Previous Post
Next Post

The last time a teenager lived under my roof I discovered a simple technique for maintaining discipline (i.e. maintaining my own sanity). If my step-daughter asked me why she couldn’t do this, that or the really expensive, time-consuming other thing (without any adult supervision in the evening on a school night) I’d simply say “I don’t do why questions.” And then I’d STFU. Oh how I wish one of these open carry advocates would have implemented this conversational strategy while the other stayed schtum. And then both of them had stayed schtum. All this pointless schmoozing! No, it’s not debating. It’s Second Amendment checkers for dummies. “If you let me look at your AR I’ll show you mine.” Sure thing officer. Right after you show me your dick. And now you know why I don’t open carry. Much.

Previous Post
Next Post


        • If the cop is honest, then no amount of baiting will make him be a typical cop.

          The Jews in Germany were not entrapped.

          You need to educate yourself on what entrapment is.

    • In a number of jurisdictions, it’s illegal to make video recordings of LEOs.

      The U.S. has always been a police state; most of us just never noticed.

      ‘Course, in my jurisdiction I’m free to record anything I care to…

      • Russ,
        It’s was and is totally legal in Oregon. As long as you announce at contact…
        Geez, I can only hope. I can only pray, that I had a micro byte of influence on this officer.
        I taught at the academy for many years, and tried my best to educate the rookies.
        We have to, in my case had to, check out folks doing stuff like this. My experience always ended up with a new shooting buddy. Mostly cause my stuff was and is, way better than their stuff.

        Kudos to this officer for the way he handled this. It’s exactly as taught…

      • It’s protected under the 1st Amendment asshole. I can film any cop I choose to and he won’t do a damned thing about it.

    • I say just being assholes. If they were walking around with AR’s in public they were looking for the police to be called so they could do this.

      • They may be assholes but walking around with an AR isn’t what makes them that. Heck I have been known to sit on my front porch smoking a cigar with my Kriss vector SBR on the table, or my 300 blackout chamberered AR SBR, propped up against the wall next to me. if the local cops show up does that make me an asshole too?

        • That’s a stupid question. You’re on your property. So no that doesn’t make you an asshole. The way you posed that question on the other hand…

        • The point I was trying to make is that my property or the street, in neither place is it illegal to carry a rifle. So while those guys may indeed be rectal orifices, I take exception with the premise that the simple act of carrying the AR publicly is what makes them that.

  1. Those little tools are complete a-holes and had best thank their lucky stars that this police officer was one of the good guys.

      • They bumbled through a police encounter in which they probably could have had their shit pushed in, had the officer or PD been less friendly.

        Props for them trying it, but they should have prepared more and said far less.

    • sorry – doing your duty as a police officer and not harrassing people who are within their rights as Americans is not some sort of optional privilege that is bestowed upon deserving mere civilians. I fully support video taping cops. Why not use their “if you have nothing to hide then why do you object to x, y or z?” against them?

    • Lucky? I’m a freaking citizen here, I don’t need to be “lucky” to not encounter or possibly be beaten down by cops or maybe even killed by one of those jerks. WTF??? Cops aren’t even Constitutional, they’re bureaucratic thugs with no real authority.

  2. I’m fine with open carry, but if you’re going to do it you should be cool about being stopped and questioned. They’re lucky the cop was as cool as he was. He could have come with a few of his buddies, guns drawn. If the (unconstitutional as it may be) law says you can carry an unloaded weapon the cop has every right to ask to inspect the weapon to make sure you’re in compliance, it’s called reasonable suspicion.

    • I am fine with freedom of worship, but if you do it, you should be cool with being stopped and questioned. I am also fine with reading books, but if you do it, you should be cool with being stopped and questioned.

      If the cop is enforcing an unconstitutional law, then he belongs in prison.
      Government employees do not have “rights” they have delegated powers. Big difference.

      • Ignoring for a minute the constitutionality question about the unloaded gun laws, the problem with your examples is I really don’t know of any laws specifying what religion you can practice or what books you can read. For your example to work, guns with the bullets out would equate to books with the bad words out.

      • I don’t expect cops to be constitutional lawyers. They’re just people doing a job. While most of us around here find such silly laws as open carry only being permitted without ammunition to be unconstitutional, the average person’s opinion is not necessarily in line with ours. If you are willing to comply with the law, there is no point in giving the cop grief about it. If you disagree with the law, you should try to convince those who support it that they are wrong. Or get a good lawyer and go carry openly with a loaded firearm.

        Also, there are limits to the first amendment as well. You are free to worship as you wish, but human sacrifice is strictly verboten. If the police received calls that your church was about to perform human sacrifice, they would be obliged to check it out, and if you were not about to perform human sacrifice there would be no reason not to answer the policeman’s questions. You may also read what you want, but that doesn’t keep the government from classifying documents as “top secret”. You can still get in big trouble for reading them.

        Bottom line here is the cops aren’t (at least in this case) the bad guys, it’s the politicians.

        • Rights do not have limits. If it has a limit it is a privilege.

          If the cop is enforcing any law the criminalizes an act in which there is not a victim, then yes he is a bad guy.

          FOAD statist.

    • So Gov. William J. Le Petomane (“fartomaniac”, I take it you are a professional at the art of flatulence?), is Oregon law the same as California law used to be? Unloaded open carry? If so, then you have a point. If not, then there is no argument for reasonable suspicion.

      Or is this a matter of local ordinance mandating the guns be unloaded when carried openly?

      • from

        Oregon is a traditional open carry state. However, their preemption statute only covers concealed handgun license holders from city or county passed bans against loaded firearms in public places. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places, and other cities have passed bans specific to Parks. Also, all “public buildings” are also off limits throughout the entire state unless you have a concealed handgun license.

        I live in OR and have a CHL, all this information is correct from my understanding and experience. It is legal to open carry a loaded firearm in OR except were prohibited by local, city and town laws.

        • classic reference…

          Best movie quote spoken by a Black man (Cleavon Little) : “Hold it. The next man makes a move the nigger gets it”

    • Why should I have to be cool with being stopped and having my rights infringed? Tell me this shit oh wise one? Cops have no legal standing to violate your rights, so shove that sh– up where the sun don’t shine Mr. Gov.

  3. I’ve had this conversation before. More than once. The guys I’ve dealt with weren’t so long winded, though. I’m all for people exercising their rights, but all the relevant points could have been made in about two minutes here.

  4. Outstanding cool on the part of the officer. If you have the right to open carry and do so for protection, that’s fine. If you open carry for the purpose of provoking a public response, allowing you to take up a public servants time while you record it, you’re just open carrying for entertainment, and that’s wrong. Jerks.

    • It isn’t the public servant’s time. The time belongs to the tax payers and citizens. The cop can go back and sit in the Dunkin Donuts if he doesn’t like being filmed by his employers.

      • So cops being public servants are there just for our amusement? I seldom see police at donut shops, maybe once a month. They’re entitled to coffee breaks too, your stereotype slur says more about your attitude than you should like. Cops risk their lives on their jobs for you and me. On a good day they go home to their families. Disrespect them if you like, they’ll still save your bacon when the time comes. ME: medic and trauma nurse for 30 years. Seen too many cops not go home again protecting you and me. Like it or not, they deserve all our respect.

        • Cops risk their lives on their jobs for you and me

          Actually according to Castle Rock v. Gonzales they dont risk their lives for you or me any more than a random joe on the street does.

        • Required to risk life is not the same as choosing to risk life. We choose to risk ourselves quite often. That the court system says we don’t have to is, I believe, more a hedge against liability suits from every last person who is harmed by anyone if they claim police _could_ have stopped it.

        • Ahh yes, the liability argument. Reminds me of that scene in Lethal Weapon 2 with the bad guy yelling “diplomatic immunity!”. The cop/DA/gov version being “sovreign immunity!”. Liability or not, that the defenders of the people have no requirement to defend everyone means self-defense is incumbent on every individual. But the citizenry has far more rules put upon them for defense than the enforcers do. Or at least the enforcers have far far more leeway when things go pear shaped.

        • I think the liability explanation is a poor one, despite likely being correct. I also think it comes from our poor legal system and overuse of liability in lawsuits. If modern American culture didn’t have so much emphasis on blaming someone else for your own problems, it might not be like that. By this I mean every lawsuit that bears even token resemblance to the McDonald’s coffee cup case from many years ago.

        • Paul53,
          You may possibly be one who cared for me a few times.
          I gladly handed you my duty belt with all my stuff, and asked, ” please stop the pain”
          I woke up later and thanked everybody!

          Thank God for nurses in the ER.

  5. He is the coolest cop ever because he is harassing/investigating someone exercising their 2A rights? Sure thing statists.

    I’d like to pose a question to you statist apologists, is Obama’s DoJ the coolest agency ever because they were investigating the Associated Press because they were exercising their 1A rights too?

    • He is a great cop because they tried to provoke a beat-down and he stayed polite, professional, and mature. His maturity: Adult. Their maturity: Whiny Entitlement Brat.

      • Rights are NOT “entitlements”; you’re all wet, buster. SHAME ON YOU.


    • The guys are walking down the street openly carrying weapons, one of them a rifle which has been used in a number of crimes which frightens most civilians who call the police. A police officer is sent to investigate, the peace officer asking a person for their name is not harassment, nor is it illegal, and there is court precedence for it:

      Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

      The Terry Vs Ohio decision would fit in this particular situation

      • There was no reasonable or articulated suspicion of criminal involvement. And cars are used in far more crimes than guns, but you dont see this happening with them.

        • I never stated there was suspicion of criminal involvement, that is why I cited the Ohio decision-‘the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement to quickly DISPEL SUSPICION that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name’. the officer saw a firearm, he does not know the reason for carrying it other than he was dispatched to the site, so he asks. Say what you will, asking is not harassing.

        • You might want to read the cases before you cite them. The Hiibel and Terry cases both require an articulable reasonable suspicion. Please articulate what specific reasonable suspicion the officer had that a crime was committed.

          Merely carrying a firearm is certainly not a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed.

      • Nobody said it was harassment. Do they enjoy their rights or do they not? That’s the ONLY relevant issue here.

        For the record, I didn’t much like them, either. But that’s not the issue at all, is it?

        • Actually Matt did at 18:33:
          “He is the coolest cop ever because he is harassing/investigating someone exercising their 2A rights? Sure thing statists.”

        • In response to Matt, suspicion of a crime by an officer is not needed. the suspicion was created when people called the police department. then it it the duty of the PD to DISPEL the suspicion. Which is what the officer did in this case, ergo the Terry decision. For the average non gun person, seeing some guy on the street with a firearm raises suspicion. Whether the civilian is right or wrong does not change the fact that they suspect something is out of order, causing the call to the police, setting the stage for the actions undertaken by the officer.

    • If he was one of those power-tripping cops you hate so much he would have gotten all butthurt about having his authority questioned; he didn’t. Not all cops are bad like you think. You are incredibly ignorant Matt.

  6. 1 Super Awesome police officer, 3 total wastes of oxygen. They were totally trying to force him to do something they could use to make him look bad.

  7. Talk about getting lucky with the right cop. The man in uniform was a total professional, cool under pressure. One wonders if the situation would have turned out the same if the civvies had no cameras or got belligerent with the officer.

  8. He was nice and offered to let them look at his rifle.

    It looked to be a neat little SBR.

    They didn’t care. They just took the opportunity to find fault with his care of it.

    Here’s a rule I live by: If any person is proud of their firearm and wants to show it off, don’t criticize it.

    Be nice, look at it, and be on your way.

    Who raised them?

  9. He didn’t wrestle them down to the ground or shoot them and ask questions later like they do in LA. This was a good cop; wish I had more in my neighborhood. This cop was investigating “suspicious behavior.” Looked like he was doing a good job. If I carried a AR outside a gun case strapped on my back even in the deep red state that I live in, I would expect to be stopped by an officer just because… it is exactly that… suspicious behavior. They have the right to carry of course – but if I did it I would expect to be detained frequency by officers.

    I mean… that’s the way it is. In my perfect world however, everyone could carry a rifle on their back and think nothing of it.

    • sus·pi·cious
      1 – Having or showing a cautious distrust of someone or something.
      2 – Causing one to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition.

      Should someone who is exercising their rights be considered distrustful, questionable, dishonest or dangerous?

      • Sir; When that movie theater hired a guy to come in with what looked like an AR, many people on here said that the actor was lucky not to be dead, that the owner/manager was culpably negligent, and that if they were there armed they would likely have opened up on him. I WANT the next Lanza to be stopped on his way, and for that, I would be perfectly fine with demonstrating to police who inquire into such potential behavior that I am not, in fact, a criminal.

        • I can only assume you mean Holmes, because Lanza shot up a school. And how exactly would a breif inquery prevent a shooting? It wouldnt. Are you really naive enough to think Holmes would tell a cop ‘well yes officer, I plan on commiting mass murder with this rifle’?

        • As most of the active shooters seem to be either seriously crazy (is el guano loco an offensive term?) or cowards (killing themselves at the first sign of resistance, uniformed or not), I doubt the average future active shooter would have the presence of mind to pose as a constitutional carry activist, debate with a cop for fifteen minutes, and then wait until everyone had calmed down for a while after that before beginning his murderous rampage.

          I mean, it’s possible, but not likely.

        • So you are naive enough to think that they would say ‘well yes officer, I do plan on commiting a mass murder’.

        • matt, if that last is responding to me, no I don’t believe they would be honest. I believe they would either panic and shoot at me, thus removing the potential victims they hadn’t reached yet (wherever they were headed) from the gunfight, or panic and run, in which case I don’t believe they would have the focus to immediately regroup and begin killing, or panic and kill themselves, also removing potential victims, or mumble something that doesn’t give me enough to detain them and go home.

        • So youre basically grossly underestimating your enemy. Heaven forbid you ever run across a suspect who isnt borderline retarded or knows about their right to privacy and to remain silent.

        • I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to provoke a bad response here. Either I should assume anyone who is armed is my opponent because they are the next Holmes or Lanza, or I should avoid contacting anyone who hasn’t already committed a crime, because somehow talking is harassment when I’m wearing a uniform. I have a little bit more flexibility than that.

        • or I should avoid contacting anyone who hasn’t already committed a crime
          We have a winrar.

          because somehow talking is harassment when I’m wearing a uniform
          The cop in the video repeatedly requested to inspect the weapon ever after the OCers said they didnt want him to. He also repeatedly requested they ID themselves even though Oregon doesnt have a stop and id law. And absent an articulable reasonable suspicion of a crime committed, he has not right to demand this. That is both harassment.

          He is also insulting the OCers when he is saying his duty carbine is better than their AR.

        • You may not be aware, but police on duty have the same right to walk up and talk to anyone they like that you do. That is, if you walk up to anyone on the street and start talking, you are not committing a crime. Where police need more is to detain or arrest people. This cop made it clear that the folks in this video had the legal option of not providing their ID, and that he was requesting them to do so, not demanding. They could have walked away at any time, but they didn’t, because they wanted to make a youtube video.

          Look up ‘social contact,’ as compared to ‘terry stop,’ or ‘probable cause.’

          If you think this is rude, to keep asking when they did not say anything like “I don’t want to speak to you, am I free to go?” then I can’t help you. It’s certainly not illegal, at least not in my state. Had he demanded their ID, or demanded that they hand the weapons over, then it would likely not be harassment, but unlawful or false arrest.

          And he said that his rifle was ‘cooler’ than theirs, which I think was his opinion, and which I personally agree with. You may disagree, but if you consider that an insult, I can’t help you there either.

      • It’s only suspicious because it is (currently) uncommon behavior. If/when it becomes common practice to walk around with your shotty or AR slung across your back, or otherwise open carry, it will cease to be suspicious. Driving 5 mph down the same residential street 12 times in a row isn’t illegal, but it is suspicious. Those engaging in uncommon behavior should expect to draw attention.

      • @nigil

        commonality has nothing to do with the definition of suspicious. and if a black man was walking around a almost exclusively white neighborhood, would he be suspicious and worthy of being investigated by a leo, for nothing more than being there?

        • The color of the person should not be the determining factor in being suspicious, but if it goes along with other observations, like dressing in a manner not common to the area (gang style clothes on any color person in a rich neighborhood), or knocking on doors and then looking over fences into backyards, then I’m not going to avoid contacting or watching them just for fear of a profiling complaint.

          A white guy in a black neighborhood wearing a KKK outfit would also likely draw attention, but if I had to contact such a person, I would not try to restrict their freedom of movement (absent any crime) or demand that they dress differently. I would not be surprised or offended if people called 911 on him, though.

          Open carry when done quietly, just going about your business, is somewhat different than slinging a long gun and walking around in a crowded area with cellphone cameras out. Neither way is illegal, but depending on where you are, the second way may draw more attention.

          Go to about 7:00 in the video, and the cop states to them flat out that he is not demanding anything, only requesting, and that they have the right to refuse. He even comments that he is not taping them while they are taping him, without demanding that they stop.

        • You apparently missed my point regarding commonality.

          Also what are gang style clothes? You know plenty of modern gangsters dress in suits.

          What exactly is open carry done quietly? In the woods? In the stall of a bathroom? If there aren’t other people around, then whats the point, people potentially pose a threat, if there arent any people then you dont need to carry in the first place. The entire purpose of open carry is to carry a gun where you normally would go, which if often a area where there are lots of other people.

          And when did cops get to turn off their dash board cameras? Or was this officer lying?

        • The gang members who wear suits are not the ones likely to pistol whip you for your iPhone, or shoot you for looking at them funny. They are slightly more likely to be burglars in some areas, but around here, gang style clothing commonly includes bandanas/doo-rags or jackets in a distinctive and consistent color, pants somehow staying up despite being worn around the knees, and yes, I know there are many people not in gangs who dress in a similar manner. That is why it is only one factor, and not reasonable suspicion. The point here is that if wearing suits, they are less likely to cause physical harm to members of the public just while walking around.

          Open carry done quietly is harder to define, but here is my loose definition. Going about your business while openly armed, but not having an attitude. That is, not being verbally aggressive, emotionally aggressive, or otherwise appearing to want people to challenge you, or appearing to want people to be startled, to be frightened, or to have wanting a reaction from the public or police as one of the primary reasons to openly be armed. Subtle and hard to define, I know.

          I would include choosing a weapon that you reasonably think you might use, which depending on your training, experience, location, and beliefs could certainly include a long gun. Most of us, including myself, do not choose to carry a long gun around, for convenience. I carry a long gun in the car when I’m on duty, but I don’t bring it out for any call where I don’t believe I am likely to need it.

          Maybe that’s a good example, I would not as a police officer be outside the law or department policy if I walked around with a rifle either slung or in hand, as long as I don’t point it at anyone. Even on traffic stops, or responding to car crashes, or to panicked and ignorant callers saying “there’s a man walking around with a gun slung across his back.” I bet a lot of people would have a problem with it, though, and I bet you would be one of them. So would I, and that’s why it stays in the car. Reasonable?

          Lastly, camera policy varies by department. Mine doesn’t even have them. How they are wired and how the officers are supposed to use them is a question you would have to direct to the appropriate chain of command, but if he thought he was acting outside of policy, he would probably not have told the guys filming him for youtube that he was doing so.

        • Jackets of a distinctive color? So pretty much all of my jackets, except my woodland camo M65 would be gang attire? I wear a bandana around my face when I’m working under my Jeep to keep the stuff which falls off from going up my mouth or nose, am I a gang banger too? I know you said not everyone, but still its silly. What is it about a suit which makes them less likely to cause physical harm? If this were true, why do people like the secret service or body guards often wear suits?

          The cop was the one who challeneged the individuals in the video, not the other way around. The cop was being verbally and emotionally agresive and frequently interruppted the individuals. How was the cop’s OCing a handgun any different than what this person was doing with a rifle?

        • Pretty sure you’re just trying to provoke a bad response again, but despite that I think they are potentially valid points.

          Your jackets would only be suspicious if you were in an area of known gang activity and you wore the same colors as them. Even then, it would only be enough to make me look at you and see if your behavior pattern was first, similar to known gang members, and second, indicated that you had committed or were about to commit a crime. If these do not apply to you, then I wouldn’t bother you.

          I also doubt you go to the bank and make withdrawals while wearing a bandana across your face. Silly example? Perhaps, but unless you actually do that, it shows that reasonable people change their attire depending on the situation they are in.

          A suit indicates to me a general desire to be taken more seriously by more serious, or more wealthy, or more respectable people, whether worn by gang members or the President. It’s a question of attitude, and I believe the gang members who might wear suits are the ones running the show, who would rather tell a junior member to rob a liquor store and give them part of the take than do it themselves and risk jail.

          Are they still dangerous? Quite likely, but more from what they could tell others to do rather than what they would do with their own hands… Kind of like the President, I guess.

          I also don’t think the cop was being aggressive. But I doubt we will agree on that.

        • I am from Chicago and every area of the city has known gang activity. And there are over 600 known gangs in Chicago, it would be reasonable to assume that every color in the rainbow is used by one gang or another.

          Regarding the bandana, someone could hypothetically say i’m hide by identity because i’m stealing parts like the catalytic converter or (stock) rims off my Jeep.

          And plenty of people in suits commit violent crimes, such as this old man who robbed a bank with a jar of acid

        • I don’t have access to data on this because I don’t recall ever seeing crime broken down by clothing type, but do you honestly believe that people wearing suits or other formal type clothing are equally or more likely to commit violent crimes than people wearing their pants around their knees, with doo-rags and jackets of the same color as everyone else in the group of people they are walking around with?

          Or do you think that street gangs, which you seem to agree commonly identify themselves by wearing similar colored clothing, don’t have many if not most of their membership composed of young men who commit violent crimes far more frequently than the average person? If the membership is as I said, then I believe that merits greater attention from police.

      • “Should someone who is exercising their rights be considered distrustful, questionable, dishonest or dangerous?”


      • “commonality has nothing to do with the definition of suspicious…”

        That is correct. However, if you or I see a man carrying an AR on his back is it suspicious? Perhaps not. However – the people in the city who called the police did. They do not interpret your definition of suspicious the same as you. They saw him as a scary, suspicious guy. Also, other police may not be as polite as the one intercepting the AR welding pedestrian. Other police may also see him as scary and suspicious. The concept of suspicion cannot be taken at face value based on the text as detailed in a definition but on collective public opinion and on the individual’s perspective and interpretation of that collective (as this is how the world works).

        Is it right? Is it just? No. But they are low information cowering registered voters that also have opinions (just like us) and don’t want a guy standing on the sidewalk in front of their homes with an AR on their back. Which is exactly why they called the cops.

        • So a single report qualifies as a collective public feeling? And it seems like youre saying my rights end where your (or a cops) feelings begin.

          If the “registered voters” didnt like it they should have changed the law, and the cops should have inquired if the people OCing were doing anything specifically dangerous or threatening beyond OCing.

    • WTF exactly are you suggesting? Everyone do what they want to when they want to where they want to, even if what you’re doing pisses me off or scares me…and I piss you off or scare you back…which is what I wanna do, but that’s OK because I’m doing what I wanna do and you’re doing what you wanna do? Anarchy rules?

      Really, police shouldn’t try and stop a mass shooter before he becomes a mass shooter? Not even try, because heaven forbid we should intrude on that mass murderers constitutional civil rights? What kind of boneheaded shit is that?

      Here in the real world, if average citizen sees some dudes walking around open carrying in a crowded or public place, or even just walking down the street in your neighborhood in front of your house…the average person is gonna call the cops. The average person is also going to expect the cops to make contact with these folks and make sure they are on the up and up.

      You can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater, even though we have a 1st amendment. You can’t expect in this day and age of random violence to open carry a firearm and not be noticed by your fellow citizens or be questioned by someone else carrying a gun.

      I do agree with Anon…in my perfect world we could all open carry without anyone raising an eyebrow too…but we are FAR from a perfect world here.

      Lets take the cops out of the picture on this: Man with AR15 walking down the street is confronted by another man carrying an AR15. #1 is just open carrying because he wants to, #2 is concerned for his and his family being safe in the house you’re walking by. What now? No cops, no law. Just two people…what happens?

      • “WTF exactly are you suggesting? Everyone do what they want to when they want to where they want to, even if what you’re doing pisses me off or scares me…”

        Yes. If you are not depriving someone of their life, liberty, or property you are doing nothing illegal.

        “Really, police shouldn’t try and stop a mass shooter before he becomes a mass shooter? Not even try, because heaven forbid we should intrude on that mass murderers constitutional civil rights? ”

        Yes. No officer I know of is psychic, so knowing intentions prior to a crime being committed is impossible.

        ” The average person is also going to expect the cops to make contact with these folks and make sure they are on the up and up.”

        The average person does not know the law, and will claim something illegal because it hurts their feelings. The dispatcher should inform the caller that unless there is a crime being committed by this individual, there is nothing that can be done legally. Repeat offenders should be fined for wasting taxpayer dollars on needless red flags.

        “You can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater, even though we have a 1st amendment. ”

        Wrong. You can yell it all day. If someone is injured by the act of you yelling “fire” then you will be liable.

        “What now? No cops, no law. Just two people…what happens?”

        An interaction between two citizens may commence. Then the golden rule comes into play. Don’t go for yours, and I won’t go for mine.

        • This seems like a good place to insert the quote from Game of Thrones that I love:

          “It’s dangerous being free, but most come to like the taste o’ it.”

  10. Why all the praise for a government employee doing his job in a halfway reasonable manner? That he even stopped these guys at all is wrong. Praising him for not committing other crimes while dealing with him is a sign of weakness.

    • I understand his stopping and confronting them; he acted properly in this regard. But a word with them should have been sufficient. Their was no need to keep asking the same questions over and over.

      They clearly weren’t Russian gangsters making a “blockbuster” masterpiece about their crimes; someone here knows what I’m referring to.

  11. Gotta love a cop w/ brains and a level head. These guys were just trolling to provoke a response they could complain about.

  12. If my step-daughter asked me why she couldn’t do this, that or the really expensive, time-consuming other thing (without any adult supervision in the evening on a school night) I’d simply say “I don’t do why questions.”

    Reason #1,243,027 why I dislike people who are parents. They act like jerks and instead of being able to come up with an actual reason for their decision, just scream “BECAUSE I SAID SO!”

    Seriously, Rob. If you went to a press conference and asked Feinstein & Co why they’re pushing a given law and they said “I don’t do why questions”, you’d be beyond pissed off.

    • I’m guessing that rule was not applied all the time. The opposite end of the scale is parents who reason through everything with their children. There’s room for both things, but sometimes “I’m the mommy, that’s why” is all the reason needed or given.

      • There’s room for both things, but sometimes “I’m the mommy, that’s why” is all the reason needed or given.

        Only if you can’t come up with a factual argument for your position. Anyone who needs to resort to bullying children to feel special shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.

        • It’s not bullying. Sometimes children, and even teenagers, can be insufferable little shits simply because they can, because they don’t know any better, because they can’t be expected to always act like mature adults, because (shocker) they’re not mature adults. They are still of an age where sometimes someone has to tell them what to do, and they don’t always get to know the reason why.

          I realize you’re very often just a contrary asshole, and that’s fine. But I’m not sure how you get “to feel special” out of sometimes telling your kids “it’s because I say so.” It’s not an exercise in self-esteem masturbation, sometimes the adult really does just know better.

        • Please, it’s entirely about feeling “tough” by pushing around someone who can’t do anything back to you. It’s why parents “suddenly” come up with the ability to explain why after the kid is old enough to A) move out or B) kick the parents butt.

          If the adult “really does know better” then they can explain WHY. It’s not that hard to explain yourself if you’re in the right. It’s only those who know that they’re wrong who have to resort to “BECAUSE I SAID SO!”

        • The “Because I said so” is shorthand for, because I am your parent, I am responsible for you, and I will not abrogate my responsibilities in the name of avoiding confrontation or feeling like I’m “your friend”.

        • Sivartius got it.

          Tote, you’re out of your damn mind if you think telling a preteen or young teenager “because I said so” is pushing them around. It’s not because they can’t do anything back, it’s because sometimes the parents just know better, and don’t have the time or inclination to explain it. If your kid is being petulant and won’t do what is necessary, in some situations no amount of telling them “why they should” is gonna get the job done.

        • Imagine Feinstein asking you “why are you opposed to my gun proposals?” You raise many valid and well researched points demolishing her argument, and she says “I disagree with everything you said, and you haven’t done anything to explain why you think you’re right.” You attempt to explain yourself again, and she starts yelling at you, saying “why are you being like this, I’m not asking for anything I think is bad?”

          Now imagine the same from your teenage child, but instead of guns, it’s about going to a party at 2AM when you know there’s going to be ecstasy and oxy in abundance. Sometimes you don’t explain because there’s nobody listening.

        • “The “Because I said so” is shorthand for, because I am your parent, I am responsible for you, and I will not abrogate my responsibilities in the name of avoiding confrontation or feeling like I’m “your friend”.”

          All of this ^^^^ +everything

      • +1. I’m real tired of all this namby pamby parenting going on. I will usually try to reason with my kid over things they don’t get. But if he knew why I was saying no but wanted an answer just to be a little A-hole he can f off.

    • Tote, you’re like one of those pols passing laws about guns when they know nothing about guns. Shoulder thingy that goes up? You have no kids. For you to pass judgement on parenting skills puts you in the same league as Difi and her intimate knowledge of guns.

      • Ah, the good old disappearing comments trick.

        Short story: Squeezing out a brat doesn’t give you divine wisdom, nor does it make your decisions infallible. If you cannot come up with a fact-based reason for your decision, you should not be making that decision.

        • Dude read the example. He gives a scenario in which the daughter should have known the reason why she wasn’t able to go out. No need to answer someone being a pain in your ass….. Yet here we are.

        • Yeah, walking out the front door is a real reason for “BECAUSE I SAID SO” douche baggery. *rolls eyes*

          Don’t worry, I get it, you guys want to feel tough, so you’l make up any excuse for pushing people smaller than you around. Kind of sad really, seeing how those who actually are tough don’t feel the need to push others around to “prove” how tough they are.

        • TOTENGLOCKE,

          OMG. I still can’t believe you are still fuming over this “because I said so”… “I don’t do why questions” BS.

          Everyone has different parenting practices and that is their business not yours. If you want to go put your kid in a time-out go do it. If I want to slap my kid for disobedience I will. I don’t have to reason with my kid… period. I don’t have to reason with you why I slap my kid. You can reason with your kids if you want – that is your prerogative. Can’t believe this has become a ridiculous parenting forum. WTF.

  13. So, how should the officer have responded to several calls of “there are strange people walking around with guns”?

    I mean if other people in the community thought it was suspicious enough to call the police, shouldn’t the cop find it suspicious?

    Also, would we be all over this officer if he just ignored the folks walking down the roadway with a slung rifle and they commit a robbery or shooting shortly there after?

    I might be playing devils advocate here, but I think it would be unreasonable not to talk to these guys and check them out, just like it would be unreasonable for the cop to not check out a broken window on a parked car.

    • I think you make an excellent point. If the police just ignored these guys and they ended commiting a mindless crime this cop would be hung out to dry. I have had a policeman stop me for running to the post office in shorts during a blizzard. It was weird he was curious i wasnt butthurt. How could he know i lived a block away? It is his job to be proactive and curious.

    • So, how should the officer have responded to several calls of “there are strange people walking around with guns”?

      By asking if they are acting violent, waving guns around, etc. If they say no, inform them that open carry is perfectly legal in your state and that they are not committing any crime.

      I mean if other people in the community thought it was suspicious enough to call the police, shouldn’t the cop find it suspicious?

      Right, so when that woman in NYC called the cops because I guy was playing with a toy gun with his kids, that justified an armed response? Please. People call the police for bogus reasons all the time.

      Also, would we be all over this officer if he just ignored the folks walking down the roadway with a slung rifle and they commit a robbery or shooting shortly there after?

      No reasonable person would be upset that the officer didn’t harass them for performing a legal activity.

      I might be playing devils advocate here, but I think it would be unreasonable not to talk to these guys and check them out, just like it would be unreasonable for the cop to not check out a broken window on a parked car.

      Wow, so exercising your rights and performing a legal activity is akin to a vehicle looking like it was broken into? Glad to know your stance on the Constitution and gun ownership.

  14. That is the coolest cop iv ever seen, if only they’d all be that way. Can anyone please explain why he has a rifle though? I can see if this was Alaska with a state trooper, but I though the whole point of SWAT teams was to eliminate the need for regular cops to carry a rifle.

    • I have never seen a cruiser without a rifle or shotty. There are plenty of situations where a handgun is not ideal even close up. I think bike cops are the only ones without rifles.

    • Rifles have pretty much been standard issue since the North Hollywood Robbery/Shootout…… more accurate, easier to operate for smaller cops, and every other reason double barrell joe was wrong about shotguns.

      Besides SWAT teams take a while to put into operation…

  15. I’m all for the right to open carry (I think it’s an idiotic choice, but to each his own) however these idiots are just out to get some attention. They WANT to be stopped by the cops. They WANT to be hassled. They’re punks.

    They’re out wasting this cops time because they want a video for youtube.

    It comes down to this. Guns aren’t toys. They’re not for children who want to be tough guys. I carry every single day, but it’s for a purpose. Not to feel like a big shot. If these guys want to open carry those kinds of weapons on regular basis, expect the patrol officers to inquire at first. Be respectful, comply with legal and reasonable requests, and then be on your way. If they’re so committed to open carry the regular patrolmen will become familiar soon enough and they can stop worrying.

    But then, it’s tough to get hits on YouTube in that scenario, isn’t it?

    • Cars are not toys! They’re not for children who want to feel like though guys. Everyone should ride a bike except those with CDLs using their vehicles in pursuit of commerce.

      • The INTERNET is not toys! It’s not for children who want to feel like tough guys. Everyone should use an Etch-a-Sketch except those with common sense and decency.

  16. If he stops and asks questions, he’s apparently trying to infringe on their rights. If he doesn’t ask questions, and those 3 jerks shoot a bunch of people while taping it all, the cop is an idiot and to blame.

    So, where do we go from here?

    • We look at the situation objectively as reasonable Americans and understand we luckily don’t live in a warzone so carrying rifles on an evening stroll is an unusual thing. If it’s legal in their state, I would still expect an officer to investigate at the request of the public. If he is reasonable and his actions legal, these idiots need to be respectful and comply instead of being difficult just because they believe they’re taking a stand against tyranny.

      • Randall. I agree. If I were packing my AR on the city streets, I’d pretty much expect to see a peace officer stop and have a chat with me. I think the cop saw the situation exactly as it was….they were trying to pimp him into a reaction. Smart cop. The 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to disrespect a cop for asking you about the firearms you’re openly carrying. If he asks you to produce your permit, he can do that.

        We have open carry in Minnesota and on rare occasions you’ll see some moron with one strapped on his hip. Myself, I’m not impressed with guys that have that badass attitude. A couple of weeks ago I saw an open carry in Cub Foods…making a bunch of folks nervous and, if there was a BG casing the store, making himself the first target. I was carrying but no one knew it, mainly ’cause I don’t have anything to prove and the object of the exercise is not to flaunt the 2A, it’s to preserve it. You aren’t doing the 2A any good by alienating the non-gun folks around you.

      • As the cop himself noted on record, it wasn’t even carrying rifles per se, it was carrying them uncased and on the sling that made him raise a brow in the first place. That’s normally done when you reasonably expect to need to use it at a short moment’s notice, so it’s perfectly reasonable to stop and ask a person doing that in a middle of a city to find out what they’re up to, and what kind of threat they’re expecting.

  17. As for the “Reasonable and articulable suspicion”; that wouldn’t apply here. This was consensual contact, which the officer made clear. He even went above and beyond and informed them that they had the right to refuse questions and leave at any time, which few cops will do. This was not a detention, yes he did work the info out of them, but as I saw it he was trying to abate their (reasonable) concerns about what he was asking. And you are lying to yourself if you think OCing a rifle is common behavior, while it may be legal, it will still raise concerns to the uninitiated. Much like if you were to ride and Amish buggy through a major city. Should it change? Yup, and this is how it changes, but in the mean time, LE still is going to respond when there may be a public safety concern. Even though they don’t have to.

    • Would it be an infringement on someones rights if an officer stops them while they are walking around a parking lot looking into car windows and trying door handles?

      They have not committed a crime but it sure does look suspicious….

      • There he would have a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Not at all an infringement. Hell I’m not a cop but I would stop and ask someone what they were doing.

  18. I’m pleased with the high number of folks here that see the situation from the public, and the officer’s, point of view.

    OC is a strange phenomena to most people that quite often is a blatant example of ‘in-your-face’ posturing to show the peasants just how special one is: Hey, lookit ME! I gotta GUN! And it’s all legal! You can’t touch me!” This ain’t Dodge City, and you, certain Constitutional OC types, ain’t Wyatt Earp.

    I wouldn’t bat an eye at a person visibly carrying a firearm from his house to his car and back, or from his car to a range or hunting area, or from his car or home to a nearby gun shop; I would CERTAINLY bat more than one eye at a person carting a carbine into a grocery store, or a bank, theatre, restaurant, or shopping mall.

    Most folks are not stupid; They understand from long experience that things out of the normal course of everyday life can be a threat, and act accordingly. For example, I assure you that my minimum response to an OC’er I didn’t know walking up my driveway with a rifle would be to call 911, concurrently with my own armed precautionary response. No, I wouldn’t blast him on sight, but I’d surely want to enquire nicely from a position of cover his purpose before the nice policeman got there. If I was downtown and saw a person NOT in uniform carrying a long gun and just moseying about minding his own business, I would MOST CERTAINLY call the police. Why? Because it’s just not NORMAL. General everyday life in a built-up area just doesn’t require a long gun. I find that I can cash a check, buy groceries, and watch a movie in a theatre without my trusty rifle by my side, and so does 99.9% of the populace. I prefer a concealed pistol, thank you very much.

    I must be one of them there ‘statists.’

    • ” Why? Because it’s just not NORMAL.”

      There are an infinite number of “not normal” activities. Are you suggesting I should call in someone in a hoodie and sunglasses with their head on a swivel walking through a mall parking lot?

      • A hoodie and sunglasses with swiveling head? If you don’t find that unusual, then you don’t call. If you change the parameters slightly (at night, high crime area, bag of Skittles, whatever), you call. Why shouldn’t you?

        No need to get silly with this. You know what we’re saying. It might be legal to wear swim-trunks in public in January in Fairbanks, Alaska, but if I saw someone doing this, I’d think it a little unusual and probably call a cop.

        • I was the guy in a hoodie and sunglasses…looking for my car in the ocean of a mall parking lot. I spent most of the day shopping, have never been to this mall before, and came out at dusk. I was stopped by 3 different persons, 1 citizen, 1 cop, and one rent-a-cop. I was not weaving between rows, never stopped moving until stopped by the 3 individuals. Once stopped, I was asked what I was doing. “Looking for my car” was my response. The officer demanded my ID, the rent-a-cop attempted to get me in his car, and the citizen helped me look.

          So, over an hour of my time was wasted by the 2 officials. When I wouldn’t submit to the rent-a-cop, he called in the officer. He was fuming that I was let go when the officer returned my ID after checking my info, and could not get past my contact loop. “Am I being detained?” No. “Am I free to go?” *more questions by the officer* “Am I being detained?” No. “Am I free to go?” Rinse, repeat.

          “Not normal” is not reasonable suspicion of a crime. The sooner everyone accepts this, the better off everyone will be.

        • I’d say I’ve been pulled over 10 times in my life. Only one of those times the cop was an asshole. I’d say the majority of cops are good guys trying to earn a paycheck. Every once in a while you encounter a dick. The cop bashing by some here( you know who you are) is petulant and wrong. Would you say all car salesmen are liars? Are all politicians corrupt? Do all bears shit in the woods?

    • I think they’re more of a canary in a coal mine. They identify the areas that are hostile to firearms, and the LEOs that need to be trained on how to handle an OC contact.

      Being a jackass isn’t illegal.


        • That is like asking if I want anyone posessing a firearm to represent me. Criminals, unknowledgeable owners, fudds, even responsible owners do not represent me. You don’t get to choose. If I had a chioce, there would be more OCers to interact with the general public that are friendly, informed, and willing to act as the face of the people of the gun.

          I act as an ambasador for the firearms community wherever I go. I frequently take non-gunnies to the range and take the mystery out of firearms.

        • I am really tired of people downing open carry. I do it because its just plain easy, and it gives the opportunity to get Ito a conversation about it with gun folks and non gun folks. Sure maybe I’ll be the first target of someone’s casing the joint. I’ll take that risk. And toot toot but I am very personable and I love talking guns with people. I make sure when I open carry I have my birks and wayfarers on, just so I look substantially less threatening.
          All that being said I really wish these two assholes would vanish or at the very least CC. These types don’t help our cause.

    • I agree. Theres being technically right, and then theres common sense. Sometimes the two dont match up. The open-carry nazi’s gave CA legislators the reason to write a law prohibiting open carry long gun.

  19. How can it be that these idiots don’t have to show there ID?……These 2 are the same idiots that go around video taping cops parked in NO PARKING zones outside 7-11’s……Im all for exercising our rights but this BS defeats the purpose and only begs for more constricting gun laws to be brought upon us…

  20. Ugh, enough of the cop-baiting. It’s even worse when the cop-baiters have poor communication skills and don’t know wtf they’re talking about.

    • This I agree with. They were like the Beavis and Butthead of OC PR. Know what you are going to say, and say it clearly and confidently.

    • Yes, it most certainly does. People will ALWAYS notice a firearm carried visibly; It’s a jarring, alarm-bell-ringing punch to the sense of self-preservation, and any rational person will respond negatively to somebody displaying a firearm who’s not wearing a uniform. It will NOT matter to anybody in the mainstream if it’s ‘legal’ or not; People are still going to be dismayed and upset by it, and they will remember being afraid and upset when it comes time to vote.

      • It’s a jarring, alarm-bell-ringing punch to the sense of self-preservation, and any rational person will respond negatively to somebody displaying a firearm who’s not wearing a uniform.

        Do you piss your pants every time you step foot on a gun range? Cause there are a awful lot of people there not in uniform who are displaying firearms.

        And the rest of your argument simply makes you sound like a Fudd who supported the 1st AWB.

        • There are places that people NORMALLY open carry firearms (like the gun range), and those places should not elicit a cautionary response from other people. There are also places that people DO NOT normally open carry firearms…which DOES elicit cautious responses from NORMAL people.

        • Oh, please. . . Was anyone talking about places where firearms are expected on a normal basis?

          If you do not care what the non-gun-owning voters think, you are a fool. They outnumber us about 4 to one. In a representative republic, all it would take is a shift of the political spectrum a very small amount to the Left to strip you of your firearm rights forever. If you want to commit political suicide, go right ahead and pack your AR on your city’s streets to your heart’s content. I’m sure that you’ll win hearts and minds GALORE.

  21. No, he’s not the coolest cop. It was obvious in the first few seconds what these guys were doing. There was no need to continue bothering them.

    • I almost agree…but these guys were trying to elicit a response. If they had balls and were serious about what they were doing, they could have just said we are legally open carrying firearms, we do not have to produce ID, and if we are not being detained we are leaving. BUT…they didn’t, now did they?

  22. I think the problem lies with public education on firearm laws. Open carry “shouldn’t” be shocking enough to have citizens calling the police each time.

    The problem is there isn’t enough people knowing it’s not illegal to open carry. I’ll admit when I first moved from California to Oregon, I didn’t know about open carry. I overheard someone talking about it in class, that was the first time I heard about it. They were just as surprised as I was.

    Videos like this might not be the greatest example, but at least its getting the message out there. Something more people should do.. tell a friend, mention it in community settings.. around family etc etc.

    • I agree. Instead of trying to goad officers into saying or doing something; why not spend the time to educate the public. These are your rights; this is what you can and can not do in your state, county, municipality, town, or city.

      Did you notice how the officer stated he was responding to calls from the public. It was other citizens reporting them to the police. Virginia allows open carry, but I would find it odd if I saw someone walking down Main Street with an AR or Shotgun.

      Or you could be like the mighty and fearless RF, and recommend an officer show you his dick; because that will go over really well.

      • I’d pay real money to see RF show his dick to one of his local cops and post the video here. Thing is, he won’t…

        BUT YES!!! THAT IS THE ISSUE! People (other people not like us) don’t find open carry of firearms to be normal or accepted behavior….so they are GOING to call the cops and expect action to be taken. WE do need to educate THE PEOPLE about this issue. Granted, a certain segment of the public will NEVER accept it (Feinswine and crowd) but the average person might just need to know and see its a normal and decent thing to do!

        Part of our battle to keep our 2A rights is going to be education and perception…winning of hearts and minds. Like it or not.

  23. Is it me or does the dude with the AR seem a little rainman-ish. was waiting for him to say ” It’s time for Wapner”

  24. Wow! That Police officer was so professional. Great to see there are such solid people wearing the badge! Can’t say I would approach the situation differently if I were him… it is SOP to ask for ID. If it proved that he let guys carrying guns go without verifying ID and it proved they were felons there would be hell to pay.

    • A lot of people have missed that nuance. OC might very well legal in a certain area; On the other hand, without asking a few questions and getting ID, how does one know that these upright citizens aren’t convicted felons, or under judicial restraining orders, or otherwise unlawfully in possession of firearms? Or if the guns themselves are stolen, or just got boosted from a nearby house? Or that the upright citizen isn’t a raving madman, one step short of foaming at the mouth?

      The answer is, you don’t. So, you stop and chat, ask for ID (which you may not get, but you DO ask), and maybe get a good dashcam picture for future reference if ID is refused. And then maybe you call for a few close friends in similar clothing in similar cars to casually watch these nice people from a distance to see where they go and what they do. What could be more friendly and yet so unobtrusive?

  25. It’s legal to drink your own urine too but that doesn’t mean it’s something that won’t weird other people out…Most of these people just want more ad revenue on youtube, and in the process make all gun owners look stupid.

  26. I did see anyone pick up the round that was ejected. With ammo supplies what they are that is like leaving a dollar bill behind.

    • It may have been that case where the judge commented that allthough open carry is legal “you will attract attention”

  27. The officer handed it very well and was patient with these young jackasses who just seem to be looking for trouble.
    They could get hurt if they try this stunt at the wrong time and place.
    There is really no purpose in open carrying a rifle and standing out on a busy street corner. It’s just plain stupid and does nothing to further our gun rights.

  28. A guy carrying a gun (typically a handgun, but if you’re comfortable carrying a rifle, uh, alright) going about normal everyday activity is not suspicious.

    A guy carrying a gun walking up and down the street with no other apparent purpose than to display his weapon is suspicious. He may have a legitimate purpose (neighborhood watch…), but he is still acting suspiciously, barring other circumstances (such as everybody knows the guy and that he’s not menacing).

  29. Yet again Rob showing that anything police related makes him go full retard.

    Rob man, NEVER go full retard.

  30. I am forbidden to carry concealed, sheathed or otherwise in hand a knife which has blade length greater than 3 inchs that also locks open, or has full tang.

    I am forbidden carrying an axe concealed in a bag, sheathed in cover or otherwise in hand.

    I am informally forbidden from wearing anything that has camouflage pattern, or is deemed militaria because these articles of clothing attract attention of ‘concerned public’ who tend to summon the Police or spread rumor amongst their company of potential “terrorist activity”.

    However, if I were to design & execute a terrorist activity in all likelyhood I would methodise an Anders Brievik style approach disguised as Police Force or I would behave like the Boston I.R.A pressure cooker bombers.

    The two chums in the video above have thought through their act of liberty exercise and nuisance making only so far. The civilian who summoned the Police officer has also only thought of being a law abiding member of the Republic liberally enough to become another nuisance.

  31. Today I learned there are way too many people in the comments section here who think they are for people’s rights; but are completely OK with police overstepping their bounds and stepping on those rights. Pathetic.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here