Previous Post
Next Post

Same old, same old, save this: “About two months ago I was assaulted behind that McDonalds by four men . . . I am not 21 and therefore I can not buy a handgun or get a concealed weapons permit. As soon as I’m 21 I will be more than happy to go get my concealed weapons permit, go buy a handgun and this won’t be an issue.” Huh. So when Steve Lohner says he’s carrying a shotgun down the streets of Aurora, Colorado – famous for the spree killing at the local Cinemark cinema – for self-defense he’s not kidding. Presumably. Anyway, the more of these I see the more I’m taking the side of the open carriers . . .

I used to think OC folk should provide their name to cops – knowing that the OC’ers are well within their rights not to do so. But the cops’ reaction to their refusal makes me say, well, maybe OC’er shouldn’t provide their name or show ID. At the end of this video the second cop refuses to give his name. That “one rule for us, one rule for you” arrogance really gets my goat. It triggers that childish impulse. Make me.

That’s a dangerous line of thought. But the news report here, where the reporter echoes the police justification for Lohner’s detention ( exercising his natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is “taking police away from real life-threatening situations”) does nothing to quell the urge towards civil disobedience.

In short, I seem to be undergoing a process of radicalization. You?

Previous Post
Next Post

365 COMMENTS

    • “If you take your green card down to the DMV they have to give you one” “So you can vote” “Multiple times”

        • In Colorado, you don’t even need a “green card”. As of August 1, 2014, the state is issuing driver licenses to people who cannot demonstrate that they are lawfully present in the USA.

      • What have you got against Green-Card holders?

        We’ve come to the US legally through official channels, paid around $1k in government form-filing fees, had multiple interviews as well as have our photos and fingerprints on record.

        It’s the illegals you should be upset about … they sneak in, get given free money (green-card holders don’t – I’m disabled and was denied benefits when my wife was out of work in 2011/2012), free phones, free housing, don’t pay taxes and don’t pay IF they ever try to file for legal-resident status (since they don’t pay taxes they claim they have zero income).

        • Amen, I love immigrants to our country. In all honesty, we ought to be lowering the barriers to almost all those who want to try to immigrate to the US legally. It’s a pile of Bovine Stool that you guys have to wade through when we go out of our way to facilitate fence-jumping on the southern border.

          And honestly, I like my illegal neighbors for the most part. They’re nice people who are honestly trying to make things go and would love to be citizens if it wasn’t so damned ridiculously difficult to do it right. What I don’t like is the Sinaloa cartel presence that comes with having such a porous border. If we made the legal process clearer and simpler, and at the same time, made the border tighter and locked up the bad ones, we’d be in much better shape.

          Anyway, I know I’m way off-topic here, but guys who come here legally ought to have the same rights as citizens (except for being president, of course =) ).

    • Reminds me of: “Show me your papers!” from a certain continent in the early 1940s or the USSR in the latter half of the 1900s or China today.

      Hmmmm…..

    • I’m with the post below. Unable to conceal carry or open carry a firearm? Fine, then I will open carry a CHAINSAW!!!!!!!!!!!! GETSOME!!!!!

  1. The kid went out looking for a confrontation and he got one. I am not “radicalized” by these stunts, only more convinced that the fringe OC elements in the RKBA movement are doing great harm to the cause. Same old, same old.

    • Maybe he did or maybe he didnt. What we do know for a fact from watching that video is that those cops, especially the 2nd one, are morons.

      • I don’t see they are any smarter or dumber than the average cop. What I did see was an attitude of “*I* have the power and you do not, you *will* do whatever I want you to do, or I will twist the law and my department’s directives in order to punish you, which I can do without fear of any discipline, any job action, any criminal charges for abuse of authority, any repercussions whatsoever. I know that because I have done it many times without any problem for me. I will claim ‘officer safety’, say you don’t look 18 (even if you’re clearly over 75), make up any stupid excuse in order to simply make you bend to my will.” Which, of course, is textbook abuse of authority. And we probably do not wish to know what would have happened if he had not been videoing the encounter, much mocked by the cops.

        • What you really should see is the fact the these police officer were 100% correct, they were nice, they went above and beyond trying to convince this idiot that they had a call for service and that does in fact give them probable cause to make contact with you and OBTAIN your identification!!! Why are you people so damn hard headed? lol It’s perfectly legal, it’s been upheld in the Supreme Court, it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment and you are going to lose in court every single time! I am a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I open carry in Louisiana every single day. I’m in and out of stores and restaurants all the time and no problems. If the police do contact me they will get my full cooperation because I am not a smartass #1, and secondly I understand the law and they have every right to make contact with me if a citizen calls in a complaint on me. LEARN THE LAW!! These people are doing us more harm than good..

        • you are going to lose in court every single time!

          Except for all the times you don’t. In states that don’t have “Must ID” laws, you don’t have to ID. In another post I mentioned a case here in Michigan where cops charged someone for “Obstruction” because he refused to ID, and the judge threw it out of court. It never even went to the jury.

          So, no, you’re not going to lose in court.

      • Maybe the kid just got sick of being assaulted. Where were the fat boys in blue then? Harrasing sheep or donughts, maybe?

    • How do you know? He was doing nothing less legal than someone who was lawfully driving a car down the road. The cops had no more right to hassle him than any lawful motorist. You are blaming the victim.

      • They had every right to make contact based on a citizen’s complain which makes this a call for service. Kind of what the police do…lol If a citizen call’s the police and complains about someone walking on the side of the road with a shotgun, that gives the police probable cause to make contact and OBTAIN their identification, upheld in the Supreme Court over and over and over! lol People need to learn the law. Not the “blogs” law, the real law. Had he cooperated with these very nice police officers, he would have walked away with his shotgun in about a minute and a half. But you cannot fix stupid.

        • The cops need a reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot in order to demand ID. So, Brad, what crime was afoot?

        • “If a citizen call’s the police and complains about someone walking on the side of the road with a shotgun, that gives the police probable cause to make contact and OBTAIN their identification”

          No, it doesn’t, because walking down the sidewalk with a shotgun is a 100% legal activity. The most it should get is an officer driving past for observation and the caller being informed it is a legal activity.

        • So, why can’t the cop, seeing that nothing criminal is going on, make the judgment that nothing criminal is going, and move along?

          Because our cops are managed to:

          – Gathering contact info to feed the central scrutinizers (for which departments are incented.)

          – Arrests and etc. (motivating them to look at any contact as an opportunity to find something on the folks in front of them.)

          – Keeping order, meaning absence of dispute or anxiety. Whether there is *reason* bears not into it at all. So you’re in nearly as much trouble being attacked as you are being the attacker, if the cops come along while fists are still flying.

          The incentives are sideways. What we really want is to have our autonomy and prerogatives protected – we contract these guys to keep an eye on things so we can get on with doing what we want. (Hard to do what you want if you’re dead, so we ask them to help reduce murder.)

          “Finding the bad guys” is an example of a bad, proxy measure. We don’t want the bad guys found. We want something that we infer will follow from finding the bad guys – us being left alone. We don’t even want to be left alone. We want to be able to do what we want. Being left alone enables this.

          Stops, contacts, arrests, charges and so on are other bad, proxy measures.

        • If a citizen call’s the police and complains about someone walking on the side of the road with a shotgun, that gives the police probable cause to make contact and OBTAIN their identification, upheld in the Supreme Court over and over and over!

          Really? Over and over and over? Surely you can cite some of those several SCOTUS cases?

          Personally, I think you’re just making crap up:
          http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005#2

    • What’s the difference in principle between this police encounter and a cop randomly stopping a driver for no other reason than to ask for id because he may have an outstanding warrant or not be of age?

      Our so-called “justice” system is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty. Refusing to answer questions is not a reason for reasonable suspicion or probable cause and therefore cannot be considered interfering with an investigation or obstructing justice.

      This arrest was unlawful.

      • Colorado has a Stop and Identify Statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

        (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person’s social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

        (2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

        Not every state does. He should have known his own state law and presented the ID

        • “reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime”

          There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

        • Since the police in this video did not even know this law, even when asked by the young man why he had to produce ID, how can we blame this young man for standing up for his constutional rights?

      • And yes, he did ask for it. Bless his heart.

        Pascal, where was the reasonable suspicion that he had anything to do with criminal activity? That discussion was on the tape. There was no probable cause of anything, the arrest was unlawful under any assumption set other than “guilty until proven innocent”.

        • The standard for Colorodo’s stop and id law is not ‘probable cause’ it’s ‘reasonable suspicion.’ RS is a much different and much lower standard than PC — but one the cops still didn’t meet in this instance.

        • …and SCOTUS has stipulated that such suspicion must be reasonable, articulable, and specific. “You look like you’re not 18” and “we don’t know that you’re not a felon” do not meet that standard.

    • I agree the kid was looking to go to jail. The cops were patient and had more restraint than I would. In some states it is required that anyone over 18 carry ID. In open carry states pushing the issue will get one a trip to the jail house and could cost one all gun rights if ya po the DA.

      • The cops should not have even been there, there was no criminal activity. And they damn well better be patient, they are armed.

    • Paul– If I had not viewed your videos on youtube shooting a G26, I’d think you were a shill here to divide and conquer.

      Stop attacking OC’ers as low IQ.

      I don’t OC but I support everyone’s right to OC.

      • +1

        Paul,
        I get the impression from your comments that you are a Fudd … one who only supports another persons gun rights if they partake in exactly the same gun related activities as you.

        You really need to have an open mind. Right is right – this kid was doing nothing wrong and was perfectly within his rights. It was the two “Respect Ma’Authoriton!” individuals who were in the wrong here.

    • The kid went out looking for a pack of cigarettes and he got one. It’s the cops who went looking for a confrontation, couldn’t find one, so fabricated one so as to justify their harassment. Radicalized? Nothing of the sort. I call it normalized. Conducting yourself peacefully and quietly, unmolested by the armed agents of the state, should be the default behavior. It’s the police who are forcing these confrontations which people like this young man resist in an effort to return to normalcy.

      • Colorado law requires ID to be shown if the reasonable suspicion of a crime being, or about to be committed. Reasonable is the key word. The young man was not required by Colorado statute to show his ID. Pretty much the end of that story and the arrest will not hold up. However, if the lad provided his ID the issue would have been resolved in a matter of a couple of minutes. While I believe open carry is a right, stupid stunts like this do NOTHING but give the anti gunners more ammunition (pun intended) to use against us. Oh, and before anyone goes bashing the IQ of law enforcement, perhaps it’s time to look at the IQ of these idiots pulling these stunts. If you are into open carry please go ahead and video and give yourself that adrenaline rush you are looking for but don;t upload the crap to the internet.

        • Rosa Parks was 100% legal where she sat before she was asked to move and continued to sit in defiance of the bus driver’s request. If she had moved, she would have caused no commotion and made her life easier but lost out on the larger picture of civil rights.

          the right to bear arms is as important as any civil right based on ethnicity or on creed or on religious tolerance as the right to bear arms gives the other rights teeth and the right to bear arms applies equally to all people. while I would probably show my ID in this case to take the easy way out, i applaud Steve for not taking the easy way out, and I wholeheartedly wish that the arresting officers get punished personally along with a full accounting of the entire department.

        • You may want to live in a society where Papers, please – your papers, comrade is the norm; but I sure don’t. The open carry bigotry here hurts sometimes – and I’m not even an open-carrier. I just happen to want to defend basic civil liberties against encroachment of the police state. To wit:

          1) Colorado is an open-carry state
          2) SCOTUS has held that the mere act of open carrying a firearm, where that activity is lawful, does not inherently constitute reasonable suspicion of commission of a crime, nor does it constitute a disturbance of the peace
          3) Under Colorado statute, a person is only compelled to provide ID to police if the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
          4) SCOTUS has held that such suspicion must be specific, articulable, and reasonable
          5) The officers clearly had no specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion of commission of any unlawful activity, and therefore had no grounds by which to compel the person to produce his ID; likewise, without reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, the police were conducting no investigation that the person could reasonably be construed to have been obstructing.

          The recorded police officers may or may not know the law (funny how ignorance of the law is no defense for non-badge-wielding civilians…), but given that officers can legally lie to their fellow civilians with impunity, it’s just as plausible that they do know the law, but choose to lie in order to abuse their badge and to overstep their authority.

          The person falsely arrested was 100% in the right, and the badge-wielding thugs were 100% in the wrong. They should be fired for abuse of the authority of the badge, as evidenced by their behavior on the recording.

    • Milquetoasts like you are a large part of the problem… you don’t mind kneeling and kissing some leftist jackboot to avoid inconvenience, hoping they’ll kill you last, and you simply hate it when someone else won’t kneel on command because it reminds you of your cowardice. So you attack OC’ers to compensate.

    • It is this very apathy by so called 2nd amendment supporters that has our country in the situation it is in now. It took remarkable bravery by this teenager as well as the “Chipotle ninjas” to bring publicity to the fact that we have lost our rights. Complaining with a keyboard rather than face to face with law enforcement is no brave act sir.

  2. Since we have, again, another OC/Chipotle Ninja type thread going, I’ll post this here as well.

    When you read through the OC-Chipotle Ninja cheerleader arguments here you are continually confronting NOT people who support OC, but people who are so daft they can’t understand the difference between responsible OCing and pulling publicity stunts, like the idiot doctor, brandishing firearms and doing things intended to incite and stir up the general public. Their theory is that the more we do outrageous stunts like this the more people will say, “Oh, look, they carried an AR15 into an airport to get coffee. Wow, that’s really great, I should support open carry.”

    It is such a fundamentally flawed tactic I honestly have no idea how a person with even a moderate IQ would not understand this, but we see it here again and again.

    When challenged actually to consider tactics, they fall back on their “You don’t support OC!!!” or “You are not defending the Second Amendment” and other ridiculous assertions like this.

    Frankly, there is a fringe-crazy element in the RKBA support movement that is detrimental to the cause and only serve as poster-children for Bloomberg and his cronies.

    • Freewill is a bitch ain’t it.

      Guess what? You don’t have to like it and you don’t have to support it. You can deride and belittle anyone who does anything you don’t like. Your choice. Enjoy!

    • I just skimmed your comment because I could tell the tone pretty quick. Anybody that doesn’t support the right to open carry doesn’t support the right to bear arms. Sorry to clue you in on that. Do you think the founding fathers were talking about being able to bear little concealed pocket pistols? Yeah I’m pretty sure you didn’t think about it that much did you? You probably just got caught up in exactly the hype that the media network is trying to breed. Looks like it has worked will on your malleable mind. Just think what it does for someone that hates guns before turning on the news…

    • I skimmed the first phrase and wondered if you don’t have a stock of prepared comments, ready to paste. I’m done.

    • Gay Pride Parades seemed to work out ok…

      Back when they started, do you think everyone was peachy with that?

      Gun owners are the new minority in the mindset of the media. Sometimes there is only one way to change that. Shock and Awe challenging assumptions. Just Sayn’

      • Spot on! When the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston wanted to parade in the 1992 South Boston St Patrick’s Day Parade in South Boston, the legal battle that ensued went all the way to the Supreme Court. For those who don’t remember, the Court ruled that since the event was run by a private entity they had the right under the First Amendment to exclude who they wanted. Now, 22 years later, the Parade had it’s first Diversity Float. My point in this long-winded reply is simple- standing for our rights as individuals is exactly what the US Constitution is all about.

    • So, Paul, I gather you’re going to tell your Mommy? You sound a bit immature, gonna sulk if you don’t get your way? Ad hominem is a no-no, right? In both directions?

    • Do you have ANY post to make that does not entail insulting and/or dismissing someone without ever addressing the substance of their argument?

      • Do you have ANY comment that actually acknowledges that you even comprehend the point I and many others are making, repeatedly?

        Or do you just want to hold your hands over your ears and make noise so you don’t have to listen?

        • Maybe if we could discern a valid point that you’re attempting to make, we could acknowledge it.

          I did complain about the “Chipotle Ninjas” – not because they were openly carrying long guns, but because (and ONLY because) they had their hands on them.

          The 18-20 -year-old in Aurora cannot lawfully purchase a handgun from an FFL in Colorado. The only firearm he can lawfully purchase from an FFL is a long gun. He also cannot obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Colorado. The simplest and cheapest way for him to carry a firearm for self defense is a to carry a shotgun. That’s HIS point… what was yours again?

        • Again, you are simply afraid the leftists will realize you’re there and hoping that if they don’t, they’ll kill you last. Room temperature IQ’s lead to that type of avoidance of thought and short time preferences.

    • Alright, Paul, so how do you responsibly open carry if you’re 18, have your options bound by age discrimination like this kid and want to exercise your rights? It’s easy to criticize, much less so to offer up your own strategies. What could he have done differently besides not carrying at all?

      For what it’s worth I found the Chipotle picture in poor taste because of handling the long gun at low-ready, but I understand the simple carrying of long guns to be in protest of not being able to OC handguns. It was a teachable moment for better discipline while demonstrating for your rights.

      And the doctor in the airport was certainly calculated political speech, but you’ve got to understand that this is AZ (I live here) and we operate on a different level than everywhere else; the limits of our freedoms look extreme through the lens of other states.

      This kid’s encounter seemed different. He didn’t immediately, belligerently go to the “am I being detained?” stonewall act. He was polite, volunteered as much information as he was comfortable doing to reassure the officers that he was not committing a crime but refused to sacrifice his privacy. If you don’t stand up for your rights at some point then you don’t have rights.

    • Except this isn’t a “Chipotle Ninja” situation. It’s about these cops looking for a confrontation and literally having to fabricate one on-the-spot. And no, any assertions of your not being a defender of open-carry (or by extension the Second Amendment) aren’t ridiculous in situations like these. They are true and there is absolutely no way you could ever weasel your way out of it. Period.

      You have only consistently and purposefully misconstrued these situations as something they’re not because you want to see them in a certain light, and that’s because they’re not doing something the way you want them to do it.

      By the way, the Doctor that was falsely arrested in Arizona never “brandished” his rifle nor did he “muzzle” anybody — and security footage and eye-witness testimony conclusively proved this. Not that you give a shit enough to actually keep yourself updated. No, no you don’t, which only speaks to the fact that you paint these events as you want to see them — not how they actually are.

      And guess what, princess? We’re ALL already very much poster children for Bloomie Loonberg and his establishment sock-puppets, simply for the fact that the rest of us (not including you obviously) support something that the Statists don’t like. The rest of us don’t even actually have to do or say anything to bring death threats against us from those nutjobs. What’s worse is that people like you are doing their dirty work for them. You support the civil right violations of lawful open-carriers. Oh, and it’s only “stunts” like these that even get people’s attention, not that you would even know this because you are quite obviously not a student of history.

      Oh, and you can put down your cross, too. We’re not “anti-cop” here and we only “bash” those cops that are actually engaged in bad behavior, like these two flat-footed goons. But, there and again, you only ever see things the way you want to see them and then try to project that utter horseshit onto the rest of us.

    • Since we have, again, another OC/Chipotle Ninja type thread going, I’ll post this here as well. – Paul T. McCain

      Since we have, again, another Paul McCain, Ralph Raisining, splurge of insults and complaints forthgoing due to people actually disagreeing with Mr. McCain, I’ll post this here as well:

      John [in Ohio],

      You can’t debate with Paul. He is not here for debate. He is here to insult advocates for open carry and argue his opinion for the reduction of freedom.

      He calls these people clowns and a blight to gun rights, when all they are merely doing is following the law and exercising their rights peacefully. Yet they are still arrested (on whatever charge the LEO’s can think of at the time of arrest). Really all he is doing with these statements is supporting that open carry should not be legal. This leaves the following scenarios open to the mood of an LEO on whether or not he wants to charge and arrest a person and remove their gun rights forever after:

      Don’t own a car? You live a block from the gun shop but your friends that you have repeatedly gone shooting with have finally convinced you to get that shotgun you always wanted. You walk the block and make the purchase. You would like to carry it back slung over your shoulder but now you need to call for a ride because Paul McCain doesn’t support your right to do so.

      You go on armslist and find a super deal on a rifle you have been searching for. You arrange everything with a private party to make the purchase. He wants to meet at a convenient store in town. You go there, pay him his money, and sling the rifle over your shoulder to take it back to your truck. But – there is a cop at the convenient store. He sees you openly carrying a rifle on your shoulder. Time to make an arrest. Why? Because Paul McCain doesn’t support your right to carry your rifle openly back to your truck.

      You are hunting with your buddy in some backwoods out in the middle of nowhere . Your buddies GPS batteries go dead and you aren’t exactly sure on the return path back. You trek through the forest, jump over a fence, and see the road in the distance. However a game warden and a police officer startle you. You look at a swing set nearby and you discover you are on park property and with a rifle no doubt slung on your back! Instead of finding your truck you get to ride handcuffed in a cruiser because Paul McCain doesn’t support your right to open carry your rifle back to your vehicle.

      Now… you can complain about guys getting a cup of coffee with their AR’s if you want. But these people are testing the water for you. If they get arrested, then you could be arrested too. There are other consequences to the lack of your support for these people. Should they carry an AR to go get a cup of coffee? Many would say no. But many would also say you shouldn’t be on a playground with a rifle. You shouldn’t have a rifle at a convenient store, and you shouldn’t be walking the sidewalk carrying a shotgun. Laws are written in such a way that we can’t pick and choose which ones are appropriate for appearances sake. Because appearances are judged at the whim of the arresting officer. We don’t want our rights subject to appearances.

    • That’s funny; it’s usually only the liberals who think they have the right to tell other people how to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.

      This kid was simply walking down the street, with a long gun slung over his shoulder, minding his own business.

      I would ask what exactly it is that you would have him do differently, but to be honest: I don’t really care. He was lawfully exercising his rights.

  3. “taking police away from real life-threatening situations”

    I didn’t know speed traps and donuts were “life threatening situations”.

      • Gee rev haven’t you ever gotten a bogus ticket? I have. And aren’t you working on a Sunday morning? I agree open carry in Aurora MAY be over the top but you weren’t the young guy getting beat up. Police need to be accountable. I’m pretty sure that Glock 19 you brag about carrying wouldn’t help if your cop buddies decided you were an enemy of the state.

        • ” And aren’t you working on a Sunday morning? ”

          Nah, the church logo’s just for show, to try to trick people into thinking his opinion matters.

      • Most cops are decent enough people, we just have too many laws and too many people to enforce these unnecessary laws. I drive around just like the cops and do you want to know how many times I see someone doing something that makes me think that someone should stop them and take their money? Maybe once a decade. Yet the vast majority of their time is devoted to catching people speeding. They do it because that’s where the money is. And do I care if my neighbor is growing pot in his basement? Hell no. I especially don’t care enough to wish a paramilitary force invade his home in the middle of the night spraying automatic gunfire all over the neighborhood.

        It’s not really the cop’s fault, he’s (usually) just doing his job. It’s the fault of all the politicians and the busybodies who can’t keep nose out of everyone’s business. However, as far as the cops are concerned, I’m not sure I could live with my whole raison d’etre being to hassle people who aren’t bothering anyone.

      • And more typical cop-bashing…..

        Predictable as clock-work and just as boring.

        Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t those two cops just arrest him for not identifying himself? Colorado does have a “stop and identify” state statute. Meaning if he doesn’t Identify himself he can be arrested. Not all states have it. However, it lies within the basis of “probable cause.” The police officers desired him to identify himself simply because he was open carrying. Open Carrying in Colorado is permissible (notice how I worded that). So they stopped him for his identity on the basis of him open carrying – however open carrying is legal. There was no probable cause. It was simply harassment by LEO’s to extort his identify from him.

        Back to the topic of Cop-bashing. Cops are being bashed because they were wrong and they did not respect their duties as police officer and put their opinions first over the duties they swore to uphold.

    • You do realize that the police are employed and paid to encounter life threatening situations while the rest of us are not? Your logic sort of turns life upside down.

      • Like the cop who made it to the Sandy Hook school 90 seconds after the 911 call came in and parked a quarter mile away from the school and waited 9 minutes for backup? Cops may be paid to confront the violent, but they are under no legal obligation to put their own life at risk. Anyway, I doubt there were any active shooters in their jurisdiction while they were interrogating this man, so the only other tasks they were being kept from were donuts and speeders.

      • Ha. Cops are controlled by unions that have made it their mission to make policemen as safe as possible at the expense of citizen safety. And dog safety.

      • Actually, no. As SCOTUS has made abundantly clear, police officers are paid – officially – to write up nice reports about their investigations of crimes after they happen. Officers are under no legal or moral compulsion to put themselves in life-threatening situations.

        (I know many who do, and kudos to them. I have the utmost respect for them.)

  4. Open carry is part of the right to bear arms this guy was denied his right to conceal carry and made do that is all I see here

    • The dude didn’t want to show his ID, so he created his own dilemma. Sure, the law may say he is not required, but by not doing so, he escalated the situation.
      The officers told him he could go about his way, all they wanted was to see his ID, I fail to see the problem with that, if that’s all they wanted.

      • Colorado has a Stop and Identify Statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

        (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person’s social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

        (2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

        Not every state does. He should have known his own state law and presented the ID

        • who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime

          Watch the video again. The officer doesn’t form his suspicion until after being refused identification. The officer had no reason to suspect a crime prior to that.

      • They created an extra requirement beyond the law to exercise the right to bear arms. Just because an officer’s personal bias and opinion leads him to require something extra doesn’t make it lawful. Where’s the end? Those officers are paid to act in a lawful manner. They failed at their task in this video. AFAIK, they can only demand identification if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was committed or was about to be committed. They had none in this video until they created it out of thin air. The officer didn’t immediately state that he thought the man could be prohibited. That idea obviously constituted from the refusal to identify. If the standard is what we see in this video, then anyone, anywhere can be detained for no real reason at all. If we support officers in these actions, it doesn’t end there. Officers will continue to make up their own rules to match their biases regardless of the law.

        • Exactly. I’ve seen plenty of other OC confrontations that left me feeling the OCer could have improved their encounter by behaving more politely / respectfully. Then there’s this one that looked like the officers were on the wrong end. They do not need a positive ID to write up an encounter report, if a report is even needed in this case. This should have been a non-issue until they created one. The idea that one should be compelled to sacrifice one right to exercise another is repugnant.

      • Cops said all they wanted was to see his ID and they’d let him go. Cops are not only allowed, but encouraged to lie.

        • very true. they do not have to tell you the truth in most cases and are indeed allowed to lie.

      • …all they wanted was to see his ID, I fail to see the problem with that, if that’s all they wanted.

        Papers, please – your papers, comrade!

        The kid provided everything that the officers reasonably needed to conclude that there was no reasonable suspicion of any unlawful activity. He politely offered his first name, to facilitate a conversation. He gave his birthdate, to show that he was 18. He explained where he was going, what he was doing, and why he chose to engage in a lawful activity.

        That should have been the end of the matter, but the cops chose to take extra-legal authority and action.

  5. For a lot of antis and fence sitters this will be one of the ONLY times they are ever exposed to a story of a young person with a gun that didn’t end in tragedy.

    It might be disturbing to some but oc is far less disturbing than ALL other other examples of firearms in the news.

  6. Isn’t Aurora one the jurisdictions that has the right under Colorado law to ban open carry? I never OC there based on that assumption

    • To the best of my knowledge, that’s City and County (or as I prefer to phrase it, City and Cesspit) of Denver, only. And that’s not really under Colorado law; there’s nothing printed in the CRS (I love that acronym, it’s almost as humorous as ORC for Ohio laws) that says “Denver can do this,” Rather someone challenged their ban as violating Article 2 Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, and the Supreme Court here had a 3-3 tie decision (one justice recused herself) so the ban stood.

      • Correct. Colorado has state preemption. State law does not prohibit the open carry of firearms. Denver has an ordinance prohibiting the open carry of firearms (actually I think they ban the carry of firearms, period, with an exception for concealed carry with a permit). Denver and the State went at it in court – Denver claiming home rule exception to state preemption. District court said, essentially, “Denver has shown that they’re special, so they can have their ban”. It was appealed to the state Supreme Court – with a 3-3 decision, the lower court’s ruling stands.

        No other municipality has received such an “exemption” from the courts, so no other municipality’s “open carry ban” is valid.

  7. If my sole reason for OCing was self defense, I would show ID.

    If I was also trying to make a statement, I wouldn’t.

    Either way, I don’t think this guy is hurting any cause. No one in the government is changing their minds about gun laws based YouTube videos like this.
    And no one in the public is either.

    Those, citizens and elected critters, who are pro gun aren’t going to become anti gun after seeing this, even if they don’t like it.

    And those who are anti gun, don’t care if a firearm is open or concealed, nor if the guy shows every ID in the world or none.

    As for alleged fence sitters: if they’re still on the fence despite the barrage of gun stories in the media, then I don’t think they really care enough one way or the other to be influenced by stories like this.

    • If my sole reason for OCing was self defense, I would show ID.

      Really? How many times a day, for the next 3 years until he can carry concealed? Just twice a day would be near 2200 times total. Say, ten minute of mocking and humiliation by public servants each time, for a total over 350 hours? Think you might object after the first thousand?

  8. Once again, gun owners in this thread demonstrate their refusal to treat a right as a right. They demand others express that right solely in the manner in which they approve.

    This would not have been an issue had the government of Colorado followed the constitutions and had no laws prohibiting good citizens under 21 from carrying. This is solely a function of bad law.

    • It’s not a right if you have to ask permission. The dispatcher should have informed the caller that open carry is legal and asked if the man was acting in a threatening manner at all. After that, then the dispatcher should have asked if he/she still had a complaint or concern.

      Then, if the complainant said yes, then the police could have simply driven by or stopped and observed from a distance that the man was not breaking any laws and therefore no further investigation was needed. This was yet again an unnecessary escalation of a situation by police in hopes of getting an arrest, especially by using one of the catch-all charges like obstructing justice, interfering with an investigation, and my favorite, the single charge of resisting arrest (what arrest for what charge was he resisting?).

      Just another day on the job for a cop, go out there and manufacture an arrest if you have to.

      And Paul T. McCain, if you think this cop bashing, then yes it absolutely is. These cops need to be bashed.

    • Nope.

      This is simply a case of a non-compliant know-it-all not providing the officers with the very information that would’ve ended the encounter positively.

      Why should they believe he was 18? And why is it so hard to provide them with a full name and DOB. Unlike the police who have name badges and uniforms, armed citizens do not. Our ID contains the information that tells people and officers with access to our public records if we’re good guys or not.

      What if he stole the shotgun? How are they to know? What if he killed his parents and his on his way to kill someone he doesn’t like? Or what if he’s just a law-abiding citizen. Well, we need ID to check.

      And let’s discuss the kid’s reason for carrying and take it to it’s logical conclusion:

      He claims the area he is walking through is so dangerous that he needs his shotgun. Well then, why the hell is he even walking through it? Wouldn’t it be safer to drive or go around it? I would think the old adage “avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places” applies here.

      Ok, let’s just say he can’t avoid the area he’s in. Fine. So his solution is to OC a shotgun. Not a bad idea, but without looking at what he’s wearing, it’s hard to ascertain if his attire and method of carry is cause for alarm or not. I’m guessing the fact the police were called means someone was alarmed. But this kid was armed with all the internet wiki 2-A lingo and prepared to verbally spar with the police, so this seems on-par with all the other silly “argue with police” videos out there. While a few of them are useful in identifying problem officers and how many seem to not know 2-A rights and local laws, it also highlights that just as many officers do understand the 2-A.

      The final point being, cooperate with the police and don’t be a dick. If the officer is being a tool, it doesn’t give you the right to be one too, unless you’re just wanting to get yourself in more trouble. There’s something to be said about having the ability to recognize the situation you’re in and act in a way that doesn’t get you in more trouble — even if it’s unjust to begin with.

      • All are innocent until facts show otherwise. It’s the officers’ jobs to uncover these facts through lawful means. These officers had no reason to suspect a crime was being committed. If he had been underage, then it would’ve been argued that he voluntarily identified and was not compelled. This was a contempt of cop charge.

        • Then explain to me the method by which the officers could ascertain the kid’s age without a full name or ID without infringing on his rights?

          I get that on one hand, any attempt of the police to talk to this kid is already seen as an infringement of rights? Is that the case?

          Where does police investigation fall then? Are they no longer allowed to question or talk to citizens?

        • Then explain to me the method by which the officers could ascertain the kid’s age without a full name or ID without infringing on his rights?

          Anyone is supposed to be able to walk up to anyone else and ask a question. That is not at issue. What one cannot do is hold someone without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. The “suspicion” in this case was fabricated by the officers after the fact. They were free to ask him and he was free to refuse. If the officers cared to, they could use other investigative means. However, if they could not prove one way or another his age, they are obligated in a free society and under law to let it go. THAT is part of the cost of Liberty and living free. There are responsibilities and risks that go along with it. The officers are responsible for following the law constitutionally. The risk for all is that some guilty may get away. That’s just how it is. Anything less and we aren’t free.

          I get that on one hand, any attempt of the police to talk to this kid is already seen as an infringement of rights? Is that the case?

          Talking to him wasn’t an infringement. Blocking him and not allowing him to continue on his way, even if he didn’t acknowledge them, was depriving him of liberty. That is one of the cardinal sins in a constitutional republic and free societies in general; agents of government depriving an individual of liberty without reasonable cause or due process.

          Where does police investigation fall then? Are they no longer allowed to question or talk to citizens?

          See what I’ve written in the two sections above in this reply. If he refuses to answer or just ignores them then that is where it falls. They haven’t sufficient evidence to trouble him further. That is a free society.

      • I used to be a cop; I used to ask just about everyone that I spoke with for ID on the off-chance that they had warrants. However, if they were not driving, or were not the immediate suspect in an articulable crime and thence came under the law REQUIRING the showing of ID or providing oral identification that could be verified, I had to let it go if they declined, refused, or told me to FOA/OD rather rudely. That’s the rules. I could ASK anything I wanted to ask; Unless I had the legal right to compel through arresting and taking the person before a magistrate who could order incarceration ‘until properly identified’ or fingerprinting, there was no legal compulsion on the part of the person asked to give me the time of day.

        Sure, it can be frustrating, but free societies can be that way.

        All of the excuses about needing to ‘know ‘ if this person was maybe a murderer, or a wanna-be murderer, or if the gun was stolen, or if he was really 18, are irrelevant. Unless an officer KNOWS that those things are true, he can wonder, and he can ask, but he cannot compel. The comparison would be, as others have pointed out, to an officer seeing a young man of colour driving a nice car, and stopping the young man who has made no traffic violations, matches no ‘locates,’ and whose car is in perfect order on the off-chance that the car is stolen, or that the young man has no driver’s license, or perhaps no insurance, or just ran over a child someplace although there is no reason to think that he HAS done so.

        If that sort of thing was permitted, we would all be subject to random, impromptu, probable-cause-be-damned, warrantless stops at any time of the day or night, in any place, including our homes and places of business to check our IDs and enquire whether or not we were wanted or suspected of anything anywhere. Random warrantless searches would also be just the ticket; Just IMAGINE how many crimes could be solved if the police didn’t need warrants!

        It don’t WORK that way.

        • John, a black guy was OCing and riding a bike in Detroit when stopped by two of Detroit’s finest. They demanded ID, which the OCer refused to give. They asked him, “How do we know you’re not a felon?” They wanted to run the numbers on his pistols to see if they were stolen. He refused to let them. (Had they initially taken him down and taken them by force, there wouldn’t have been anything he could do, of course). One of the guys started using the ebonics “Hey, brother…” stuff on him. That didn’t work, either. Finally they arrested him for not having a bicycle license. Then they got his ID and took his pistols.

          There isn’t even a law that states you have to have a bicycle license! When he went to court the judge had a fit, threw the case out, and threatened the cops to leave this guy alone and they had better never pull that stuff in his court again.

          For some reason some cops think they have the right to violate 4A search and seizure to check any citizen they want to make sure he’s not an ax murderer or has warrants.

      • Hey! There is, to my knowledge, no crime called ‘Contempt of Cop.’ A free citizen has a RIGHT to be a ‘dick’ to a cop, whether said cop is being a ‘dick’ or not, and suffer no penalties for it unless he is suspected of a crime or misdemeanor. If said cop is going to arrest, or has the option to arrest or not, then being a ‘dick’ will either make no difference or will merely ensure that the cop will probably choose to arrest. If the cop has NO right to arrest, then one can be as much of a ‘dick’ as one wishes, short of committing an articulable crime or misdemeanor such as Disorderly Conduct, and that’s . . . ‘MURICA!

        • All of that sounds good. John, I have the suspicion you were a good cop. Didja get fired for it?

      • This is simply a case of a non-compliant know-it-all not providing the officers with the very information that would’ve ended the encounter positively.

        With what, exactly, was the kid “non-compliant”? A statutorily unsupported demand for identification?

        Why should they believe he was 18? …Our ID contains the information that tells people and officers with access to our public records if we’re good guys or not… What if he stole the shotgun? How are they to know? What if he killed his parents and his on his way to kill someone he doesn’t like? Or what if he’s just a law-abiding citizen. Well, we need ID to check.

        In my America – the one I want to leave for my children – every person is afforded the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence.

        The question isn’t how did the cops know he wasn’t 18? or how did the cops know the gun wasn’t stolen?; rather, unless the cops had specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that the man either wasn’t 18 or had stolen the the gun, they had no authority to conduct an investigatory detention, and they had no authority to demand him to produce identification.

        And let’s discuss the kid’s reason for carrying and take it to it’s logical conclusion:

        Oh, great: another gun-rights supporter who thinks he has the right to tell someone else how he should and should not exercise his rights. Who died and made you king?

        The final point being, cooperate with the police and don’t be a dick.

        What on earth are you talking about? This kid was nothing but polite and cooperated with them as far as he was lawfully obliged to do so.

        If the officer is being a tool, it doesn’t give you the right to be one too, unless you’re just wanting to get yourself in more trouble.

        Sorry, but contempt of cop is not a chargeable offense – and law-abiding citizens are under no compulsion, legally or morally, to give police officers any special respect or deference.

        There’s something to be said about having the ability to recognize the situation you’re in and act in a way that doesn’t get you in more trouble — even if it’s unjust to begin with.

        …and that rabble-rouser, Rosa Parks, should have just moved to the back of the bus.

  9. So we have an 18-year-old, old enough to go to war for his country but not old enough to be elligible for the the Second Amendment. That’s the issue here, as I see it.

    And I don’t have a problem with OC for self-preservation. OC as a political stunt is counterproductive as far as I can tell.

    Either way, I don’t see a reason not to cooperate with police, even if some are ignorant. There is no upside to refusing to give your name.

    • I don’t understand the 18/21 divide here either… makes no sense to be able to open carry at 18 but not conceal carry.

      • Lots of things don’t make sense. If I recall correctly, he carried a long gun because at his age he can’t carry a somewhat less cumbersome handgun. Why the law seems to assume a handgun is more inherently dangerous (at least in the hands of someone 18-20) is beyond me.

        And (to agree with the point you did make) there’s no inherent difference between open and concealed carry. In today’s culture OC is “scarier” to some; back when the Colorado Constitution was written it was the other away round. Anyone not willing to show he was armed had to be up to something devious, no?

        To this day people up to no good will simply CC with no permit, the one time they are planning on using it. They have control over the time and place of the fight because they are planning to start it. Meaning the only counter is for us to be prepared all of the time.

      • An arbitrary artificial cutoff. I’ve encountered 17 year olds that are mature well beyond their age, and “twenty somethings” that behave like 14 year olds. But that’s just the way things are.

      • I don’t understand the 18/21 divide here either… makes no sense to be able to open carry at 18 but not conceal carry.

        That’s the way it is in Michigan. Actually that’s the way it is in a lot of states as most states won’t issue concealed carry licenses until you are 21. Some states make an exception if you are active military, but even those bills haven’t always passed.

      • Laws based on age are a bit of a peeve of mine. They’re a form of widely tolerated discrimination since whatever factors may actually be relevant to the law are a step removed by a simple count of the number of laps you’ve taken around the sun.

        As an overachiever who skipped grades I ran into nonsense like this constantly in the early part of my life. One sublimely ridiculous moment was finding myself ineligible to rent a bike on Catalina Island because I wasn’t 25, even though I already owned a home. Not to mention, what liability is there for a bicycle on an island, anyway?

    • If everyone complies then it will become normal and lawful for officers to demand identification from everyone for no reason at all in any place. That’s why it is a big deal.

      • Hard to tell considering you’re basing all your assumptions off one video. If this video was made by someone clearly over 18 and the police acted the same way then maybe you’d have a stronger case rather than just stating this is how the police treat everyone.

        I get that the police started off incorrect by targeting OC and then moving on to the age issue, rather than starting off with that. Which leads me to think they were just thinking of reasons to detain the kid. But that doesn’t really make their point less valid. If he doesn’t look 18 and is refusing to show ID, well that part of it is on the kid.

        • Personal experience. I have been harassed for identification and it wasn’t always about carrying. I have friends that have been arrested for not identifying and they clearly didn’t look underage. Often the officer’s excuse was that they needed to make sure the person wasn’t a felon. I’ve been told that it was to make sure that I “belonged” where I was at; in public mind you.

          Some officers are in the habit of running everyone’s identification. This I know all too well. They get pissed when you tell them no. They run the same bullshit shtick that these two ran.

        • The implication in your reasoning is that, somehow, this man has to PROVE that he is innocent of a crime, rather than the police proving that he is guilty; Our system doesn’t operate that way. We do not have a means for the police in this country to arrest on ‘suspicion’: I can SUSPECT that you are 17.9 years old or whatever, but if I cannot establish probable cause (short of absolute proof, but above mere suspicion), I cannot arrest. I can perhaps ‘hold’ you for a limited amount of time, depending on the jurisdiction, in the manner of an ‘investigatory stop’ to let me try to find out more information, but once the time allowed by law expires, I must let you go.

          Please remember that is a ‘Malum Prohibitum’ type of offense; It’s only illegal for a 17.9-year-old to possess a gun because it’s the ‘law,’ not because it’s horribly wrong and shocks the conscience. If he IS committing the offense, and I can’t find out immediately, there’s little harm, and I can probably find out later and arrest him on a warrant or issue a citation to appear. Now, if said 17.9 year old with said shotgun is besmeared in fresh blood and is running out of a house, that’s more indicative of a ‘Malum in Se’ crime and I can give the police more leeway in how long they hold a person and whether or not they handcuff and search for ID, for example.

        • A young man in Michigan was arrested while OCing for failing to ID (which you are not required to by law here). The cops got angry and threw three charges at him: brandishing a firearm in public, disturbing the peace, and obstructing a police officer. The judge threw the obstruction charge out immediately because you are not required to ID, so you can’t be obstructing if you refuse! The jury debated for about twenty minutes on the other two charges and found him NOT GUILTY.

          This “we have to have your ID so we can see if you’re guilty of something” is bullcrap, and every cop that pulls it under color of law should be reprimanded and prosecuted, with no qualified immunity BS.

        • Johns, exactly. If a guy is OCing while running out of a house after midnight covered in blood, I’d hope a police officer would be questioning him while pointing a firearm at his head. The difference, as you said, is probable cause. It really isn’t that difficult.

        • My interpretation, based on the statute as posted by somebody above, it seems the LOE’s could affect a “Terry Stop”, and require ID, if they reasonably believed the OCer to be violating the law – which is noted as being at minimum 18 years old. so the question for the judge, based upon the young man’s physical appearance, could they reasonably believe/suspect he is under 18 years old – similar to id required for alcohol purchase.
          thus, the LEO demand for id would be valid and reasonable, if they reasonably believed he was under 18, otherwise no id would need to be presented.

        • So, police officers are experts in identifying age based solely on appearance? A police officer is trained and experienced to differentiate among 17-, 18-, 19-, 20-, and 21-year olds, based solely on physical appearance?

          Somehow, I’m thinking “he didn’t look 18” isn’t going to be admissible in court.