Previous Post
Next Post

Last night, Moms Demand Action’s founder Shannon Watts Tweeted: “MUST WATCH: This is how #GunBullies from @OpenCarryTexas treat female officers  #GunSense #MomsDemandAction #NRA #2A” I Tweeted back: What’s the problem exactly? And why is the fact that she’s female relevant? So far no response. Oh and guess what? Seems like Shannon doesn’t want @guntruth to know her thoughts. Look what happened when I hit the “follow” button . . .

Screen Shot 2013-11-10 at 8.29.13 PM

Which also means I can no longer Tweet to Ms. Watts. Dirk! Help! [Edit from Foghorn: Blocked me too. What was that about wanting a conversation about gun control?] Sigh. Here’s something to cheer you up: the new Facebook page Moms Demand Bedroom Action. Unaffiliated, I presume.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “This is how gunbullies treat a female officer”
    They say yes ma’am and no ma’am to all of her questions? Rather politely I might add for how much of a B!TCH she is being.

    • This is how gunbullies treat lawfully armed persons on a public street.


      Don’t forget she’s not the first cop in texas to act like a grand mal b**ch, either, there was the fellow who was slammed across the hood for what they were doing.

  2. Arguing with a liberal? Did Nick’s (I think it was Nick, I’m too lazy to fact check on my phone) article about being banned from an anti-gun forum teach you nothing?

    It’s the classic liberal bait and switch. They won’t accept any argument against their beliefs but rail against conservatives as intolerant.

    • That’s why they get paid the big bucks. The anti-gun and anti-women memes have to be pushed to the limit, to keep that voting majority. And ‘we’ give them just enough rope to hang us with, enough material to slander us with, supportable half-truths to mix in with their outright lies.

  3. Amazingly, Shannon Watts doesn’t know what a Terry stop is; just like the officer in the video. I wonder what other civil liberties Shannon is willing to give away as well?

    • her husband John has been pulled over and stopped enough times for speeding in and around Indiana the last few years. . . . I am sure he knows

  4. I disagree, the officer was not being a bitch, she was doing her job. It is complete stupidity to go out and cause an incident for a right that we already have. While I think the Mom’s Demand Action is blowing it way out of proportion, it was handled well by LE and no rights were violated.

    • I’m just curious, but exactly how would you propose to NOT create an incident when actually exercising the right is itself the cause for the incident? Doesn’t sound much like a right fully won yet.

    • Negative, Officer wadded-shorts was trying very hard to intimidate this crew with the “force of law.” Thankfully all but one of this group didn’t submit to the posturing.

      The best and simplest solution would have been for the officer to calmly explain (without gesticulation or a raised voice) that she understood WHAT they were doing and that they were doing so legally, but that she had received a call and was following up appropriately. Further calls about “scary people with guns” would warrant further contact.

      The OC group handled it better than I would have, and the officer didn’t handle it nearly as well as she should.

    • The State isn’t recognizing the existence of a right if the police are questioning you over the exercise of that right and demanding ID.

      • And especially when she was claiming that she was the “acting supervisor” and claimed numerous times that something she was demanding was legal and required when in fact it was not. She did eventually bow out gracefully, but it should have taken ten seconds tops for her to contact these guys, determine they were just out for a Second Amendment Constitutional (see what I did there?) and let them proceed on their way without the threats of harsher action if they didn’t back down and she got another call from some local hoplophobe.

  5. Never talk to the cops. That woman was up to no good and it was not in their best interest to engage her in conversation.

    They have a poor understanding of the law and they can frisk you and ask for ID in a Terry stop. They didn’t need to be carrying ID, though.

    Also, the recent Supreme Court ruling requires you to inform the police that you are invoking the 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself and they haven’t yet suspected you of a crime if you wish your silence to not be used against you in court.

    These guys need to know the law better. Their best response would have been to just keep walking and not talk. The police had no business stopping them, and had no probable cause. And the threats to them if they got more complaints were meaningless.

    • Unless you are Dirk… I bet he could just say, “Am I being detained” and still get her phone number. If we was interested, naturally.

    • Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a Terry stop. Probable cause is for arrest. It’s been 13 years since I practiced criminal law, but cops don’t get to do a Terry stop and demand ID just for giggles. I don’t see how open carry, by itself, constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime.

      • This. Open carry, by itself, is NOT reasonable suspicion to stop.
        However, refusing to stop and/or say anything to an officer is an open invitation for Barney to call Andy, Goober and Floyd and the situation WILL escalate!
        Explaining exercising your right is one thing, clamming up means you could be anybody the officer wants to fantascize that would justify his stop. Oh andif you’re going to demonstrate like this, video IS a great idea.

        • Sticking with “Am I being detained?” & “Am I free to go?” actually does work. If one lives in an ID state (verbal or otherwise), it might be wise to do the minimum required. As a young man I did this and refused to give consent to search my vehicles practically every time (always on the search question). Each time, except once when my then girlfriend and now former wife was with me, I was let go in under twenty minutes; PFM. OCers *might* take the ride but they shouldn’t get a rap. The officers won’t make that mistake twice so they learn at least something in between.

          This video, “Las Vegas DUI Checkpoint Refusal”, shows a man handling a checkpoint the right way, more or less. Since operating a motor vehicle is commonly considered a privilege, checkpoints are touchier.

      • Since the frisking portion of a Terry stop is supposed to be for the detection of weapons beneath the clothes would it even apply to a person who was openly carrying a firearm? What would the officer be feeling for if the person was obviously and admittedly armed?

    • Did a quick Google for Terry Search law:

      “When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to REASONABLY SUSPECT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MAY BE OCCURING and that the persons with whom he is dealing MAY BE ARMED AND PRESENTLY DANGEROUS, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. IF AFTER INITIAL INVESTIGATION THE OFFICER STILL HAS REASONABLE FEAR FOR THE SAFETY OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her. (CAPS for emphasis are mine.)

      The officer stated at the outset that she new what they were doing was legal – no Terry Stop/search.
      The officer could plainly see that they were armed, knew that what they were doing was legal, and by their demeanor admitted that she did not consider them dangerous – no Terry Stop/Search.
      The officer failed to identify herself by name or badge number but appeared to be in proper uniform and in an official vehicle, she made a few reasonable and some unreasonable inquiries, and after this initial investigation stated that she had no reason to fear for her safety or that of others and that they were free to go – no Terry Stop/Search.

      As the gentleman stated, unless she was planning to detain them and investigate a possible crime she had no authority to demand identification or documents. She had no authority to demand that they travel in any direction or on any route other than that they had freely chosen, and she had no authority to tell them that if they disobeyed and/or she got another call she would return and DEMAND I.D.

      Aside from being moderately polite and somewhat considerate, everything she did was excessive and wrong. I how that in many states it is a requirement that people who want a CCW have to take a mandatory number of hours of classroom training first. Is it too much to ask that the police officers take a few hours of training in how to legally deal with citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights?

      • Even in Ohio, where they’re trained about this stuff, some officers still pull this garbage. It’s often not about technical training per se. It’s about attitude and understanding the primacy of their oath.

    • But if they just keep walking they don’t get a video of police “harassment” they can put on their Youtube channel, which is the entire point of these stupid exercises.

  6. God forbid they politely disagreed with her. The nerve of them!

    MDA like other hoplophobe orgs aren’t interested in discourse, they just want to foist their agenda on everyone.

  7. Ok misogynist statement of the day… That cop could cuff me anytime i’d let her… ok I’m done now sorry to give the antis ammo but since I dated that MP years ago I’ve had a thing for cops… those cuffs come in pretty handy some nights… ” oh yeah I’ve been a baaahd sheeple.”

  8. I guess I don’t rate. RF, Nick, and Tyler have all been blocked by Shannon, but not me. I guess it’s because I don’t Tweet.

    • Matt I’ll tell Shannon to block you next time I’m on Twitter… which will be in about 20 years when I remember my password.

    • I just checked my Twitter in the first time since…oh…about the day I opened it. Apparently I started following her.

      Oddly, I’m not following @guntruth…know thy enemy I guess.

    • Asymmetric Warfare time, Matt. Stay under the radar and keep feeding us intel about what these psycho bitches are doing so we can fight it (and get their phone numbers for later use).

    • (Spam filter approved comment to follow)

      Please continue to monitor their movements Matt in FL, so that we may be better prepared to counter them (then take them out for a nice seafood dinner and NEVER call them again).

  9. I know so little about twitter that I didn’t know you can block people from following you… does that hide posts or just make it so you have to manually go to their twitpage (?) to view their tweets?

  10. No, she does not have the right to detain or identify someone that is not committing a crime or witnesses to a crime. Under GC §411.205 they must identify themselves if carrying a “Handgun” and licensed under Chapter 411, Subchapter “H”…. and they must have both their Texas ID (DL) and their CHL. If not carrying a handgun, they do not have to identify themselves.

    However….. Case Law states that, if the officer has be notified by a local resident that there is something “Amiss” going on in the neighborhood, then it is acceptable for the officer to assume that the local residents would be more apt to know what is inappropriate than someone that is not a resident. This, by its nature, would give the officer “Reasonable Suspicion”. Although this is not “Probably Cause”, it is enough to justify the officer stopping and questioning the individuals. If nervous, confused, disoriented, or unable to answer questions appropriately, this could be Probable Cause. In this case, being rude to a Public Servant is not Justification for “Probable Cause”…. but it does not help the cause of the Assholes that were doing it. She was a nice woman. She was just doing what the residents asked her to do. She was just trying to be nice.

    These asswipes could have handled it much differently…. and still made their point: “It’s a Free Country”

    • I’m not a lawyer or a Texan, but as Texas does not have a stop and identify statute, I believe the cop should need reasonable suspicion to detain them. Once detained, they can be searched for ID, but then the PD is liable for false arrest.

      Are you aware of some twist of Texas law that would be contrary to this?

    • So Tom which government agency do you work for, COP? Fed? If you’re not a public servant, you should really get up off of your knees and realize they work for us.

      Ass wipes? They were polite,but firm without raising thier voices or being rude, the cop on the other lied repeatedly when she said she could demand their ID; if anyone was an “asswipe”, it was the cop;

    • *** Notice this right vs privilege example! ***

      “Under GC §411.205 they must identify themselves if carrying a “Handgun” and licensed under Chapter 411, Subchapter “H”…. and they must have both their Texas ID (DL) and their CHL.” {emphasis added}

      When one takes a license or permit to exercise a right they are actually exercising a privilege. Privileges can have all sorts of strings attached now or added later. Privileges can also be revoked. This is just one of the many examples of what we’ve been trying to get across to people.

  11. I like how she thinks blocking you two will stop us from seeing every little absurd lie they post up and bringing it to the public eye. I had absolutly no interest in interacting with her little circle of cougars until they did this. I will likely be on that site every day from now on. I’ll make a dozen new accounts a day if thats what it takes. My old man always said not to poke a sleeping bear.

      • I wouldn’t suggest censorship in any way, shape or form….
        Is it any wonder that Ms. Watt’s group would use the “misogynist” label for our tribe when they see these kinds of comments and the piling on by other tribe members? Are we in a men’s locker room? Are there no women that might be interested in the truth about guns? If they were interested before reading our comments, do they continue to be after reading them? Just some food for thought….

  12. Why does ANY Responsible gun owner think that they behavior displayed in this video is acceptable? CArry a gun for the purpose of confrontation is reckless. Refusing to cooperate with police just to satisfy your ego and make a youtube video is immature, wastes times and cases gun owners in a negative light.

    There are MUCH better ways to make pro-gun statements, educate the community and (most certainly) to educate local law enforcement.


    • Well behaved people rarely make history … or accomplish anything of any variety that remotely resembles stopping a run-away freight train.

      Wanton, reckless Liberalism and its attendent evil Medusa sister Feminism must be stopped.

      The best way to stop them is to not validate them by behaving as they wish we would.

      Play their game their way and lose. End of story.

    • That damned Rosa Parks, creating confrontation, and refusing to cooperate with the law.

      There were much better ways to make pro-civil rights statements, and educate the community and local law enforcement.

      Ms. Parks was actually even breaking the law, something these gentlemen were not doing.

      Why do you want Ms. Parks in the back of the bus?

      • The big difference is the national media gave people like Ms. Parks positive press. People OCing for the sole purpose of confrontation are not going to be cast in the same positive light. I’m all for OCing, (and yes, the cop knew she was wrong, which is why she didn’t push for ID’s) I just think people should OC as part of their daily routine instead of intentionally going out to get youtube videos. I could’ve taken a youtube video yesterday of a guy walking around the quasi crunchy local supermarket while OCing and I think the fact that most people didn’t notice or didn’t care would have made a much better case for OC than what was posted above. But that doesn’t get the 100k hits or 20k likes I guess.

        • As you saw, the only open carries you are going to see, that involve other people, are those that illicit some response.

          It doesn’t mean the people open carrying are seeking a confrontation. There are thousands open carries a day in the US, and the vast majority are no different than whether a person is wearing a jacket or not.

          Unless there is a response, you’ll never know about it. You only see those that include a confrontation.

        • I mostly agree with you but here’s the thing… it’s recommended these days for people who OC to carry some sort of recording device; at minimum a voice recorder. There have been way too many situations in which the police have out right lied about what transpired. Also, officers and OCers tend to be on better behavior when they know there is video rolling. Audio helps in that manner but not like video seems to. Many people OC with some recording device rolling. Most don’t end up with audio or video that needs to be posted in public. I know that I’m very happy when none of my day to day activities produce media in need of dissemination.The ones that do get posted by people who OC, typically have some value in that they aren’t usually ‘non-events’. Even though there happens to be an audio or video record of an OC incident, that doesn’t necessarily mean the citizen went out looking for a confrontation. Also consider, the OCer isn’t in control of the officer’s choice to engage the individual or not. If officers would simply observe and assess without interfering there would be very few to practically no internet videos and audio recordings to post. The choices are that citizens choose to not exercise their rights OR law enforcement officers abide by the law and leave people who are committing no crime alone. Which takes precedent; the citizen’s rights or the officer being free to not do the job as lawfully proscribed? Obviously the former does so it is NOT incumbent upon the citizen to stop OCing with video or audio recorders running. It’s up to officers to do their jobs properly; then there would be nothing to post online.

          Some of the recordings may have been the product of trying to get a confrontation. That’s a question of intent and it’s not likely to be adequately debated here for each individual recording. However, regardless of intent, the common factor that should change is the officer doing the job incorrectly and, in some cases, unlawfully. I wish everyone could just simply OC every day with no recording devices. The reality is that we need those devices to keep government honest and inform others as to what is taking place. That also means that the recordings must be posted so that they get the most viewings. This is a crucial defense mechanism in protecting the right to keep and bear arms; a necessary evil, unfortunately.

        • +1

          I’m not saying that people don’t have the right to OC an AR if they wish, just that it’s not a good strategy for “winning hearts and minds” of the fence-sitters.

          Sometimes I open carry: I usually just lounge around the house in my pants and undershirt with my CZ still in the holster. If I have to go get something out of my car or go get the mail, I won’t bother covering it up. If someone sees me, I just smile and wave. Several people have seen me doing this and nobody has taken issue.

          If people just see a normal guy doing normal things who just happens to have a gun, it goes a long way towards destroying stereotypes.

        • @Akira: I agree with you. Probably 99% of my open carrying is that I’m doing whatever and the firearm is with me. The firearm is not the primary purpose of being out and about. Be warned though, you will know why we carry recording devices whenever we OC if you ever have an officer mess with you, out of the blue, and try to get creative with charges. We’ve had people get jammed up simply going about their usual routine. Those without recordings of their incident usually get railroaded. We’ve had officers take it upon themselves to do these things WITHOUT a complaint. It only takes once to emphasis the need.

        • By the way, something John in Ohio just wrote triggered this thought in my mind and I need to make the comment.

          The officer asked whether or not their rifles were loaded. While it is perfectly logical for her own safety that she would want to have this information I want to express to anybody out for an OC walk with an expensive rifle, especially if you are in a group: Load the damn weapon! At least on of them. Some gang-banger pulls up on you and sticks a 9mm out the window, guess what? He just acquired four or five very nice MSRs at your expense, and without a background check.

          If none of us ever Open Carry just because we don’t want to offend anyone or give the anti-2A crowd propaganda ammunition then we might as well just stand back and let them write the civilian disarmament legislation because through our cowardice they have already won the war by default.

        • @Cliff H: Oh, Hell yes… load that damned thing! I should really start pointing that out. It’s common sense for some of us but I’ve seen a lot of unloaded rifles at demonstrations. Thanks for pointing that out, it’s important.

          “because through our cowardice they have already won the war by default.”

          So very, very true.

        • @ Xanthro & John in Ohio – Xanthro, I agree that those encounters are going to be the ones that are the most viewed, and John, I completely understand the recording aspect for CYA; I’d record interactions with cops even if I wasn’t carrying. I just think that if you’re gonna post the negative videos, you should also post the videos you have where the cops acted professionally with you. Or maybe some video clips from times that you OC’ed and you never encountered a cop because nobody called them. I know it’s boring, and will probably get low views and down votes on YT, but if the vast majority of the time you don’t have negative encounters, that is a good message to get out. The last time my wife OCed was earlier this year when we were out hiking. We had a young couple stop and talk to us. The girl initially asked her if she was a cop. My wife said “no” and we got into a brief friendly discussion on the helpfulness of firearms to outdoorsy-type people. I really wish I had recorded it, because it would have been right along the lines of what I’d like to see more of on YT.

        • @NYC2AZ: I agree that it would be good to post the non-event stuff too. Either in this thread or another, I commented that I was going to start suggesting it to OCers.

    • Cops stopping people simply because they are carrying a gun and then demanding ID is a-OK with you?

      I dont agree with open carry “advocates” who are dicks to police, but from what I saw these guys knew they didnt have to show the cop ID for simply walking down the street with a firearm slung on their back and they let the cop know as much, despite her repeated (wrong) attempts to force them to give her ID.

    • So, how would one go about exercising a right without, well, exercising it? Are people to give up protections of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments just so you and others can ‘feel’ something? Isn’t that pretty much what the left bases their anti-gun agenda on… ‘feelings’? I guess your ‘feelings’ about individuals’ rights are somehow more correct than the antis ‘feelings’ about individuals’ rights? How about the government follows the Constitution to the letter and leave all of the ‘feelings’ out of it.

    • There are MUCH better ways to make pro-gun statements, educate the community and (most certainly) to educate local law enforcement. -RJP

      So being in the field of tactical shooting I’m sure you and your instructors teach classes to various LEO groups. Im sure you/they cover the basics of 2A rights and that they belong to the citizens. That LEO’s are wrong to trample those rights, and remind them of the oaths sworn to uphold the constitution of the US and States where they are members.

      See someone should, when in a position such as yourself use their position to educate both the theory as well as the application of a firearms. The more LEOs you remind to act appropriately the less “negative light” is cast on the people of the gun. Then these videos become positive rather than portraying the police in a negative light.

      If you arent advocating for the armed citizenry then it should be considered a failing in your teaching and just a touch hypocritical to your statement.

    • One of my favorite Rush Limbaugh lines was his oft repeated challenge for people to go to their local library and look in the reference section for any book titled: “Great Moderates in History”.

    • I agree Rob. Very irresponsible. This is coming from a someone who has carried concealed for many years, and also loves those evil black rifles. There is no good that can come of this, in todays climate. All it does, at this point and time, is paint the community as idiots,…just like what we saw in this video.

      • I’ve seen people make much bigger idiots** of themselves on Youtube and I’m thinking of a few in particular right now. ‘Nuff said.

        (** I’m not really of the opinion that the citizens exercising their rights on the video in this article made idiots out of themselves.)

    • The voice of reason. Thanks, Rob. I get really upset every time I see this behavior. It does nothing to help gun rights. It makes us look bad. The police officer was very patient with these guys. Think people. I am 100% pro gun rights, but this is dumb.

    • Rob Pincus; OC of pistols and long guns was the norm and was accepted as such; the way to make it the norm in present time is to OC pistol and long gun: simple to understand; why do you have such a hard time understanding this concept?

      And any place that passes more restrictive gun laws because of OC of weapons is already lost to us, every where else, people just learn to see it as just another civil right being practiced and the gun laws become less restrictive.

  13. Beyond the ID issue, I was really amazed that this woman felt that she had the authority to tell them where they could walk.

  14. They (cops) are only public servants, who serve us (civilians). They need to give us their names, not the other way around, when no law is broken.

  15. In all seriousness, kind of, sort of… In my humble opinion all open carrier dudes should carry a bouquet of flowers along with their kit (knife, extra mag, one loose lucky round in pocket, IFAK, restraining device, and illumination device) why? We kill um with kindness, hearts and minds people, they want Jerry Springer, Honey Boo Boo etc… We’ll give them Jerry Springer and Honey Boo Boo! Because common sense isn’t an option with these people.

    • The cops like to win hearts and minds by carrying little stuffed toys to give to the children in tense situations. When you OC bring a little Beanie Baby or stuffed toy and when the officer approaches hand them the toy. Might throw them off their stride, might not, but it should certainly indicate at the outset that you aren’t the bad guy they were looking for.

      • But don’t load them into shotguns and disperse the Beanie Babies (‘Babys’?) like a T-shirt canon at a baseball game. That might not end well. 😀

        Seriously though, it sounds good but I’ve encountered some real bullies that would only see that as a sign of weakness. If you get one of those then you’re in for a bad time.

  16. I learned a long time ago in a circumstance such as those 3 were in.
    One simple word can end or escalate the situation.
    That word is NO.
    Its then up to the officer to make a big deal of it or not.
    With the officer being wrong no matter what she/he does from then on.
    In the 70s-90s I had been stopped so many times on I95 that when the officer asked do you know why I stopped you?
    The answer was always NO.
    Then if asked for my license it was also NO.
    If he/she didn’t give me a reason for stopping me 1st.
    If then and they always did ask next.
    Do you have any drugs, or guns ?
    The answer was YES, and YES.
    What would you like??
    In my case, I always traveled with at least 1 gun and a rifle.
    Legally prescribed narcotic drugs.
    Sometimes Id open the trunk or rear hatch and let them see the locked container box and or my rifle case.
    That’s a mistake by the way.
    99.99% of the time Id then be issued a warning ticket for going 1 mile above whatever the speed limit was. And be on my way.
    The .01% Id then maybe show them my license too.
    But once you open the rear hatch.
    They can look into the car and then illegally go through it or detain you.
    If your trip is interrupted over 90 minutes.
    You can suit the cops for unlawful detainment or false arrest if they haven’t actually charged you with anything..
    In my case having a sports car, Florida plates, tinted windows and I guess my general appearance back then.
    I fit the profile of a drug smuggler on the I95 corridor.
    With my best friend being a NYS Investigator who told me how I should handle the situation.
    I had fun giving the cops a hard time and hoped some times Id get pulled in.
    But that never happened to me all because of the simple word NO.

    Same deal always happed when Id fly too.
    I was always profiled by the Fort Lauderdale police at the airport back then.
    I did miss a flight once because of it.
    Delta Airlines had to issue me a ticket to any place they flew to back then because of it.
    I took a one way ticket to Frankfort Germany and cashed it in.
    Then took a bus back home to NY.
    That’s a whole other story for another time.
    Im not a Lawyer but I used to stay at Holiday Inns back then.

  17. Robert – I will go and speak with my internet boo, the lovely Shannon Watts(TM)(aka SUNSHINE), but I need to get a different # for her since she will make those stalking allegations. again.

    Anyhows . . . she is lonely. She is taking her sexual frustrations out on us fellas. We just need to remember it has been awhile since she had some quality loving. . . . not since she and John got married in 2009. Let me see what I can do.

  18. I’m not sure what hurts more, my face or the hand I’ve been slapping it with for the last three minutes.

  19. the female cop has an ANNOYING VOICE!!! OMG!!! I would rather get arrested than listen to her. . . .

    • you know, in a way I feel really sorry for her and all her girls.

      What is it, do you think, that they are missing at home that makes them act out this way?

      Methinks Mr. Diggler ain’t too far off.

  20. The only problem I see is that to the uninformed who have no idea about reasonable suspicion and Terry stops this just looks like the OCers are being jerks to the “reasonable” police officer. If you want to OC then fine. If you have to deal with the cops just go along with them and if they really violate your rights, then sue. Yeah they don’t have the right to ask for ID but what does it hurt to ID yourself and make yourself look like the good guy? If these activists keep on then it won’t be long before the states start outlawing OC.

    • The most I’ll do is give name, address, and date of birth; and that’s only sometimes. Ohio law compels those three (there’s debate about if it is just one of those or all) if the officer has RAS. One of the big problems of handing an ID to the officer is that some of them walk away with the ID! You can see that in some videos and I’ve had officers do that. Sometimes they run the ID since you’ve now handed them an official document and they can feel duty bound to verify its accuracy and authenticity. Sometime they just hold onto the thing while they talk to you. They won’t give it back until THEY decide even though you are ‘free to leave’. It’s a nasty tactic that I’ve seen done more than once. So, no… I won’t hand an ID over unless I’m legitimately compelled to do so. I also only make verbal ID if I choose to (think the officer might be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion, the officer seems well meaning enough and polite, etc.).

      • Can anyone here find a link to that 48 minute lecture by the law school professor who is VERY adamant that you should NEVER talk to the police, under any circumstances. His police officer counterpart in the lecture reiterates this advice and goes on to list all the ways a cop can trip you up in an “innocent” interview. If you are not being charged with a crime and detained/arrested, just say nothing. If you are being detained/arrested just say, “I want a lawyer.” and then shut up.

        Now I do believe it is reasonable to ask the officer if you are being detained. If the answer is, as it should be, “No.”, then you should announce your intention to leave and go about your business. (I am not a lawyer, by the way, do not presume this to be valid legal advice.) At this point, IMO, if the officer wants further interaction they will have to either break some law themselves or find probable cause to detain you and investigate or charge you with a crime. You should still not respond to any questions unless you are being arrested, at which time the “I want a lawyer.” is the proper response.

        I’m pretty sure this is possible to do politely, but it will inevitably make you come across as a dickhead on YouTube.

        By the way, I can see no reason why you should volunteer your I.D. to the officer. There is no law I am aware of compelling you to carry and present any identification unless you are CCW. If they want your ID they really need cause for a Terry stop and to find the ID themselves.


          The video, “Dont Talk to Police” (sic) is about 48 minutes and is by a law professor and former criminal attorney. {“Just call Saul”}. About midway through, a former law enforcement officer (a detective?), who was by then a law student(?), also gives crucial information. It’s definitely a must see and understand video for anyone who is not in prison yet.

          Edited: I didn’t see that you gave a description also.

    • John in Ohio gives some really good reasons not to give ID, like they will run it and hold on to it and not let you go.

      The police are trained to stretch the boundaries.. they are going to ask, try to get you to waive your rights. It’s incumbent on you to assert them. If you answer the first five questions, then assert your rights on the 6th, the supreme court has even held that refusal to answer the 6th can be used as evidence of your guilt, because you are selectively answering questions.

      In this case the officer even agrees and is sympathetic, but is doing her job. The officer can ask all day. The protestors were not rude, they politely refused then went on their way.

      Honestly, I wish every open carry protest went like it did in this video [and I have been known to call out some open carry people as being dicks]

      • I believe that most of them go pretty well. Indeed, most of them don’t even get a recording posted because nothing really happens. That’s always a good day. 🙂

        In DC, on October 13 (unarmed), officers told us to move back from the White House fence and we said, “No” a couple of times. They stopped asking so nothing to post a video of there. In Cincinnati earlier this year, officers told us to disarm (handguns and long gun) or get off of the public square because of a Mothers Against Gun Violence demonstration. We were merely individuals on the square (no signs or saying anything) so we told them “No” a few times and they gave up. Since they were essentially non-events there isn’t much reason to post up recordings. (BTW: In both cases they wanted to talk to a “leader” but we were not a group and had no leader so that’s why it worked so well.) Just like probably many deterred crimes where a weapon is seen (OC or CC), there’s no real consistent documentation of such low key events.

        • the media never reports non-events, by definition. Nothing to see. Unfortunately, people’s impression of open carry is formed by the confrontational events that people actually see, which usually involve a douchebag or dick on one side or the other (or both).

          Even a lot of gun owners are against these OC rallies, and I personally have mixed feelings, like when someone tries to take a Big Black Scary Rifle into a courthouse. Yes its your right, but it turns people off. or worse. OC of a pistol seems normal, OC of a BBSR and people think right-wing paramilitary neo-somethingorother.

          My suggestion would be after every one of these rallies post of video “nothing happens at OC rally. again. still.- part 273” until people get the idea that non-events are significantly more comment than the contrary.

        • @dwb: That’s a good idea and I’ll start recommending it to others. There already are written “OCed at xxx, non-event” where they describe the whole nothing in detail on forums. However, there does seem to be a lacking of non-event video and audio. If people put it out there; I wonder if anyone will notice. I guess trying to suggest it around and see how it goes is the best thing to try.

          BTW: I have a bias because I’ve seen or heard directly from the individuals who’s characters are well known to me, of the problems with some officers. Admittedly, it taints my opinion somewhat. I try to be fair but hold no illusions that I can be so completely with each incident.

  21. I dont think she exspected her followers to actually take the time to watch the video, but just envision the worst possible sexist response and continue picking cheerios out of their minivan

  22. I can’t be sure the officer in the video knew she was exceeding her authority but I think it is significant that, in the end, she backed down.

    About fifteen years ago, I witnessed a guy perfectly handle a police officer with whom he disagreed. The guy was a real douchebag. He bought a solid, if unspectacular, business and, instead of building it up, milked it for cash to play in the dot com boom. When the bubble burst, he lost everything including the business which was foreclosed on. An officer showed up at the end of normal business hours to enforce a court order which barred the douchebag from the property. He argued with her that the wording of the order permitted him to remain until midnight. He refused to leave and told her that he would not resist if she chose to arrest him but that he would sue for false arrest. She phoned someone (probably the city attorney) for advice. They must have decided that it wasn’t worth a lawsuit because she let the douchebag stay.

    • She didn’t actually back down. Towards the end she singled out one of the people to continue demanding ID. Once she was appeased THEN the situation ended. She was still pushing it with the last guy there. What would she have done if he hadn’t shown ID? The best course, IMHO, would’ve been for them all to leave when she responded that they were free to go; saying nothing further and walking right past the officer that was in their way. If she stopped them again, nothing but “I am exercising my right to remain silent.” except to ask “Am I being detained?” and “Am I free to go?”.

    • actually at 3:07 ish the female officers says she agrees with what the protesters are doing. I think the officer has been told that she is to request ID as part of her job, nothing more. I’d blame this one on academy training.

  23. Shannon Watts will not only block opponents, she will try to get your Twitter account suspended or banned. Happened to me.

  24. Let me get this straight. Anyone can anonymously call the police and report a “suspicious” person and that alone is legally sufficient for a Terry stop? In other words a person walking down the street who matches the description of an anonymous caller’s “suspicious person” is “reasonable suspicion” for the police to detain someone and demand identification?

    The really infuriating part: as the men are about to walk away the female officer admits that the men are engaged in a legal activity. If they are engaged in a legal activity, then why is she stopping them and demanding identification?!?!?!?!?

    Just like the recent event in Wisconsin where police had gun/s drawn on two men for walking down the sidewalk with a rifle slung over their shoulder/s, police need to spend more time observing subjects of anonymous calls before stopping them. There is a big difference between a subject (of interest) and a suspect (of a crime that someone has already committed). People walking down the street are NOT suspects unless they match the description of a criminal who committed a crime. Last time I checked, walking down the street with a firearm slung over your shoulder is not a crime. Neither is walking down the street with any other object such as canes, sticks, rocks, hammers, scarves, rope, chain, etc. that someone has used as a weapon at some time.

    • “Anyone can anonymously call the police and report a “suspicious” person and that alone is legally sufficient for a Terry stop?”

      I posted a comment a few inches up from a Google search about Terry Stop. To paraphrase here, a citizen call to police is NOT sufficient for a Terry stop unless the responding officer has reason to suspect criminal activity. I would suspect that even if an anonymous caller claimed to have observed suspicious activity (other than carrying a rifle, which is not a crime) the officer would have to personally observe or suspect such activity before doing the Terry Stop/Search. This was obviously not the case here as the officer admitted up front that what they were doing was not illegal. The demand for ID did not need to be complied with. If she had legal standing for a Terry Search it is up to her to FIND your ID, not up to you to surrender it.

    • You know you are in a police state when a man is detained and questioned and requested for identification for merely walking down the sidewalk while expressing his rights. You don’t need a driver’s license to walk down a sidewalk.

  25. Gunbullies! Love it!

    …except isn’t Shannon the gun-bully here? I mean, those guns are all the way in Texas. They couldn’t possibly have accosted her from that far away, so I’m thinking she instigated the bullying here. Not to worry, though, if this were high school, everybody would be sent home. Woo!

    I really hope she doesn’t let her son see her Twitter page, though. If LAX gave him a panic attack, that video would’ve caused seizures and complete bowel evacuation.

    • If that is the response from this video I think it would be great if the kid saw it. Unfortunately, since Shannon is always out somewhere prostituting herself for Bloomberg her poor spineless husband would have to clean up the shit. On the other hand, if the kid sees enough real men in videos like this he might eventually man up and grow a pair, assuming the genetics he inherited allow such a thing.

  26. Moms demand bedroom action… this was an especially funny article for me – and what a good comparison too:


    Do you know what this is? It’s a fire extinguisher turned into a flamethrower. Yep! A flamethrower! No one NEEDS these death machines designed to exhale the flames of hell on innocent women and cook children easily for cannibals. If you would even consider using one of these atrocities, you’re delusional.

    Let’s be honest, you don’t even need a fire extinguisher. That’s what the fire department is for! Anyone with a fire extinguisher is either a criminal seeking to breathe the flames of hell on innocent kids in schools or paranoid! Your house is never going to burn down! There is just NO rational reason for anyone to have one of these!

    Ban assault fire extinguishers!

    Do it for the children!

  27. Feminists and Leftists attempt to turn virtually every political interaction of men and women into a character attack labeling the men sexist, misogynistic, etc often seeking to put the men into the position of defending their social behavior. Meanwhile the event or subject does not get discussed in a mature, informed, and logical manner. People are left with the surface level accusations and political slogans.

    Perhaps they believe, from experience, that the nagging irrational wife will always get her way with men and that men will do and agree to anything to get away from the emotional bs.

    Feminist web rags do essentially the same thing that was done to Robert. They do not tolerate different viewpoints, constructive criticism, or posted comments with facts and links for reference that do not support their political agenda. They delete and block dissension. Suppressing the truth allows the lies to float easily to the surface.

  28. Did Watts actually watch the video? the protesters were polite, and at 3:07ish the female officer said she agreed with what they were doing. I think she was just trying to do her job as she was trained to do it. Whether she knew she was “exceeding her authority” or not, a police officer is trained to push the boundaries. Hey you can always ask, and in the end when they refused politely she backed down. And said she agreed with the protest.

  29. What the flock are #GunBullies???

    Seriously, this is what they are stooping to…name calling?

    If anything, I would say a Gun Bully is more often than not a Cop or Federal Officer of some type. The ATF and DHS comes to mind.

  30. Right, Wrong, whatever. These open carry people are not helping anything. They will help turn the tide of public opinion against gun owners. They will help the anti-crowd get new, more restorative laws passed. I doubt very much these yahoo’s are willing to put a real fight if their actions ultimately get their guns taken away. PUBLIC RELATIONS, KILL THEM WITH KINDNESS, WIN THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS, VOTE THEM DOWN.

    We are PRO GUN in my house. My wife is fully onboard. That said if someone was walking through my neighborhood with a rife, my wife would dial 911…and she should with kids at home. She would also make sure the door was locked and get a gun out of lockup as well.

    • Larry, have you heard what they say about someone who says “I support the 2a, but . . . ” It means they don’t support the 2a. If you can’t carry your gun you don’t have a right to bear arms, period. If OC leads to outlawing OC that would mean that you didn’t have the right in the first place. An exercisable right isn’t a right at all.

      As for calling the cops; in an open carry legal state (such as here in Ohio) you can certainly call them, they will come, talk to the carrier for a minute and leave, since that is a citizen going about his business and exercising his rights. What is it you’d like for the police to do? Disarm them, make them leave the area? What you’re suggesting is counter to liberty. Please and I mean this sincerely, really think about what you’re suggesting.

      • When the cops come I want them to question the person walking around my neighborhood with a rifle, and not my wife. Its NOT normal for something like that to happen in my neighborhood. There would be multiple people calling as their are lots of children around, young ones in the front yards. The fact that you can’t understand that amazes me. I bet in your neighborhood the same thing would happen.

        It draws negative attention. It pushes people that are on the fence in the wrong direction….just see Starbucks after these OC stunts. Starbucks was fine with CC. There were probably fine with the occasional OC every now and then. Then the OC/youtube/look at me I want to be famous crowd over did it and now the ownership, their customers and employees are freaked out about it and now they are not allowing any guns. With almost weekly/monthly shootings at airports, malls, schools…Navy bases the general public is going to be freaked out when someone is OC with a black rifle. Right or wrong that is the re-action. Why stir that re-action? Why push these people off the fence and into the ant-crowd? It also burdens the local police as they must respond. If they have to do it a lot they are not going to like it either. They will eventually be on the side of the anti’s because it makes their job harder, because some yahoo with a gun wants to prove a point. Prove it when you need to because of a real incident, like taking your weapons from your house to your car and someone calls the cops because they are scared. Then get on the grand stand and tell them its legal. Take them to court or whatever. You will be right and you will win.

        OC is great in the right place. On your own property moving guns to and from cars to houses. In the garage with it open while your are working on a bench or whatever. On your open land for hunting or shooting sports.

        Common sense needs to prevail on both sides.

        • Paragraph 1
          – So gun control is for the children, right?
          – It’s not really about what you or I want. The Constitution enumerates what government can do.

          Paragraph 2
          – Starbucks is private property.
          – Public property and the RKBA is what’s at issue in the discussion.
          – Waiving bloody shirts in this paragraph as well.
          – So, other people have an actual RIGHT to ‘feel safe’? And, that faux ‘right’ supersedes a natural and enumerated right? Good therapists teach that no one else is actually responsible for our own feelings but ourselves. We’re can’t make other people feel this or that. How they feel is their own doing.
          – You’re blaming people exercising a right for the decisions of others. People are responsible for holding their government accountable too. If the sight of someone exercising their right will cause them to give up their own rights as well then they won’t remain free very long regardless. Does someone who won’t fight for their own liberty even deserve freedom?
          – The police wouldn’t be over-burdened if they abide by their oath. No crime is being committed by these citizens.

          Paragraph 3
          – The RKBA is okay as long as it’s in your own home or on your own property? Isn’t that how the antis started their gun control campaign. Haven’t we struggled to get out of that illusion of the RKBA?
          – Carrying under a license or permit (like CC in many places) is exercising a privilege, NOT a right. So, what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t have a right to keep and bear arms anymore but should all be satisfied with a privilege from government? No thank you!

          Paragraph 4
          Common sense needs to prevail on both sides.

          Ah, the ‘common sense’ sound bite. Where do we keep seeing that, I wonder.

  31. Anyone else think the more MDA keeps tweeting links to open carry videos, the more they might learn about constitutional rights? “What? You mean you don’t have to produce ID when asked by a cop?”

  32. people are going to get mad at what i am going to say but this point needs to nailed in to peoples head. we gun owners have rights and can walk down the street with guns. but come on we need to make a better point then this. all this does is change the mind of NON-gun owners that support the 2nd amendment. to start favoring the gun grabbers views and opinions.

    I use the power of words. not walk down a street with large firearms. use large words. we need to be better then them stronger then them. the them is the gun haters and gun grabbers.

    look what did it do for us good gun owners when people started having ar 15 ak’s 12 gauge shotguns at starbucks. I’ll tell you the ceo asked us not to go there with a gun. thanks very much I don’t care to much for there coffee but my wife does and so do some of my friends so i go from time to time.

    so please let give a good smart fight. ammo is expensive lets not give them any for free ok

    • Of course popular opinion may be swayed. But, if our rights are infringed even more then that is clear evidence that we aren’t as free as we thought. What then? Are we a free nation anymore? I disagree with what you wrote but can understand from where it comes. Can you understand that if protections against government encroachment aren’t any longer real protections then our nation is way closer to tyranny than anyone seems to be talking about?

      Starbucks’ decision was made by a corporate group (or even only the CEO) about private property. That isn’t the same as the RKBA in a public place. I understand what you’re trying to state, however, our government is supposed to be constrained by a constitution and not by popular opinion.

      I use the power of words. not walk down a street with large firearms. use large words.

      No disrespect intended but isn’t that literal the opposite of “walking the talk”? If we talk but don’t walk are we disingenuous? Some are walking the talk…

  33. I am both an LE officer and a gun enthusiast. There is absolutely no reason to refuse to obey such a simple, polite command as asking for identification. The men in this video open carrying rifles had no reason to be doing so other than for their own entertainment. They stated that. Therefore, when they began alarming the citizens in the area by open carrying their rifles, which is totally legal, they created a problem. The officer politely tried to handle that problem and was treated with ignorant, disrespectful behavior. The 3 seconds it would have taken them to hand her their driver’s licenses would not have ruined their whole day. That is not a difficult or unreasonable request. Unless these nitwits had some reason to fear being identified. If I was in this officer’s shoes, those men would have been politely asked to remove their weapons and place them on the ground during our interaction, because of officer safety concerns. Once our interaction was over, they would take their weapons and be on their way. This video makes all open carry supporters seem like ignorant, hateful people who have no respect for anyone who doesn’t share their stance, which is exactly what the group that posted this video honed in on.

    • Taking the first sentence out of order…

      “…such a simple, polite command as asking for identification.”

      Which is it, a command or a request? Are you demanding my identification, or asking for it? In many states (Florida is one, I don’t know about the state in the video), I do not have to provide identification on request. (I believe, in Florida, I do have to provide a name.) It is perfectly legal for me to refuse that request. If it’s a demand, then we’ve moved into the realm of a Terry stop, and the rules change.

      There is absolutely no reason to refuse to obey…

      Let’s assume it was a request, not a demand… that this was not a Terry stop. Under that assumption, they were not being detained, just contacted, and were free to leave at any time. Thus your “absolutely no reason” is absolutely incorrect. You see, as soon as they hand over their identification in a non-detention contact, they are being detained, de facto if not de jure, because they’re not going anywhere until the officer elects to return their IDs. I mean, sure, they could leave anyway and go through the hassle of getting their ID replaced or returned later, but how many folks are going to do that? Not many, I’d wager. And while some officers might inspect the ID and immediately return it, some others would not, but would “run the names” or simply elect to “hold onto it” until their curiosity was satisfied.

      “…when they began alarming the citizens in the area by open carrying their rifles, which is totally legal, they created a problem.

      But they were not breaking the law, therefore…

      The officer politely tried to handle that problem and was treated with ignorant, disrespectful behavior.”

      …they were completely within their rights to refuse to provide identification.

      If I was in this officer’s shoes, those men would have been politely asked to remove their weapons and place them on the ground during our interaction, because of officer safety concerns.

      And I would have politely asked you to do the same, because of citizen safety concerns. Which you would have, of course, refused, because you’re better than me.

      And if past experience holds true, it would be somewhere around that point (if we hadn’t gotten there already) that you would start getting irritated and would begin “looking for a reason” to bust me. If I’m unfairly maligning you, and you wouldn’t react that way, then I apologize to you, but I would also wager that you’re not in the majority. Too many cops seem to see “exercising my rights” as prima facie evidence of “must be doing something wrong” or “must have something to hide” and react accordingly.

Comments are closed.