The above YouTube video of an open carry advocate schlepping an AR-15 into New Mexico’s state capitol building is going viral. Needless to say, martinrps13 is not winning friends and influencing people towards open carry. On either side of the aisle. “A handgun in a holster, not a problem, but the gun guy’s visit had lawmakers in both parties thinking about changing the rules,” kob.com opines. “‘I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment. And I’m also a member of the NRA, but I tell you there’s many buildings that you should not be able to carry a firearm into and one of them is the state Capitol,’ Republican Sen. Carroll Leavell said. ‘Unquestionably, I think we need to ban guns from the state Capitol, and anywhere there’s large numbers of individuals that gather for a very specific purpose,” Democratic Sen. Carlos Cisneros said.” Oy.

Recommended For You

156 Responses to New Mexico Open Carry Advocate Carries Into Capitol

  1. Why not go the Starbucks CEO route and just calmly request that they keep their protests outside if they are armed? What’s wrong with a request and why do they threaten to write a law EVERY time this happens? If I sneeze in the President are they going to have to write a law that says anyone within 3 feet of the president needs to have tissues on them or something?

    TBH I never got why when people are pro gun they protest WITH their guns hanging out. It makes the anti gunners with their “guns are for men with small penises” theory grin because to them they see a dick waiving contest of men about to be emasculated.

        • TIL holding an inanimate object is akin to yelling racial slurs and gun owners are equivalent to racists.

        • Actually that’s the worst analogy ever.

          See yelling the n-word is hate speech and not protected by any part of the constitution.

          Carrying arms in this case is protected by the constitution.

          See how that works?

        • @Mack Bolan: “See yelling the n-word is hate speech and not protected by any part of the constitution.”

          Bullshit. Yelling nigger is just saying a word. Hate speech is bullshit. It’s a thought crime, as it ascribes meaning and intention (specifically ill-intent) to that for which the meaning is not known, except to the person vocalizing it. Much like many would say about guns, you either have the right or you don’t. The right to yell nigger (or any other potentially offensive racial slur) is not limited by or predicated on the degree to which it might offend someone else. It may not be wise to do it, just like this assjack walking into the capitol with an AR15 slung across his chest, but it’s still your right.

        • Noone has to line up behind you. But no free speech advocate, or half decent human being for that matter, would even consider lining up behind those wishing to prevent you from exercising your right. Just leave the guy alone and mind your own business. Who cares who carries what where? Or yell what where, for that matter?

        • UNLESS your skin color is the magic skin color: the color that gives you carte-blanche to use that word however, whenever, and wherever you see fit.

        • It may not be a perfect analogy, but I’m not aware of any mention of hate speech or anything similar in the Constitution. Or any right to not be offended. And that’s kind of what we’re talking about, behavior that right or wrong, offends people.

        • How is yelling “nigger” and open carrying legally even close to being the same behavior and action? Just so sad to see gun rights folks fighting amongst each other, but even more sad is the supposed gun rights folks going after those that actually practice our rights.

        • “hate speech… not protected by any part of the constitution.”

          Are you serious? The 1A is specifically there to protect controversial speech… could be hateful, could be anti-government, insulting, incendiary, etc. That’s EXACTLY the kind of speech it was created to protect. You don’t need a protected Right to say things that are nice and agreeable, as nobody would ever try to stop you from doing so. What kind of speech might cause the government to try to censor you in the past, currently, or in the future? That’s the speech that’s protected.

        • Yelling nigger and open carry are both an exercise of rights. What’s the problem? If you’re not with me, you’re against the first amendment. Would you be more happy if I was OC’ing and yelling nigger?

      • “I fear a government that fears my guns”

        Perhaps exactly the place where there should NEVER be a restriction on open carry is in the legislative arenas of any capitol building? What exactly are they afraid of, and why?

        That said, open carry of a long gun is obviously threatening when there is no apparent need for same. It’s like bringing a 5 pound sledge to a barn raising. Perhaps he was within the letter of the law, I’m afraid I don’t have half an hour to invest in finding out, but the important thing to find out is what would have been the reaction if he carried a holstered pistol instead?

        My suggested reaction, rather than add another unconstitutional law on top of all those already on the books, would be to have an armed guard follow him wherever he went in the building. This would be similar to what would happen if they just relaxed and let people carry open or concealed without harassment. Good guys with guns would be ready and willing to educate this fellow immediately if he had ill intent, and no rights violated.

        • So, there should be a ban on carrying a gun in the capitol, but somehow the guards are armed? Some really are more equal, aren’t they?

      • You hit the nail on the head totenglocke. You are either for something or you are against it. It’s sad to see so many here and other places who claim to support the second betray or ridicule those practicing it.
        James Yeager is against open carry, that should speak volumes in itself.

        • James Yeager is tactically against open carry, but he hasn’t (to my knowledge) said it shouldn’t be legal.

    • Morons huh? Is that what an American is that knows his rights and actually uses them…. then he proceeds to educate people… yeah, “moron”… brilliant.

      The morons are the people who take away your rights. Are you sure you are on the right side?

      • Does he have the right to do what he did? Yes. Was it smart? No.

        Just because you’re able to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it – do not confuse this with me thinking that he doesn’t have the right. In this day and age, I personally do not think OCing a long gun in the state capitol is smart. He was there to make a scene.

        Someone here on TTAG used this example, and I think it’s a good one: This is like two gay people going down on each other in public – they’re actions are to make a scene, not to express love and affection to one another. It hurts their cause more than helps it.

        And you think I’m on the “wrong side?” Really? Do you know me?

        • No, obviously I don’t know you, but reading all these comments on here attacking a law abiding American exercising his Right is extremely disappointing. We are at war against ourselves when we are not fighting against antis.

          When open carry for handguns (unloaded) in CA was criminalized on Jan. 1, 2012 by Gov. Brown, our community blamed each other. They blamed fellow Californian’s who exercised an inalienable Right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment. Society is only used to criminals, military and police carrying firearms, the media perpetuates this image, and many want to change it by open carrying in public. Yes, it creates a scene and, sure, a trigger happy Capitol guard might have put one (more like 20 and hit all the bystanders) in him without thinking, simply reacting, “perp with firearm, engage”, but the idea is to make people feel comfortable that this is a law abiding citizen and there is nothing to fear. To change public perception. Hearts & minds? Ha. CCW is not an option in CA, we don’t have that right unless we have special circumstances, like we’re a politician like Feinstein (who used to CCW).

          Comments on here mention the Panthers, how they open carried loaded weapons into the CA Capitol to fight domestic tyranny, the entire purpose of 2A. Shortly thereafter, a Gov. Ronald Reagan passed the Mulford Act and made it illegal to open carry loaded firearms. The slow erosion of our civil liberties began in CA (started long before, but this is a marking point to take note of). This was brought to a head with a school shooting in 1989 by, you guessed it, a crazed loner. The ramifications of that shooting ushered in the asinine and useless laws of the Roberti-Roos AWB and that set the stage for the 1994 Federal AWB. So, this man may have given NM legislators incentive to ban loaded open carry. If this happens, your State is on the path to tyranny and anti legislation a la CA. If it does not happen, your State legislators recognize your Right as a law abiding citizen! You are therefore free to exercise your Right. Take note of what your legislators decide to do.

    • Hey – me and the rest of the guys that OC’d in Wisconsin helped NORMALIZE guns and WE got CC passed doing it. Get off your high horse about who you think should be able to carry and what type of firearm they can have on them.

      Eventually, people like YOU will want to tell us that we can’t carry rifles, then it’ll be large revolvers, then full frame autos, then it will be the magazine sizes and then the “semi-autos”. Sound familiar?

      Gun rights are black and white.

        • The way you’re using the language, there’s not much difference between “shouldn’t” (subjective) and “can’t” (objective), you’re basically saying that people should take the shouldn’t (subjective) and act as though it is a can’t (objective), for your comfort (also subjective) and that of others (also subjective). Cut the newspeak.

    • Because having a right that you’re not allowed to exercise is completely different from not having that right at all…..right?

        • The American flag CAN mean many things to many people at certain times and places. There are precious few instances where I would imagine exercising the right to burn Old Glory, but you MUST have the right to do so because that’s the power behind the flags symbolism (free individual expression).
          Does the flag really mean to you what you say it does, Totenglocke? I would simply move to another country if I felt THAT way.
          Carrying an AR around certain places is counter productive….verging on stupid. What is the goal. Winning hearts and minds, hardly.

        • Any contemporary nation state’s flag is nothing more than a banner for aggression. Rendering the “Move to another country” canard pretty senseless, indeed. Does it have to be that way? I wouldn’t think so, at least not in theory. Back in the civilized era, the American flag actually stood for a place meaningfully different than the rest of it’s contemporary go-gommiment-go rah-rah states. But now? Noting neither better nor worse than any other totalitarian cesspool.

        • But really, Stuki, “symbolizing oppression and using MURDER to achieve goals”? NOBODY will take our cause seriously if we are that far sunk in the ‘fever swamp’ of anti-American loathing (a libtard thing), conspiracy theories, and Nazi Germany/USSR analogies. We are still the best thing going on this spinning rock in space.

        • Pat, you clearly have ignored US history over the past 60 years if you want to pretend that the US doesn’t use murder to achieve it’s goals. Hell, all our military has done since the end of WWII is murder people who disagree with US politicians socio-economic views. “Your country is choosing a different government or economic design than ours? We’ll murder your citizens until you agree that our method is superior!” That is literally what we’ve done over and over for 60 years now.

      • I agree with you on this. More and more our rights are being assailed. Its just like free speech. Sure you can say what you want as long as you stand in the specified free speech zone and have a permit to be there. It’s the same way with guns. Sure you can have a gun and carry it, as long as you are in the proper zone and have a permit. If the whole idea behind background checks was to keep “bad” people from getting guns then we shouldn’t need gun free zones or permits to carry since only the “non bad” guys will have guns. But since we all tend to disagree with gun free zones, I think it’s funny you guys here are so against it. He should be able to exercise his right without permission, he’s being responsible. The more we say oh how horrible, he’s hurting our cause the more the a Antigun crowd will push for more restrictions, cause they certainly aint gonna back down.Will you just lay down to every rule our politicians think is best and impose on your so called right. Would you comply if some more restrictive bill was passed from Feinstein or Schumer. Food for thought.

      • Know when to exercise your right.

        I’m not saying he doesn’t have his god given right to open carry, he should do it, but be prepared for the repercussion.

        To wit, open carry WAS allowed in Cupertino, CA, after several gun enthusiasts, decided to open carry at several local coffee bars, guess what happened? Yes, the local officials shut that down quick, so now NO one can open carry in CA. unless it’s on private land/land allocated for shooting/etc. So? From my point of view, he’s NOT helping the cause. Normalize how guns are used one small step at a time, using an AR as a prop in a VERY public place, even if it’s NOT against the law, is NOT a small step into normalizing firearms into public conscience.

        You wouldn’t like it when the only anal probe the doctor has was the largest size for horses used on you would you?

        • If you don’t like a doctor’s anal probe, go to another doctor. Don’t fight to ban the practice of medicine.

      • Hey FLAME DELETED, go peddle your BS somewhere else. You can wrap this retard’s follishness in a cloak of liberty all you want; it doesn’t make it a wise choice for the RKBA. He had the right to do it. Great. Now he’s scared the weak-minded NM legislators into wanting to ban OC in some places. Fantastic. Just another glorious victory for OC, right?

  2. I’m sorry but that was the best open carry video I’ve seen. He makes a point to say he’s doing it to educate people. He doesn’t act like an ass and is very knowledgeable. Carrying a a rifle isn’t my thing but I do open carry from time to time.
    We need more events and individuals like this to make people understand the truth about guns. See what I did there?

    • What “educating” do you think is happening here? So the 23,000 gun owners that viewed the video on Youtube are now more aware that OC is legal, you can see the number of guns owners that are calling this a bad idea from the comments.

      How many people do you think are going to read or watch the local news and hear politicians from both parties say this is a bad idea? It will be more than 23,000. When the rabid anti gun news picks this up as well how many people are going to see this with a negative spin?

      What benefit will this bring? It was so effective in California and in starbucks. IT IS NOT HELPING.

      • It does bring the benefit of outing the hypocrites amongst politicians and commentators who could previously count on gun owners’ support.

        A country where you cannot carry your own rifle, to a place where your supposed servants have ensconced themselves behind a wall of armed guards, isn’t in any way worth preserving. And anyone supporting such a charade honestly doesn’t even qualify for inclusion in humanity, much less for any position of authority.

        If noone had done what this Martin guy did, there is a good risk that perfectly decent human beings would have spent considerable effort supporting some scumbag draping himself in a banner of liberty, while in reality being little more than a stooge for the vilest wing of our oppressors. Now at least, decent people have a clearer picture of who is worthy of their support; and who are simply worthless, self promoting buckets of manure.

        • They aren’t your servants, they are your representatives. And if you read the comments posted by other gun owners you are the minority among them, little own among the entire population. That being said they seem to be representing the majority of those that elected them. I have yet to see flamboyant gun owners do anything but have a negative effect.

      • right. it’s one thing to be like “oh I was just stopping by the capital building on my way to meet my buddies to shoot some coyote …” and just randomly for no reason carrying an AR15 around.

      • what is the latest? when is your next court date? how is that playing out? you are not going to win any friends of influence others by calling a Judge a dumbass on your website, esp. if Judge Mondelli sees it. When is the next court date cuz I’m gonna be there with a bowl of popcorn.

    • @ Shane, true that. People here are bitching about OC hurting our cause, then in the next sentence say it’s our right… damned hypocrites.

  3. You know who started this whole trend?
    Black Panthers in CA back in the 60’s. CA Legislature changed their laws and look at how things have improved there!

    • Exactly right. I wonder how everyone that thinks this is just great would feel it it were Black Panthers, a group of Mexicans speaking poor English or a group of 21 year old hip hoppers with sagging pants trying to “educate” everyone while speaking Ebonics instead of Mr. White bread doing it. Be careful what you wish for guys, you just might get it

      • Ya and that’s not horribly racist at all. So only rights belong to white people who speak perfect English. if they’re Americans, its their right. If they’re criminals, they belong in jail or need to be executed for their crimes. Remember everything Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bllomberg and Obozo do, theyre always trying to keep your second amendment rights safe.

        • Some of us live in the real world, not some fantasy land of unicorns crapping skittles. Even Jesse Jackson has admitted to crossing over to the other side of the street when approached by a group of young black men.

          I happen to be Hispanic and there’s no way I’d try to pull a stunt like this guy, I value my life too much.

          How about if one year ago today, one Adam Lanza had exercised his right and pulled this crap at the Capitol (assuming it was legal in his state). I’m sure you’d be cheering him on.

          Guys like this not only scare people, and create more anti-gun sentiment, they put the responding officers in a lose/lose situation. If they detain the guy or get aggressive in questioning him then guys like you squawk about how they’re violating his rights. If they do nothing and he wheels around and shoots a couple of folks, then they didn’t do their job. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when this jackass shows up toting his AR-15 “at the ready.”

          The irony here is try getting away with this at your local shooting range as you walk from the parking lot to the line and see what happens. Want to try exercising your rights there? Then why do it at a Capitol building?

    • California went downhill because it is California. You cannot seriously blame the massive infringement of gun rights in California on the Black Panthers in the 1960s.

      California is in trouble because a majority of the residents are not connected to reality. They truly believe that Utopia is possible and, even worse, think they know how to achieve it. Open carry did not create the situation in California.

      • Open carry caused nothing, as it was the exercise of a right. What caused more regulation was the “right people” in the concealed carry only group who do not defend the right. Instead of defending the right they have fought losing court battles specifically saying that open carry may be banned.

  4. Honestly, I appreciate the effort, but when I see a lone, nervous-looking dude tooled up with an AR on his chest roll into a government building, my lizard brain calculates that there is a decent possibility that he’s not there to politely educate a handful of security guards on his constitutional rights.

    You really want to open carry an AR to make a point? Fine– gather as many friends as possible, clean yourselves up, make some (very visible) signs, and set up shop in a public venue with your rifles.

    If you want to get accidentally shot by a twitchy guard or a confused CC’er, do what this idiot is doing.

    • There you go. I’m not opposed to open-carry in principle, but in practice all I’m seeing these days is sheer stupidity.

    • Exactly. Maybe he has the purest of snowflake intentions, but to steal your term, my lizard brain means my eyes will rarely leave him and I’ll never have my back to him.

    • It’s the same reaction you and most normal people have. Imagine being at the atm on a bright sunny day and coming towards you is a guy in a hoodie with mirroe shades, his hood up and a bandanna tied around his lower face. No gun is showing and he hasnt said a word to you. The atm is in a public place and he’s exercising his right to dress in any manner he sees fit.

      Any reason to be alarmed? He’s just exercising his rights.

  5. There is no right or wrong way to excerise your god given and constitutionally protected rights. I applaud it.

    Keep calm and carry open.

    • While we wish to be armed to defend ourselves if attacked criminally, few of us will ever find ourselves in that situation. Yet we practice physically and mentally to deal with threats to ensure our survival if attacked.
      Be aware, seek cover, concealment, etc.
      We ALL find ourselves under attack by lawmakers. This man is increasing the threat from that sector. He is not at all tactical in the arena where we are in the most danger.
      AR on his sling and he is politically Code White!

  6. When is apparent stupidity not distinguishable from potentially mentally ill?
    If someone in this razors edge political environment thinks that carrying an AR in the seat of politics will further the cause of gun rights, that is prima facie evidence that there is something wrong with this individual.
    Maybe when things are settled in the courts till then, in you nice solid OWB holster.
    Who thinks a strapped AR has a tactical advantage over either holstered pistol OC or CC in a public DGU scenario?
    Who????

    Has he read some blogs

  7. You might not like it, but a lot of people get piss their pants scared about guys walking around with rifles. Making those people wet themselves will NOT bring them over to our side. You have to start small so they can acclimate. A gateway gun as it were.

  8. The problem with using guns as a form of political protest is that guns are for after the right to protest has been forcibly abolished. This is why using a gun as a protest sign looks insane to all but a few people regardless of their views on 2A, this is why it makes people uneasy, and this is why stuff like this will create more problems for us than it will solve.

    Also, like it or not if enough people don’t like something they can make a new law to screw you. If enough people don’t like something they can change the constitution to screw you. All this does is get a bunch of people thinking that things need to be changed in a way we don’t like.

    • Actually, I think the biggest problem is that even though most of the People of the Gun understand that an AR is an admirable defensive weapon its PUBLIC persona is as an “assault weapon”, the weapon our military uses to attack with. The general public, capitol security, most LEOs, and the Brown Stream Media always perceive the presence of an AR or any long gun, for that matter, as a potential OFFENSIVE tool.

      That being the case I sure wish these guys would carry reasonable defensive pistols, non-threateningly holstered. If the issue is may we or may we not exercise a legal right to carry in public it seems that this would suffice to make the point.

      • I disagree. I don’t think changing the kind of gun will make this form of protest any more fruitful. A gun is a gun, not a protest sign. In this application the closest thing a gun is to a protest sign is a sign that protest is over and something else is next.

  9. I would have significantly different feelings about this if he was carrying it slung on his back instead of across his chest. Soldiers and LEOs carry across their chest because they’re likely to need it RFN (well, soldiers maybe more than LEOs, unless they’re involved in a thing) but this dude is extraordinarily unlikely to need his AR RFN. Walking around with an AR slung across your chest is, in my eyes, pretty damn close to walking around carrying a handgun in your hand.

    By the way, I didn’t watch the video except to make sure that’s how he wore it the whole time. I’m not bothering with 30+ minutes of watching, even if he was the perfect ambassador for our side other than the carry method.

    • Right. Carrying “at the ready” is not the best method for “educating” people. You can still access it if you need it and it just appears less aggressive.

    • I agree, he is carrying it in an aggressive manner by carrying at the ready on his front.

      Now if it was slung over his shoulder or on his back, that implies way different intentions and much less aggressive, IMHO.

  10. Practice your 2A rights, but don’t use a neutral company for you soapbox, or your rifle as a statement. You have no need to carry a rifle in urban areas. If you simply must have it, discreetly secure it in your vehicle.

    • That’s right, you should tell him exactly how to exercise his Right to Bear Arms as you solely define the purpose of 2A.

      • He is having the revere effect of what he is intending. It can result in less open carry. The next time he may end up with Capitol police drilling him between the damn ears.

    • Arod529,

      You criticized the open carrier because you did not see a “need”. That is the exact same argument that civilian disarmament proponents make, “No one needs a gun.”, or, “No one needs that kind of gun.” etc.

    • LOL!!!!!!!

      Oh my gosh Ralph … how do you do it?!?!?!

      (still laughing as I click on the “Post Comment” button)

  11. The only thing this guy did wrong was explain his actions. He has a right to bear arms. They have no right to detain him or ask questions under a detention. Next time, video and audio record without the long winded explanations. Carry on.

    • You are a false flag operation set out to raise controversy and to make a case for increased gun regulation. You are walking propaganda designed to push fence sitters over to the anti-gun side.

      If this isn’t the case, then I must invoke Hanlon’s Razor.

    • He has the right to carry it, until congress says he doesn’t. Then you can either revolt, or stop carrying, or perhaps just go to jail. Upsetting lawmakers is not a wise thing to do. Trying to convince them we are right is a wise thing to do. He might have accomplished that with a gun on his hip. An AR in a combat carry didn’t impress anyone.

    • The 1st amendment give him the right to walk up to Mike Tyson and call him a nigger. However, Tyson would likely punch his face out the back of his head and I wouldn’t blame him.

  12. What would happen if you carried a really large copy of the Bible into that Capitol building? Would they start trying to say you can’t have it and pass laws to enforce it?

    • Have you read the First Amendment? You’re welcome to your Bible but you don’t have to force it on the world. How do you feel about the Koran or the Torah being brought into the Capitol or can you say double standard hypocrite? Would you like a plaque for Sharia law be posted in our court houses? I sure as hell wouldn’t want that. Man, the double standard is utterly ignorant. The Knights of Columbus have hijacked our government and pushed their ideology through, whereas, if any other religious group did the same you would probably be up in arms. The Pledge did not always have “under God” in it…. Freedom, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Try to understand the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      • Um, an average adult in decent shape could kill someone almost instantly with a largish Bible … seriously.

        It is all in the technique … just like a firearm.

  13. I’m surprised one of the security folks assigned to the Capitol building didn’t “smoke” him when he walked through the front door.

    • There is no way to distinguish between an “open carry activist” and a “useful idiot” or “agent provocateur” at this time.

      The right to carry a weapon is not served by “propaganda of the deed”, we are not Nihilist-Anarchists pushing the boundaries against perceived injustice, though that is EXACTLY the way they want to portray us. 2A advocates at this time should speak softly and carry a big stick, even when they carry that stick openly.

      Open carry is legal where I live and I do it, but it is illegal in the state Capitol building. Carrying a rifle into the seat of government does beg the question: What is his real angle? A holstered pistol is not at the ready, but a slung rifle is another matter.

      A rifle is so large and cumbersome that it must be considered an offensive weapon when carried outside your property, in my opinion. If you have some reason to carry it, fine. But otherwise, leave it in the damn truck or you should not be the least bit surprised when concerned citizens call the police.

      There is nothing in the burbs or any urban area for you to take a shot at from hundreds of yards, be sensible. For the love of God, if you had to defend yourself with a rifle you would scare everyone for five city blocks when you started shooting. Think about what would happen if someone tried to take it from you… even if they had nefarious intent, how the hell would you explain the situation? This man’s actions are not only provocative, they are tactically unsound.

  14. People do this in Virginia all the time. This should be a welcoming thing in the capitol. That said, knowing the statist place we live in, I wonder if this guy is an agent for the other side.

    • MAIG has lots of money to spread around. Why would a real 2a activist risk jail time, loss of gun rights and possibly death to pull a stunt that isn’t even needed? For the most part we’re winning the 2a battle. Who stands to gain from this sort of confrontation? Gun control advocates stand to gain.

  15. Attention gun rights proponents who object to open carry of long guns:

    Why do you object? Answer: you are not comfortable with a person carrying a long gun because the person with the long gun could misuse it.

    Guess what? That is the same exact reason that civilian disarmament proponents object to us having handguns, anywhere in public, whether concealed or openly visible.

    If you argue against open carry of any guns, you are legitimizing the argument of civilian disarmament proponents. You cannot foolishly let your feelings get the best of you.

  16. I live in NM and open carry is no big thing here. Often carry a long gun in a rack across the back window of my truck.

    • My first experience with “open carry” was two days after arriving in the US, went to get into a cab and saw that not only was the driver asleep but he had his hand resting on a lever-action 30-30, I chose not to wake him and got into a different cab 🙂

  17. Many people fear a man with the physique of a large NFL linebacker. After all, a man of that stature could quickly kill just about anyone within reach with his bare hands. Even more frightening, he could pick up almost any object in a room and literally cave in anyone’s skull instantly. For that matter he could kill several people with a chair (or worse a stanchion which are in almost every public place to corral visitors) in a very short period of time. As if that isn’t enough reason to be fearful, we know that some hugely muscular men succumb to ‘roid rage (from taking anabolic steroids) and are literally unstoppable.

    Recognizing the ginormous danger that large, very muscular men represent, do we ban large, muscular men in public? In the legislative building? Why not? What if four such large, muscular men went berserk this year and killed a dozen people in a fit of ‘roid rage? Would we ban large muscular men then? Do we make it illegal for men to have “too much” muscle?

    If you cannot agree to bans on muscular men in public, why is it any different if an average man or woman is carrying a firearm openly, whether it is a handgun or a long gun?

  18. And another thing:

    Our rights are NOT dependent upon map coordinates.
    Our rights are NOT dependent upon majority approval.
    Our rights are NOT dependent upon other people’s feelings.

    Otherwise, our rights are just a giant pi$$ing, match.

    Start taking some courage pills with breakfast people.

    • Your rights are dependent on a mix of Supreme Court and executive branch opinion, in varying degrees. Ask the Cherokees. Though often quoted out of context, G.W.Bush was right: “The Constitution is just a piece of paper.” It requires the wisdom and backbone of citizens to assure the document an effective living politically-robust form. The composition of the Supreme Court itself depends in large part on who is elected President from time to time. As we lobbied and debated to get CCW laws passed, we found increasing ACCEPTANCE. Spitting in the face of uncomfortable “why a gun?” voters is irrational. Consolidating victories is rational. It is, at least in my locale, rare indeed to see the successful 2nd Amendment advocates who educated our legislature tramping around coffee houses with rifles on their shoulder: It makes the politicians nervous and unsettles the gentle folk. The same thing happened in Athens, Greece about the year 340 B.C. It didn’t end well.

  19. i’m all for carrying guns, however I think open carry is somewhat inviting trouble in more ways than people think about. I wouldn’t walk down the street with a thousand dollar rifle hanging off my body for the same reason I wouldn’t walk down the street with a thousand dollar chain exposed on my neck; a cheap brick to the head and your expensive property is gone real quick. Just because you can legally do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Dudes like this only adds fuel fire to the anti-gun people and sways the middle of the road people to their camp.

    • So, if he carried a less expensive rifle you would be okay with it? What if a billionaire carried a $1000 rifle, would you be okay with it?

      Or, how about if he didn’t carry it slung? What about low ready? Or open carry in groups moving tactically with full body armor? It would be more difficult to take it then.

  20. Final point. Why are we comfortable with a law enforcement officer carrying a firearm openly? Think about it. A person puts on a tan or blue costume with a shiny piece of metal and, poof! Perfectly okay for open carry. Why? Every police officer puts their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Every police officer is susceptible to temptation every day just like the rest of us. Every police officer wants to go home and hug their family at the end of the day just like the rest of us. What makes them special or superior? Answer: nothing. As we have all read in our country’s Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …” (emphasis mine).

    I am totally serious. A police officer is a citizen wearing a tan or blue costume and a shiny piece of metal.

    Don’t get me wrong. My intention is not to trivialize police officers or what they do. The problem is that too many of us trivialize other citizens and that is what I am trying to illustrate.

    Further, what stops a criminal from renting, stealing, or making their own tan or blue costume, donning a shiny piece of metal, and going out to harm people? Oh wait, Anders Behring Breivik did that in Norway.

    Either someone is a threat or they are not. We have absolutely no way to know which when the other person is a stranger. Have we come to the point in our society where we think everyone is the boogeyman? If so, that is why we are armed. If not, we are armed because bad people sometimes attack good people.

    I choose to view strangers as upstanding citizens while recognizing that they could be serial killers. Expect the best and be ready for the worst.

    • For emphasis:
      Just because it is your right and you can do it, doesn’t mean you should. Aggressive open carry does not help our cause. It turns otherwise ambivalent or passive supporters into antis.

      As a group, we should NOT let the radicals among us speak for us.

  21. Honestly, if so many of you are so scared of a man carrying a “scarry gun” maybe you should be spensing more time on websites for demanding moms, and rich mayors…

    A right is a right. Instead of bitching that he may make other gun owners look bad, every one of you should be saying “while I son’t agree with how he used his right, I’ll defend that right with my life.”

    One of the saddest days om comments on TTAG I’ve seen since coming here…

    Meh, but don’t take my advicde. I only own a .22, and may even lose that right for fighting with my brother.

    Keep up the good fight and bitch about someone using their rights. Meanwhile, others lose a natural, civil, and constitutional right daily over some of the most idiot acts of “lawlessness”.

    • I don’t think many are saying, at least in the pro gun crowd, to ban him from doing it, just that he shouldn’t. Big difference.

      There is a thing called tact, and I think a number of people here think the man who walked in with a rifle didn’t use any.

      This isn’t as simple as protesting. There have been mass shootings. Anti-gun folk are looking for snapshots like this to scare fence sitters. And honestly, I’d be just as concerned seeing someone walk in with a rifle at their front regardless if they are wearing a uniform or not. Why? Because it’s being held in the front and gotta quickly assess, is this guy just chilling or is he a psycho?

      Ill try to explain it like this. Rash of Islamic based bombings and attacks have occurred. Then some guy decides to walk in full classic Arabic garb comes in and voraciously preaches about Allah and the evils of the U.S.
      He has full right to do so. He may even have many valid points. Question is, is his demonstration hurting or helping his people? He doesn’t have to and should not shut up, but there are likely better avenues of protest to make positive changes.

      In this case the man looks friendly enough, but once again, considering the events that have happened, and telling who is a killer isn’t always easy till they line up those sights, I think he didn’t do us a favor. Would I throw him in jail? No. Would I stand by him? Only because I support the 2nd amendment, not his actions.

      • I stand with him, BUT he is an asshole, an idiot, tactically unsound, taking the gun rights movement back, and concealed is concealed. LOL @ all of the anti-gun rights people who make stupid comments like that.

        • I stand with him, BUT he is an asshole, an idiot, tactically unsound, taking the gun rights movement back, and concealed is concealed. LOL @ all of the anti-gun rights people who make stupid comments like that.

          I can respect their right to do it, but not agree with what they do. Had he walked in with a pistol holstered on his hip, I’d be like eh. If he had it secured on his back, I’d be a little more discontented, but be like at least it wasn’t in a way to make people think he’s up to something. but the way it was done was just sloppy. Just because people don’t agree with every little nuance of how people express their rights doesn’t mean they are against the right itself. And yes, when people do unsound shit like this, it makes us all look bad. He has every right to make us look that way, but doesn’t mean everyone has to like it.

          Also, my reaction to someone with a holstered weapon is much different than one just sitting out in the open. had he a sword draped I’d be like “the f*ck is this? I sure hope we aren’t gonna have a problem here.” vs if he had it sheathed. And again, to be fair, I’d feel that way even if it was a police officer, military personnel, or ATF agent. I don’t hold them in any higher regard than any other citizen.

    • I would guess you are a member of an anti-gun group such as the NRA, SAF, Brady Campaign, LCAV, or Mothers against violence… They all agree that open carry of a rifle in a state capital is unreasonable and that anyone who carries like that is an idiot.

  22. Just wow….reading the anti-2A comments here is making me ill. Your very responses on a very pro-gun blog are exactly the reasons we need to see more open carry. Have any of you ever been to Israel? You all do know that a handgun is an entirely ineffective weapon compared to a rifle? You do realize gun violence has been declining in our country for more than 20 years? I’m just stunned how some of you sheeple are so appalled that this guy had ‘the nerve’ to carry a rifle into a government building. Many of you need to grow up and realize that we are in the midst of a life and death struggle.

    • People need to understand that there are many who profess to be pro-gun/2A, and are not. I think most of them write for TTAG, run the various gun forums across the web, and have positions within large gun rights groups such as Calguns, the SAF, GOA, and the NRA.

      • Yep, you got it Leonard. The leaders of every major pro-gun organization in the country are all secretly not pro-gun. It’s a conspiracy of MASSIVE PROPORTIONS!!1!!onehundredeleven!!1!!

        Or it could be that the only thing around here of massive proportion is the competition between your delusions and your hubris.

        • Or, you could start reading and listening to the court briefs and oral arguments. Major “gun rights” groups have been giving away gun rights.Try reading the majority of comments on this blog are anti-open carry, anti-carry of long arms, anti-carry of anything that might “scare” someone. Try reading the majority of gun forums they mirror this blog.

  23. I don’t have a problem with open carry at all, I just don’t see the point of all these demonstrations. The average person who is relatively neutral on gun control, the person that doesn’t frequent gun blogs and forums or own guns would view this act as being totally bat shit insane. He’s lucky he didn’t get perforated by the guards. There is no insurgency or violent uprising going on in the states. An AR15 is not an ideal weapon for EDC outside of a warzone IMO. Having humped one on many a ruck march, I would rather not carry around a rifle everyday. I can understand if he was on his way to the range or going hunting, but this isn’t Israel or some Middle East hell hole. He’s not at risk of getting into a firefight in NM AFAIK.

    I just don’t believe these guys are really doing anything to “normalize” open carry, they are scaring people away. The normal looking guy with a 1911 or revolver on his hip casually going about his business is doing more for open carry than AR and AK toting, shrieking asshats yelling “am I being detained???!!”

    The unfortunate fact is, many people in America are frightened by MSRs. These types of firearms have (unfairly) obtained almost taboo status due to spree killers and media disinformation campaigns. By all means, the dude had a right to do what he did, I’m just not sure what exactly he was hoping to accomplish. I support his right to carry and his right to free speech, no matter how dumb he may be. He carried an AR into the state capitol, good for him, does he want a fvcking cookie? More power to him, but I ain’t giving him a cookie.

    • “These types of firearms [AR 15s] have (unfairly) obtained almost taboo status due to spree killers and media disinformation campaigns.”

      Agreed … and how do you propose we undo that taboo status? The mainstream media will certainly NOT help us out. Our school system is absolutely NOT going going to help us out. Our government is NOT going to help us out. Hiding in shame is NOT going to help us out. What is left?

      • I don’t know how to make MSRs mainstream or acceptable to everyone…parading around and shoving our AR’s down people’s throats seems counterintuitive though. JMO.

        –the two commenters below seem to be dead on though.

    • That’s how I feel to a certain extent. I”m even fine if people want to carry an AR-15, but when it’s out like it is in the video, especially in the political climate and recent transgressions, it’s just plain stupid. I mean some nut job just shot up a damn navy yard with a shotgun/pistol, and he walks in with an upholstered rifle. He’s very lucky this didn’t turn into a misunderstanding/DGU. If I saw him like that, my first and foremost thought would be “WTF is this fool up to?”, and trying to determine where is the best point to cover myself in case this gets real. He looks like a nice guy, but nice guys snap too.

      I agree that it is scaring people more than normalizing it. At least like this. And I also recognize that we cant please everyone, and many will be scared no matter what. But baby steps. First and foremost is gun education, not shock tactics. And not even so much gun education, but education about why the right to bear arms of all kind is important. Openly carrying is good, but when it’s used to shock/be attention whores, it’s more of a demeaning demonstration than helpful.

    • +1000

      The reason why open carriers who plaster confrontational experiences all over the web have the potential to train wreck our cause is because they’re trying to normalize open carry too quickly and too drastically. Normalizing guns in society does not mean carrying in the “ready to rock” position and loudly telling the sheepish fence sitters to go fvck themselves when they get scared and don’t understand. Remember, our education system has been teaching kids that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are either outdated relics or evil incarnate since the 60’s. People aren’t nearly as familiar with the sight of guns in public being carried by harmless people as they were in the 1870’s. It starts with handguns casually on the hips of cool headed people going about their day as if they aren’t even carrying. Over time, people get used to it and realize that a gun on the hip or slung over the shoulder doesn’t always mean trouble, as people have been brainwashed into believing for decades. It’s all about moderation. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  24. Bravo, he is not a moron, if you morons would get off your@sses and do what he is doing more people would be comfortable.

    • It’s enough for me to do what I want without interference. I don’t give a sh!t about more people being comfortable or agreeing with my way of life. To that end I’m not going to give them the opportunity and incentive to start scheming against me more then they already are by engaging in political behavior above and beyond what it is I’d do for personal reasons.

      You need to consider from the anti’s point of view. They LIKE open carry activists because the tactics work in THEIR favor. If you where an anti- and you wanted to tighten up carry laws in a particular area then staging these open carry demonstrations yourself and scaring people and bringing negative attention to the issue would be an extremely effective strategy. What open carry demonstrators fail to realize is that if their tactics are indistinguishable in practice and effect from a anti- propaganda tactic, then their tactics are stupid.

      -D

    • Please refer to the South Park episode, that is freely available from their website called “The Death Camp of Tolerance” season 6, episode 14. There is a difference between out, both brave and proud and being a bit touched.

      Note, I’m not a fan of South Park, but this sort of “demonstration” reminds me exactly the premise of the episode. There is a difference between getting comfortable, and seeking strife is another.

  25. I’m as big of an advocate for Open Carry as the next 2A supporter. But I can read the writing on the wall. Starbucks wasn’t pro-gun. they were playing Switzerland. It wasn’t MDA or MAIG that persuaded Starbucks to take a stance. It was idiots toting AR-15s in and scaring the shit out of people who really had no opinion one way or another!
    Exercising a right is one thing. shoving it in everyone’s faces “Because it’s my RIGHT, dammit!!!”(*slams fist on table*) is another. Like Chris Farley in Tommy Boy or Lenny’s pups in “Of mice and men” we petted the Starbucks thing to death and crushed it like a dinner roll.
    We need to get off the idea that the best way to advocate for our rights and prove to everyone that we aren’t a bunch of psycho far right of far right conspiracy nuts is to NOT scare the crap out of everyone by toting an AR-15 “because I can”.
    With rights come responsibilities. Guys like this don’t understand that.

  26. ”‘I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment. And I’m also a member of the NRA, but I tell you there’s many buildings that you should not be able to carry a firearm into and one of them is the state Capitol,’ Republican Sen. Carroll Leavell

    “Shall not be infringed”

    I don’t think it means what you think it means….

  27. Regarding whether AR-15s are offensive or defensive, it should be irrelevant. Any gun can be used for either offensive or defensive fighting, and a person may be required to fight offensively to defend themselves. It isn’t smart what this guy did because of how scary the AR-15 looks to many people, who consider it a machine gun, and especially in this environment. People like him only help the gun control cause.

Leave a Reply

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