there is some balance we need to maintain. I think one of the marks of a mature person is that they understand how their actions will affect others. Then you make adjustments as appropriate. There’s a lot of gray area. I think this guy missed the mark.

  36. The OC’er was definitely trolling, but if he’s known to the cops in that community, they clearly overreacted. That was a nifty reverse-gear burnout into oncoming traffic.

    I’m sympathetic to this demonstrator. What he was doing is no more incendiary than a black man and a white woman holding hands in public 60 years ago. A black man eating in the whites-only section. Two girls kissing each other at the high school prom. Some behaviors violate the status quo, legalities aside, and drive bureaucrats and the men in blue and fine upstanding everyday citizens into paroxysms of “How dare you!”

    I’m also sympathetic because I am an insomniac in a small city in an extremely rural part of the country, and I often go for walks at 3 a.m. I am not living in a stop-and-identify state. And if I don’t immediately start justifying my behavior and answering the unconstitutional questions by the bored night shift cop, he threatens me with arrest for “interference with official acts.” (Because they “had reports of something going on in this neighborhood.”) We’re not even talking about walking down the street with a sidearm or carbine. We’re talking about walking five miles in the dark when its 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Rights are not subject to fashion, “taste”, practicalities, personal opinion, newspaper editorials, and the like. The cops and the public need to develop their own understanding of citizen rights before they impose themselves on their better-educated neighbors.

    • Since the incident in the video, there has been additional information that has come to light. At this point, I’m convinced that it was a coordinated effort between the lefty, anti-gun school administrators and the local PD to get this guy to “go off” on them and put it on YouTube. I don’t think they expected it to garner the national attention that it has, but nonetheless, I think it was their objective to use it as a launch-point for getting guns away from schools in their area. (There have been a few incidents in the southeast part of lower Michigan of late regarding open-carry of guns in and around schools — lawful for someone who possesses a CCW).

      From this and other recent incidents involving OC in and around schools, it seems the local school administrators are starting to fight back. And they’re doing so using the usual lefty tactic of “OMG! Think of the children!” locking down the schools when they know that no actual threat to anyone exists.

      In this incident, how did the local cops and the school admins know he would become upset and upload it to YouTube?

      I’m glad you asked.

      The guy records all of his 2A strolls through the community, has so for years, and puts them up on YouTube, usually showing him being confronted by the local cops. The cops don’t like his 2A walks through the community. They never have. That is obvious from his previous YouTube videos. Also proven by his previous videos is that he’s a hot-head and easily-baited, often “going off” on cops who confront him.
      Once he began to include strolling past the local high school on his 2A walks, I think the school admins and local cops saw their opportunity and used his hot-headedness and propensity to be easily-baited against him.

      Again, I don’t think they expected the video to go viral, but with the perhaps unsolicited help from Moms Demand Action (and some selective editing done by the demanding moms), it did.

  37. Historically, being a jackass has never helped one’s cause. When we lose rights due to ‘scaring the locals’ it will be because of guys like this.

    • Ok watching the whole thing.. the cop with his hand on his gun the whole time is just as much of a jackass. He’s exactly the type of cop that makes people not like cops in general.

      • Agreed. Notice none of the other cops in the video felt it necessary to do that. You know why? Because they’ve encountered him many times in the past, know he likes to flap his gums, but isn’t a threat to anyone.

        The hand on the butt of the gun by Officer Earp was unnecessarily provocative and only succeeded in making an already somewhat intense situation more intense. I thought po-pos were trained to try and deescalate situations like that? Officer Earp putting his hand on his gun seems counter-intuitive to that.

  38. I’m old but fairly new to the gun owning world(4 years). I would love to open carry in Illinois. More power to this guy…no matter what any POTG do the leftards hate us…

  39. If I saw that guy walking down the street I’d offer him a ride, but I don’t agree with what he said, the tone he used or that he engaged with officers for that long in the first place. If I’m going for a walk I’m going for a walk, not stopping to preach to a group of LEOs like Jesus on the Mount.

    If a LEO stops me to ask a bunch of questions I’m answering with the bare minimum and going on my way. The rest is just like the Youtube name, Nunya Beeswax. Advocates going for “walks” to rile up the local police to preach to them is not advancing the cause and just makes the individual look unstable, which is why so many LEOs show up. They’re not interested in a lesson on rights.

  40. I’ve got no horse in this race; I’m Canadian. I’m also pro-gun, a regular shooter, and pro-carry…I’ll give you an outsider’s perspective of this situation. Mr. “I’m gonna strap on a pistol, sling a rifle & go for a nice peaceful walk, just me and my guns and my video camera” went for his walk assuming (correctly so) that his open carry, the number and types of weapons in his possession, would make at least some “reasonable” people concerned enough to call the Police. It worked; they did.

    Those folks who share the same rights as he pointed out numerous times, were uncomfortable with the optics he was presenting, and I don’t blame them. Although he is never seen, his openly confrontational attitude is undoubtedly displayed more subtilely in his body language and that’s near impossible to conceal. He went looking for a confrontation and he found it.

    It looks like a pretty nice place that he lives in; quiet, light traffic…peaceful. What on earth would make him, or any reasonable person feel like it is necessary to carry a sidearm AND a rifle? Does he know something I don’t??? Is there a threat there I’m unaware of? I didn’t see any…or is HE the threat???

    Do you see where I’m going with this? All the talk about being aware of your surroundings….identifying potential threats…the only threat I saw in that near 20 minute video was Mr. Open Carry.

    My Grandpa, God rest his soul, was a “colourful” old guy; he used to tell me ” if your package is itchy, you reach down, re-arrange it and go on about your way; you don’t rip it clean off, throw it on the road and jump up & down on it…it’s all a matter of moderation”.

    There are a lot of places in your country that I can think of off the top of my head that his behaviour, legal or not, would have resulted in him being taken down, likely tazed, handcuffed and stuffed in a Squad car. Right or wrong, it would have happened, you know it and so do I. If he had done ANY of what he did in that 20 minute video anywhere in my country, he would be under arrest and in jail at the very least. Do I think that is right? No, absolutely not. I envy your constitutional rights, and wish deeply that we enjoyed even some of the latitude in that regard, but we don’t. He made statements that had nothing to do with anything that was going on including numerous insulting and unwarranted comments, he made reference to shooting homeless people, which unless I’m badly misinformed happened a good long way from this incident. In the process, he did NOTHING to further the cause of maintaining your Constitutional rights; He DID succeed in alienating a bunch of people. He frightened some, or no one would have called Police; he irritated some, who probably don’t want to live near an antagonistic character like that, and he pissed off some, including the Police who responded. NONE of those things furthered “The Cause”…they did damage it though.

    As this blog entry referred to in the opening remarks…do you get more flies with honey or vinegar? As an outsider, whenever I see or read about another incident like this, my reaction is often “what is the matter with his head?”
    If you want to be taken seriously there are many, many ways of achieving that; THIS….this right here? This isn’t one of them.

    • You watched the video in a vacuum having no knowledge of the history of this particular guy and the history he’s had with the local police departments, both in the community where the video was shot, and the neighboring community of Royal Oak.

      The guy is a well-known 2A rights activist. He’s gone on dozens of these type walks over the last several years. All the cops know who he is, by name and address. What got the panties of the local public school administrators in a twist is that he had walked past the high school — not onto school property, but past it on the public sidewalk — several times over the last few weeks. The school administrators decided they didn’t like him doing that, even though what he was doing was completely lawful. The school administrators decided that the next time he did it, they would go into lock-down mode. And they did. The incident you watched in the video is of the cops first confronting him on the street before he reached the high school, and later staking him out from the school parking lot as he walked by.

      Again, keep in mind that this guy has gone on dozens of 2A walks in that and neighboring communities over the last several years, always with his bolt-action rifle slung across his back. Every cop in that community and neighboring communities know who he is and that he has never harmed anyone. It was only because the local public school administrators decided they didn’t like him walking past “their school” — even though he had never stepped onto school property — that they sought the assistance of the local PD in harassing him.

      Watch the video again when he’s talking with the cop. The OCer points out that four cops are following him and staking him out. The cop’s response is, “Well, then, don’t come around here.” Get that? That’s what it was all about. Not any concern for “the children” in that he’s suddenly going to go all ‘Adam Lanza’ on them. It’s about control — local, politically-liberal school administrators deciding they didn’t like the fact that someone could lawfully walk past “their school” carrying a rifle.

    • The Freep gets it wrong, again. Nixon did not walk up to the front doors of the school. The building in the video that Nixon approached and found locked was the police station.

      • I don’t think they did, actually. They make reference to walking up to the door of “a” high school, but the only reference made specifically to “that” high school was to the effect of the police not intending to let him further down the driveway TO the high school.

        That notwithstanding, I don’t disagree that what he did was legal ( I took the liberty of looking up the applicable State law), and freely admit to viewing this in a vacuum. I guess what gives me heartburn is to a degree exacerbated now that I know the back story.

        First, if he’s been doing this sort of thing for years, and this is demonstrative of the results he’s gotten from the Police….his point is??? If he’s walked past this high school numerous times prior to the administration calling Police, that strongly suggests he was intent on pushing enough buttons enough times until he got a reaction from someone…anyone. That smells suspiciously of an attention whore at the least, but there is an underlying tone of malice that troubles me…it’s almost as though he was bullying “Them”….you know, the undefined, vague symbols of authority. Again, his point is???

        All it confirms for me, on the outside looking in, is that he’s a bit of a jerk. Now that’s just a personal opinion; he may be a great guy. I just plain don’t like anyone that wants to rub my nose in something that smells bad and persists even when I’ve told him I don’t like the smell.

        As I said previously, I truly envy your right to carry a firearm. If it were legal to carry a sidearm in Canada, I would be a poster child for early adoption of the law. It isn’t though, and I don’t and won’t.

        In this situation though, I have to ask myself; who there DOESN’T know what his (and their) Rights are? If he’s indeed trying to “educate” someone; who? Me, or my fellow Canucks? Like I said, I don’t have a horse in this race, so it doesn’t matter to me in the slightest…it has no effect on my life whatsoever, and never will. What point is he trying to make by carrying both a sidearm and a rifle? Or is he trying to make a point at all?

        I’m pretty active in the shooting community here, and the majority of people that I know who shoot would, I’m quite confident, have a pretty similar reaction to this guy. In my “not insignificant” (double negative intended) life experience (I’ve been retired for a good while) if I wanted to effect change on someones opinion, or engage in a discussion which may have a role to play in bringing about change, the way NOT to go about it is to come off like a loose cannon, an agitator, a button-pusher…..you get my drift. All of those descriptions have negative connotations to them, and it becomes much easier to dismiss the person & the opinion they hold; if they’re a “loose cannon” they’re more likely to “go off” on a tangent & thwart the discussion to push their individual agenda, whether they have one or not.

        In contrast, a measured, logical & well though out position, effectively communicated tends to have greater effect. I’ve a suspicion that the good gentleman would have had a better chance of making his opinion known & his position stated even more clearly by leaving his “jack-booted” & “Wyatt Earp” commentary at home. No one likes to be called names, or be dismissed…even cops. It served no more purpose than raising the issue of the homeless being shot, and inferring that they had something to do with it.

        He does have every right in the world to do what he did, carrying a sidearm and a rifle. That is freedom to be sure. It is ALSO the right of others to be concerned by it and express their concern…that also defines freedom. I like guns, a lot. I like the idea of being able to carry them freely, a lot. BUT, even knowing the back story, and being told that he would never hurt anyone by someone who’s always told me the truth (you’ve never lied to me, right? 😉 I don’t know him from Adam, and seeing him packing that much heat, and launching into a bit of a tirade when told he made others nervous…he makes me nervous too. I just don’t think he does anyone any favours with that approach

        • who there DOESN’T know what his (and their) Rights are?

          There are a lot of people in Michigan, and in the entire US, actually, who don’t. Many people don’t know you can carry guns–openly–without licenses here.

          There’s a group here called Hells Saints who walk through some of the bad parts of Detroit openly carrying pistols and rifles. Their videos are interesting because people walking down the street or driving past often stop their cars and talk to them. Some of the conversations are interesting, and it’s obvious many people have no idea what the gun laws here are, especially blacks.

          And that’s why they do it.

        • From the Freep article:

          “Last week, Nixon took his traveling civics class to Madison Heights, where he quickly established that 1) if you have a concealed pistol license, you can lawfully carry your rifle and handgun virtually anywhere, right up to the front door of a public high school…”

          Clearly, the Freep reporter, like a lot of people (including Mas Ayoob) watched the selectively-edited video put out by Moms Demand Action and concluded, incorrectly, that the guy had walked up to THE VERY HIGH SCHOOL involved in the video.

  41. In my township this past Sunday a group demonstrated to make residents more aware of their rights to own and openly carry firearms. It was peaceful. The demonstrators and police treated each other respectfully. Only a few of the participants carried openly. I didn’t see any rifles in the mix, though I might have missed one. The group came off as civilized.

    Style does affect the message. I would note, for all those who yell “but Switzerland!”…that even the Swiss demand good manners from those walking to training or target practice with their rifles. No law requires it, but in my Little Book of Observations, the ability and willingness to converse with cops as a polite equal when open-carrying is a sort of first-line filter that lets me say “this guy ain’t another AL.”

    The township’s heads-up to residents before Sunday’s rally:

    “Good Morning this is Officer Colflesh with the Lower Merion Township Police Department with a special announcement. Lower Merion Township is informing neighbors of Bala Cynwyd Park, located at 398 Trevor Lane, that a public rally is being held in the park on Sunday, March 15th at one o’clock in the afternoon. The rally is organized by “Firearms Owners Against Crime” and their intent is to increase awareness of rights under the Constitution to bear arms. It is anticipated the many of attendees will choose to carry a firearm. The Police Department will monitor the rally. By law, citizens are permitted to carry a firearm in open view, or concealed, if they possess a permit. Citizens are also permitted to lawfully exercise their right to gather in a public park. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the Township at 610-649-1000.”

    I thought that was a pleasantly neutral notice. We have a civilized and well-trained PD.

  42. This guy is an arrogant d-bag.

    Even if there is no law against farting in your mom’s face, or getting your hair died purple, or not taking a shower for 10 years, doesn’t make it a smart move.

  43. An asshole, plain and simple. The cops are calm and reasonable, not attacking or yelling at him. This jerk wants to do all the talking, constantly taunting and berating the cops who are simply responding to a call, doing their job. Idiots like this confirm the worst fears of people who aren’t into gun ownership or gun rights, making all of us look like gun crazy yahoos.

  44. What a lot of people seem to forget is in this country you have a right to act like an idiot. You may not agree with what you see and you have the right to say so. You don’t have the right to decide if the person acting a fool can or can’t do so. Does this guy help or hurt the cause? Probably a little of both. It raises awareness but it gives those who would never agree with open carry more ammo to use against it. I have found the best way to deal with people who always want to be the center of attention is to ignore them. They eventually go away.

  45. Why is it that if I carry a shouldered long gun which is a completely legal act I am an attention whore and a nut job extremist. But when two grown men parade and dance in the street kissing on one another while wearing nothing but their underwear and womens makeup there just expressing themselves even if it is abhorrent behavior to most of the public present.

Leave a Reply

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