Unnamed witness: “at no time was anyone swept.” Dr. Peter N. Steinmetz is director of the Brain Modeling Laboratory at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix. He is a Second Amendment advocate who comments on firearms issues on his Facebook page. He is a passionate supporter of freedom in the United States who opposes the excesses of the TSA. He protested TSA excesses by legally carrying a slung rifle in the non-secure part of the Phoenix airport in November of 2013 . . .
From azcentral.com, concerning the November protest:
“I was going to tell you earlier, but I will now,” Steinmetz is quoted as saying in the November report. “Well, I am really here to protest the TSA and their policy of strip-searching Americans and all their stuff.”
From a post on google+ on November1, two days before the protest, Dr. Steinmetz writes:
They have never demonstrated they have foiled even one plot, and of course, one’s chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are minuscule to start with compared to routine daily risks. For the sake of this security theatre, we tolerate a continual invasion of our privacy. Time to get rid of the expensive and wasteful TSA!
On July 25 of this year, Dr. Steinmetz exercised his rights again, carrying a slung rifle into the unsecured area of Sky Harbor Airport. But this time, he was arrested, booked, and taken before a judge. It was reported that he was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct involving a firearm. It was claimed that he had inadvertently and briefly pointed the muzzle of his rifle at two women, who were later said to tell police that they were frightened.
According to a probable cause statement, Steinmetz “proceeded to remove the Stag Arm AR-15 from his right shoulder, thus causing the muzzle to face two victims sitting to the right.”
The national and international media picked up the charges and blared them everywhere with headlines such as: PD: Phoenix doctor points AR-15 rifle at woman, teen at airport and Doctor points AR-15 rifle at woman and teen in airport. But the facts claimed simply do not support the charges.
Dr. Steinmetz obtained the services of Marc Victor, a prominent local attorney. The choice of his website name is telling: attorneyforfreecom.com. An email from Alan Korwin, gun law guru, quoted Dr. Steinmetz as saying that the hearings had been vacated and that no charges had been filed.
Here is a YouTube video of an interview with Marc Victor about the case. In the video, you can see Doctor Steinmetz unsling the rifle. This is where the police claim that the infamous “muzzle sweep” occurred. Notice that the Doctor has a cup in his left hand, which would be consistent with the claim that he pointed the gun when he unslung the rifle after buying coffee at the airport Starbucks, then moving to a place to sit down.
The women seated to the right of the Doctor appear to be the women mentioned in the case. That action is shown in the first seven seconds of the video, then repeated several times throughout the interview. It is noteworthy that in this interview, the anchor, Mark Curtis, never repeats the previous claim that Dr. Steinmetz “pointed the rifle at two women”.
An unnamed source has come forward and stated that Doctor Steinmetz exhibited good muzzle discipline, and that the rifle was never pointed at anyone. Here is the statement, which is consistent with the video shown.
According to the security video (it’s an airport, you can’t escape big brother’s surveillance cameras) the muzzle ‘dipped slightly’ – possibly in their direction but well over their heads. Apparently and LEO friendly with one of our members was on-site, and reported that at no time was anyone swept.
This video shows what happened a little more clearly, and you can see Dr. Steinmetz unsling the rifle and sit down. About five seconds after Steinmetz sits down, a security person comes up and talks to the woman on his right. About 30 seconds later, Dr. Steinmetz is arrested.
I have always said that there was likely to be video of the event. It was an open question why the authorities would release video of the arrest, but not of the event. Now it appears that it was airport security that contacted the women to bolster their charges, rather than the women complaining to airport security.
A small number of police and a large number of media personalities do not approve of Second Amendment rights and the ability of Americans to exercise them without permission. There are numerous instances where people openly carrying firearms have been arrested on false charges across the nation. Several arrests have been made, only to have charges dropped, often with settlements made.
Dr. Steinmetz was involved in political speech with his protest, which is protected by both the First and Second Amendments. The fact that he was arrested, charged, was suspended from his job, had his name smeared across the nation and internationally, by what appear to be false accusations seems calculated to engender a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Hey, at least he got the attention he was looking for.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Notice that the poster above is not me. I suspect that the Phoenix PD will win some “stupid” prizes for their actions above.
Violating someone’s first and second amendment rights on camera, when they are a known pillar of the community and a political activist, is pretty stupid indeed.
Oh, and before the Clown Militia starts jumping on me, I’ll point out that I’ve never been accused of muzzle sweeping anyone with my AR while getting coffee at the airport. Two guesses why.
It’s not whether what he’s doing is legal or not, it’s whether it’s mind-numbingly stupid or not.
ETA: too late
dean; what is “mind numbingly stupid” is how people like yourself keep attacking activists that are practicing a civil right out of principle, courage, commitment and a dedication to protecting all of our freedoms.
People that are already willing to face arrest, possibly being shot by overzealous JBT”s, derision and insults by the press and gun grabbers in general look at people like yourself as just another obstacle to overcome in the getting back the freedom we once had in OC’ing any type of gun; pistol, rifle and shotgun.
So get a grip, dean, you are just another road block to freedom.
Thank you for expressing my mind on this matter as well.
I was going to say something. But Thomas R’s post sums it up better than I could.
The doctor is a patriot.
I’ve never been accused of muzzle sweeping anyone
No. little dean, you haven’t. And neither will you ever be accused of taking action to support our rights.
Here we go with this attention whoring BS again.
OCT baby, OCT tactics all day long
You haven’t done a GD thing to protect our 3rd amendment rights nor our 8th amendment right. You rights warriors are always selective.
Yeah, would you still cheer people on for “taking action for gun rights” if they went to the local playground OCing rifles? Or would you realize that’s detrimental to gun rights? Kinda like these clowns strapping rifles on to get coffee, or eat at Chipotles, or shop at Target.
You know what I’m doing to take action for gun rights? Not going to the @%^%ing airport with my rifle to get a cup of coffee. Maybe this guy’s employers will realize they don’t need him there anymore. It’s good when peoples’ poor choices have consequences. Unfortunately, the rifle OC crowd seems determined not to learn a damned thing from them. What has OCT been up to lately?
” You rights warriors are always selective.”
And that’s supposed to be a bad thing???
Look, just because I support the Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms, does not mean I need to support or even approve of your gayness.
Well dean; people aren’t OC’ing around school grounds; it would be illegal in most states whether OC or CC.
What you don’t seem to understand dean is that when you attack a fellow gun owner for practicing a civil right instead of the clear abuse and the fabrication of charges to falsely arrest and imprison that same person for practicing two civil rights by the police; you are clearly showing your allegiance; and it is not the second amendment and to freedom of speech.
You are in fact showing yourself to be an enemy of our civil rights, of fellow gun owners and of the constitution; again dean; take a deep breath and understand you are simply another speed bump on our road to freedom.
I have no problem with people open carrying rifles at the playground. They have rights. If I don’t like or don’t feel happy about what others are doing with their rights – I don’t have to stick around. Besides, I don’t know them. Maybe one of their children is at the playground. Why is open carrying pistols acceptable but open carrying a rifle not? Look at a logically – not emotionally. One can typically draw a pistol faster than un-sling a rifle. A pistol is lighter and smaller. It is probable target acquisition would be faster as well. But apparently due to mainstream media and nationwide brainwashing with the term “mass-murder” rifles = scary.
What is detrimental to gun rights is “fear.” People irrationally fearing actions, events, and objects. A guy carrying around an unloaded AR is really scary, but a guy carrying around a chambered and loaded open carry pistol is not – or concealed. Additionally, gun owners condemning people open carrying because they are “afraid” legislation would be brought about further reducing their rights, is detrimental to gun rights. Textbook “Uncle Tom.” Rather than hating on gun owners expressing their rights – why don’t you stop complaining and get behind them.
You don’t seem to understand what gun rights are. They are about freedom. Regulations forbidding the carrying of a rifle publicly is the opposite of that endeavor. Your opinion and disagreement with the concept and idea of open carrying is your prerogative. However, the rights of everyone, individually is paramount and your opinion in regard to their rights should be and is insignificant.
Maybe this guy’s employers will realize they don’t need him there anymore. It’s good when peoples’ poor choices have consequences.
A naive statement. You imply his employers should be embarrassed of their employee’s choices. However, this could happen to you or anyone. Why wish ill on him when he only fights for more freedom for you.
Dano, when was the last time that the government tried to quarter soldiers in/on your property? When was the last time you heard of cruel and unusual punishment in our legal system? Violating the 3rd and 8th amendments is nearly unheard of, and of course I would fight for those amendments if they were under constant, unrelenting attacks like the 2nd amendment.
hahahaha! Clown Militia…. oh the thought of that was priceless. Cue circus music as armored clown cars overrun your position! LAUGH CLOWN, LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They need to update that to account for the recent rash of idiots with rifles these days. Going out of your way to freak people out with OC handguns is soooo 2012. It’s all about rifles now.
You’re happy with the way he was treated? This amuses you? What boot material do you prefer the taste of, patent leather or nylon?
Does my speech offend you such that you think I should be punished – perhaps physically? Why don’t you let the irony sink in a little there, tiger.
Hey, at least he got the attention he was looking for.
You’re projecting, Dean.
I don’t read that as a threat. I think you were just called a bootlicker.
It seems his point was more along the lines of “A right you cannot exercise is not a right at all.” Solidarity among gun owners etc…
A little sensitive on this issue are you? What he said was in no way on attack on you. I would say he was just implying that this absolute hatred of some on here for open carry is getting out of control to the point where some are starting to sound just like the liberal hippies and government thugs who want to take away our rights.
You can’t deny that this issue is causing us to eat our own and what we need now more than ever, is to be united.
He was calling you a bootlicker, “tiger”. You didn’t get it?
Your lack understanding of the gravity of this situation – that a false arrest of this magnitude could be made, and charges trumped up, when there is clear evidence that the man was innocent. If that doesn’t bother you, then TTAG isn’t the most appropriate place for you to comment. Their are plenty of places such as the NYT where ignorant comments would be welcomed.
No, Dear Boy, he isn’t threatening you with violence; He’s merely pointing out that he believes that you are a subservient, toadying bootlicker, so grateful for the attention given you by your Masters to the extent that you gladly lick their boots clean as you grovel at their feet.
Dean, in your comments you conflate stupidity and bad taste, with the legitimate expression of gun rights. Making them the same may provide you with some vulgar polemics but, in doing so, you commit a conceit common to all trolls: you think your audience is as unskilled in making an argument as you are.
So you are okay with the doctor being arrested?
I don’t think it’s right, but I also struggle to sympathize with people who jeopardize my gun rights.
What gun rights are you afraid will be taken away from you?
a) Are you worried that Arizona will make open carry in an airport illegal?
b) Are you worried that Arizona will make any firearms carry in an airport illegal?
c) Are you worried that Arizona will make open carry in general illegal?
d) Are you worried that Arizona will make concealed carry in general illegal?
e) Are you worried that Arizona will make ownership of firearms in general illegal?
?? He is fighting FOR your gun rights. The fact that open carrying is legal and he was arrested on charges in direct conflict by other witnesses is proof of that. Your own opinion jeopardizes your own gun rights. He was a gun owner following the law and was arrested. Yet you can’t sympathize. This has nothing to do with rights and has everything to do with your “opinion” and “fears.”
Not so many years ago, citizens in most U.S. states could not carry a firearm for protection. Through great effort over many years, that right largely has been restored.
Why was the right to carry taken away in the first place? Could it have been that goofy people purposefully carried in ways to make fellow citizens nervous and uncomfortable?
We almost have the right-to-carry fight won nationwide. Let’s not do stupid things to garner negative attention.
And those rights that have been gained were certainly not gained by pulling stunts like carrying rifles into an airport to buy coffee. Anyone who thinks this guy’s stunt will expand or protect gun rights is a fool.
Anyone that denies that “stunts” like exercising rights rather than just talking about them is continuing to gain ground lacks the mental capacity to draw conclusions from observable data.
There have been ZERO instances of actual evidence of rights restrictions CAUSED BY the OC crowd, yet we do get a near constant emotional bleating that this will happen.
JR_in_NC. You want proof of how OC activists are eroding our rights? How about public support for a man wrongly arrested for open carrying a rifle in an airport? This arrest, wrong or not, charges vacated or not, hurts the 2nd amendment movement in that people see the arrest and either agree with it, or form/reinforce an opinion that only a nut job would feel the need to carry an AR into an airport to get a cup of coffee. It doesn’t matter that the charges were dropped, and it doesn’t matter that he was within his constitutionally protected rights to carry a rifle. All that matters is “man with assault rifle arrested in an airport”.
We (pro-2nd activists) didn’t win this battle, we lost it. Thanks, yet again, to an open carry derp. And before you even call me a FUDD, or an Uncle Tom, I open carried all day yesterday in uber-liberal western Washington. I open carried a pistol in a holster, all day, through a grocery store, gas station, a few stores, etc. I was neatly dressed, polite to everyone I met, and went the entire day without having to touch my pistol. I did it without being arrested or acting like a moron. THAT’S AN OPEN CARRY VICTORY! Ending up on national news for carrying an AR in an airport is not a victory. Why can’t you see this?
What are you talking about??? Surely you’ve heard of the state of California, right? Surely you heard that it was none other than open carry morons who provoked the legislature to take away what little remaining open carry rights they had left. Open your eyes. These attention whoring idiots are toxic to gun rights.
provoked the legislature to take away what little remaining open carry rights they had left
Which in turn led to Peruta. Once the state took away the final ability to carry, citizens had no way to bear arms.
Plus, you have to admit that California cannot be used as a barometer for the rest of the country.
It was taken away in three basic steps.
First, concealed carry of weapons was outlawed, or only allowed with “may issue” permits, on the argument that only criminals or blacks or criminal foreigners would want to carry that way. Real men carried openly. No problem with the second amendment, they said, you can always carry openly. Besides if you are a “good person” wink, wink, you can get a permit.
Then in some places, they said, you cannot carry pistols openly. We need to do this to control crime, and be sure those nasty others (mostly black people) do not have weapons.
Don’t worry, you can always carry long guns openly. The second amendment is protected.
Then, fairly lately, after more indoctrination, they said, you cannot carry long guns openly. No one needs to, it scares people, and … because we do not like it.
At each step, the law was expanded because not enough people were carrying, so the perception was that no one cared. The laws were not enforced much at first, then progressively more strictly, until in a lot of states, virtual bans on open carry were being carried out with “disorderly conduct ” laws.
The bans did not come because people carried in outrageous ways. They came because the people in power wanted certain groups disarmed, and the majority of people thought it would not effect them, did not know the law was being passed, or were scared into supporting it with yellow journalism.
Spot on. Not carrying hurts the cause.
Here is a smart game: You know how a swear jar works? Well every time someone says “I believe in the 2nd amendment but…” as the reporter does at 2:56 in the video, he should have to put a dollar in the jar. After one year, we would have enough money to arm every man and woman in this country and secure the border without borrowing any more money from China or raising taxes.
I’m sure lots of people, even black people, thought it was stupid for a group of black people to sit at a whites only counter during segregation. How do people feel about it now?
Wow. You know what’s even worse than these clowns bringing ARs to get coffee? People comparing their stupidity to institutionalized racial discrimination.
Seriously folks, get over yourselves. There’s a huge difference between a fight for racial equality, and people attention whoring with rifles slung over their shoulders.
And yet, it worked extremely well for them, and for suffragists, and for the gay community, among others. Why shouldn’t we use their tactics against them?
Yeah, and I wonder how effective the gay rights movement would have been if they went around with rifles strapped to their backs. Please – use up these ridiculous arguments here so you’re not tempted to use them to convert someone to the side of gun rights.
Choosing to act like an idiot with a rifle slung on your back is in no way, shape, or form the same as people fighting against any kind of discrimination for what they are.
He hurt no one and violated no other persons rights. He carried a firearm openly. You are stating that carrying a firearm openly is being an idiot. How is it any different than carrying a holstered pistol or a concealed firearm? The defense of rights is not to satisfy the public opinion – it is to ensure the rights of the few from the opinions of the many.
Carrying an AR into an airport for the ostensible purpose of protecting gun rights is being an idiot. Doing things for one purpose that are almost certain to have the opposite effect is idiotic. The nation watching young black people being thrown out of restaurants (and much worse) was likely to and did engender sympathy for the cause of civil rights. Carrying an AR into the airport is pretty much the opposite. Gay rights have been gained through strategic litigation and organized, well-funded political action, not flamboyant parades. Indeed, gay rights have likely been gained despite the parades, not because of them.
You are right, Dean, there is no comparison – One group is arrested but championed for taking a stand against unjust laws, while the other is arrested and vilified for taking a stand within the boundaries of the law. There should be a law against people taking unpopular stands while breaking no laws!
Trolls gotta troll.
The lunch counter sit-ins demonstrated that certain rights applied to one group of people but not another. Anyone could look at that and think, “That’s unfair. I would not want to be treated that way.” The injustice was obvious.
A man getting arrested for carrying a rifle at an airport will generate public support only from people who want to carry rifles at airports. Since I’ve never had the desire to carry a rifle at an airport, it really doesn’t raise my dander.
While it’s obvious, in hindsight, that the airport security personnel and police botched this up big time, I have to say I’m in the “stupid games, stupid prizes” camp on this one. We don’t necessarily solidify our rights by exercising them in stupid ways.
Since I’ve never had the desire to carry a rifle at an airport, it really doesn’t raise my dander.
Honestly? Just because you don’t want to carry a rifle at an airport, you don’t have any problem with someone else being falsely arrested? Wow.
Another rights vs opinions.
Lets look at it in different terms by moving the location outside the airport and broadening the scope:
A man getting arrested for carrying a gun in public will generate public support only from people who want to carry guns in public. Since I’ve never had the desire to carry guns in public, it really doesn’t raise my dander.
Of course those that seek the same freedoms as those that fight for them are the only ones that support him. The same in any case. It doesn’t matter how or when or if your dander is raised.
^ I smell FUDD.
“Look, I support the 2nd Amendment–I even OWN guns (you know, GOOD guns like shotguns and bolt-action rifles), but I don’t think that anyone has the right to carry one openly in public, or have 30 rounds to kill a deer, or 15 rounds to defend themselves, or one of them ‘automatic’ rifles or pistols, or to have a black one, or one with a pistol grip, or a thing in the back of the stock that goes up, or one that looks like a machine gun, or has a barrel shroud, or a 30 caliber magazine clip. But, I DO support the 2nd Amendment!”
” We don’t necessarily solidify our rights by exercising them in stupid ways.” – Curtis in IL
I’m sure that’s the same thing people said about those lunch counter sit-ins…
I dare you to explain how what they were doing was wrong without using the words “stupid, dumb, idiot, idiotic, stupidity” or any related words — can’t do it, can you!
I bet you can’t. I’m going to say that the only way you’re able to describe it is as “stupid” because you’re simply uncomfortable with it, and have no other explanation to what they did wrong! Maybe you should go cry to a therapist about your “feelings.” Here, I got just the therapist for you…
I have no desire to carry a rifle in an airport but I understand, among other things, the plain meaning of:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, I support the actions of the Doc and condemn the actions of government in this incident.
This is gonna be a great suit for the good doctor
Even the anti-armed population types acknowledge that this is strong, political, speech when they say things like: This is just a stunt! He just did this to get attention!
Yes, that is exactly the purpose of strong, symbolic, political speech. This is a clear first amendment violation, as well as a second amendment violation.
Hopefully he can get in the pocket,painfully, of the airport and city as well as airport “security”.
The name of the “offended” women on record? add them.
Perhaps, but it won’t help his career. He has been placed on administrative leave by the hospital’s HR department last I heard, and they can decide if he is going to keep his job. It needs to be shown that personal choices and activities outside the workplace have no place having any bearing on the job if no crime has been committed. If the doctor wanted to go to strip clubs or host swinger parties, you can consider those activities tasteless, but those are personal life choices. As they are performed “off-duty,” they have no bearing on how he performs on the job, and neither should they lawfully be allowed to have any influence.
It seems to me, in the second video, that there were at least for security guards around him as he sat down. They had to have seen him unsling his rifle, so they knew he didn’t muzzle [email protected] anyone. But it sure does look like at least two of the guards goaded the women to press charges…
He’s not a cop he is a citizen? What the hell are cops?
They are members of the “The New Nobility”
That page is a complete joke as evidenced by the fact that it purports that a lawyer telling a cop that he is a lawyer will give him some advantage.
I’d hire that lawyer as a spokesman any day if I ever need one.
Still don’t agree with him carrying an AR into the airport but the 2 women should be charged with filing a false police report.
Why charge the two women? They were approached by the police, not the other way around. They were under a lot of pressure to give the police the response that the police so clearly and desperately wanted.
A guy with a gun at the airport is being followed by 4-6 armed police. He sits down a few chairs over. Two of the police immediately approach you and ask you: “Did you see that? He pointed his gun at you! Were you frightened?”
What do you expect them to say?
Presuming the actual conversation was along similar lines, I’d hazard a guess, go on a limb, and say The Truth. Knowingly giving false information to suport a false arrest is just inconscienable.
If a cop approaches me and asks me to give a false statement I’d tell him to fuck off ..if I could stop laughing first.
You’re saying you’d have done the same thing? That’s pretty scary .. glad not everybody thinks like you or everybody in prison would be innocent.
Ah, but we don’t KNOW what they said! It may very well have gone something like this:
Cops: “Hey, ladies, that guy over there just swept you with the muzzle of his big scary black gun! What do you think about THAT?!”
Women: “Gosh. . . we didn’t know that! That’s scary!”
Presto! Instant Probable Cause.
Chris, why would you charge the women for false reporting and not charge the cops with false arrest?
That’s what the settlement is for. Of course, the same cops will go un-named and roam the airport to harass more people again.
Maybe that’s coming soon?
They should be too but they’ll easily wiggle out of that one because they had “victims” give statements.
The women didn’t do anything wrong. The media spun all of this with their usual lies and headlines. If anyone should be held accountable for false reporting, it’s the media. But good luck with that. The day I hear the news report the “truth” will be a sight to see.
The headline for this should’ve been “Another victim of Hoplophobia was falsely arrested in airport”.
And anyone reporting him for causing alarm or whatnot is simply ignorant of firearm law regarding open carry in that part of the airport.
Now, whether or not it was wise to do what the doctor did, well, it depends on your goal. I commend him for highlighting the ignorant police and citizens that don’t know firearms policies, but it’s going to be an expensive lawyer fee.
Maybe the NRA should foot his bill or anyone else’s that is putting the hypocrisy and ignorance of gun rights to task in the media.
If he would have been carrying a holstered pistol, would the cops have had any reason to arrest him? Would he have provided ammunition to the antis, would he have given every lefty journalist and the Shannon Watts of the world yet another juicy PR victory? No, clearly not. Legal, still stupid. Pyrrhic victory…
Rosa, why can’t you sit in the middle of the bus? They might just leave you alone there. This front-seat business is making us all look like we’re trying to start trouble.
She was sitting in the middle of the bus, actually.
@Calvin: Damn, you just knocked that outta the park! I will definitely be using that.
Did Rosa Parks carry a camera with her everywhere she went so that when she antagonized law enforcement, she could go into long, rambling rants about the constitution, then post them to the internet for her friends to see? Did she dress like an Army-Navy surplus store vomited 3rd world surplus onto her? Did she pose for pictures with a Call Of Duty wet dream SKS, finger on the trigger?
Nope. Instead, she was the poster child for peaceful protest. Her story reached America because of the way her story was delivered. Perception is reality, and any rational person could look at her and hear her story, and come to the conclusion that the way she was treated was wrong. Impetus for change, not ammunition for the status quo to remain.
I know someone is going to call me a traitor now, or a Fudd, or something equally distasteful. So let me just head that off by saying that I open carried all day yesterday in a suburb of Seattle. It doesn’t get more liberal or anti-gun than here, with maybe the exception of San Francisco or Portland. I carried a holstered pistol all day as I ran errands around town. I was neatly dressed, polite to everyone, and went the entire day without handling my pistol. I didn’t pose for pictures with my drawn gun, I didn’t cause any 911 calls, and I was never asked to leave a business. I interacted with people all day, I was friendly, held doors open, smiled a lot, and hopefully presented to people that their neighbors carrying firearms isn’t something to be afraid of.
How many extreme liberals saw my pistol? How many undecided voters saw me carrying? I’d guess I was around a few hundred people, of which maybe 50 saw my pistol. I got a few double takes (I always do), but I didn’t give a single person a reason to be afraid, and I didn’t reinforce the stereotype that open carriers are a bunch of loons. The good doctor with the AR ended up in handcuffs, arrested, gun seized, and on the evening news for millions of people to see. He single handedly reinforced to millions of people that there must be something wrong with what he was doing, or he wouldn’t have been arrested. Right or wrong, this is the perception. Period.
Can one of you long-gun-in-an-airport carry supporters please tell me, between the doctor and I, who helped the 2nd amendment cause, and who hurt it?
He single handedly reinforced to millions of people that there must be something wrong with what he was doing, or he wouldn’t have been arrested.
No, the police reinforced that false notion. If the police hadn’t arrested him on bogus charges no one would have heard of him or seen him on the news OCing that day. He did nothing wrong, the police did, but you are blaming him, not the police.
Danny Griffin. The airport cops obviously had an axe to grind with regard to either the doctor, or open carriers. The cops screwed up by arresting him without having a rock solid reason. But does the fact that he is most likely not going to face any charges change the fact that the MSM got to run with yet another “assault weapon” news story? Have any of the big news corps run any sort of a retraction or clarification? So the perception remains that someone (another crazy, dangerous, separatist, anti govt nutjob) was arrested for trying to carry an evil MSM into an airport. End of narrative. PR win for anyone who wants to further restrict or erode the unfettered RKBA.
The airport cops obviously had an axe to grind with regard to either the doctor, or open carriers.
Puyallup Devil_Doc, then why blame the doctor? Why not put the blame where it belongs, with law enforcement for their wrong actions? They were in the wrong, not the doctor.
There was a somewhat famous incident back in late 2008 in this very same airport–Sky Harbor–with an open carrier. The airport cops harassed an open carrier of a holstered pistol. The incident was talked about online and a command lieutenant of those officers publicly apologized to the open carrier and the entire open carry community. He said it shouldn’t have happened, and that as a result of that incident he told all of his sergeants to re-instruct all of the officers that open carry in the non-sterile part of the airport was legal, and to not bother open carriers (as long as they weren’t doing something else illegal). He said that all of his officers should have known that, but some “new guys” might have fallen through the cracks and he was making sure he addressed the issue immediately. I thought it was a pretty stand-up thing to do.
That was five and a half years ago. Maybe some retraining for the “new” new guys is in order.
You both helped move the second amendment cause along. Do not fall into the false idea that the media reaction is anything more then ephemeral. It might make a difference if a very dramatic event happens just before an election. It has become clear that top down opinion issuing by the old media does not have a long term effect compared to real life experience. If it did, shall issue concealed carry laws would never have been passed in 30 states in the last 25 years. The old media worked very had to stop those laws and preached “blood in the streets” over and over again. It did not work. Dedicated activists working around the old media, online, on talk radio shows, with newsletters and phone trees, overcame the old media indoctrination.
No one here is saying that carrying a rifle in an unsecured part of the airport is inherently bad. Everyone is focused on the ephemeral media effects on public opinion. We should not be focusing on them, because they really are not the most important thing. What we should be focusing on is the police abuse that followed, because that will be used to educate the police. When the rest of society sees the police treating open carriers politely and without undue attention, we win public opinion. The long term opinion that counts is when people are mobilized to do things like campaign, donate, vote, and organize. The gun culture is doing this 100 times better than the opposition, and we are winning. I highly recommend “Rise of the Anti-Media” by Dr. Brian Anse Patrick, who examines this dynamic as concerning the gun culture and concealed carry laws in great detail.
Another dynamic to consider is that of boundary pushing. The doctor is pushing the boundaries, making your open carry of a holstered pistol seem normal. Only a few short years ago, open carry of pistols was considered “boundary pushing” behaviour.
Now that the police have screwed up royally, perhaps part of the settlement will be periodic announcements over the airport PA system that “Open carry of weapons is legal in Arizona, and non threatening”. or may be just a few signs near the offloading ramps. Certainly, police retraining is in order.
Thank you Dean, for your points about the media reporting, vs patient, principled, strategic political process by gun owners, working over time. This is important, because it would be too easy for someone new to gun rights, like the young person coming into it via COD, and getting frustrated because its not happening fast enough, and deciding to go OC their latest build, solo, at some high-viz location, and in a moment of youthful enthusiasm for posting a selfie, while low ready, mag attached find themselves arrested for brandishing, or worse.
Now, before anyone piles on here, including the I am sure, assigned troll from Brady or VPRC or the Nudge Team, to stimulate the circular firing squad, vs the respectful, rationale, and civil debate that most POTG strive for, that is also the tone, here at TTAG, ie Hemingways “clean, well-lit room”, lets all agree there are two issues here, existing at once, and we can agree to disagree on each, without falling into the typical progtard, debate trick, of conflating them. And worse, be suckered by the tired but effective, Alinskyite tactics of personal attacks…
Don’t fool yourself. If people weren’t out carrying long guns, eventually the focus would return to those carrying sidearms. Many of us began with sidearms and were treated badly in some cases by law enforcement and the press. The public “memory” is usually very short and once long gun carry were all but nonexistent, harassment over handgun carry would start again.
Bingo. I couldn’t have said it better myself. People like this doctor push the limit. If he wasn’t pushing, the focus would be on holstered weapons and concealed carry. The desire for the antis to take all gun rights away is insatiable. There is no compromise for them. Imagine where we would be if every american that owned a gun wore it in a holster or slung it on their back from this day forward regardless of any unconstitutional laws. The quest would be over for us.
You have written so much with which I agree in commentary to this article that I couldn’t give props to it all. Keep up the good work and carry on.
“A small number of police and a large number of media personalities do not approve of Second Amendment rights.”
A bit off topic, but you obviously have not dealt with Jersey cops. I have yet to meet one who is fully supportive of the people’s right to bear arms. Guns are bad, mmmkay? And the cops will make sure to make you wait 2, 4 or 6 months (or whatever they feel like, really), before they begrudgingly ‘allow’ you to buy / own firearms. That’s the status quo here, and not a view held by some minority of cops.
Whoa — do you mean that the cops trumped up charges against an honest citizen who was doing nothing illegal? Do cops really do that? Well, it could have been worse. Dr. Steinmetz could have been falsely arrested and convicted of murder. Like these guys:
Det. Louis Scarcella, the “hero cop” who put dozens, maybe hundreds of people in prison for lengthy sentences — by faking cases and beating confessions out of innocent people. Compared to him, these Phoenix criminal cops are just amateurs.
I think it is worthwhile to consider *why* they did it. Now that we know that there never was a “muzzle sweep”, it is clear that the issue was something other than safety. Dr. Steinmetz was clearly and unequivocally communicating to everyone around him that it was legal to be armed in the non-secured portion of the airport.
To me, that is the message that the police wanted to stop.
It would be interesting to see all emails about open carry in the Phoenix PD over the last year.
It is clear that their spokesman, Sargent Steve Martos, knew that open carry in the airport was protected:
“It seems Steinmetz, a Tempe resident, was doing nothing wrong up until the moment he pointed the weapon inadvertently at two women in the “B”-gate waiting area. Police tell New Times that, in general, it’s not illegal to carry a semiautomatic rifle into an airport terminal. In this case, the problem was “the way he was carrying it,” says Phoenix police Sergeant Steve Martos.”
Because they were pro second amendment, pro- open carry with a pistol and holster, and pro-concealed carry. Just not pro-open carry with a rifle. That is just… unacceptable behavior. Those people don’t need those kinds of rights. They are attention grabbing – stupid game playing people. How dare this doctor continue to open carry when we asked him to stop? How dare he complain about the TSA and the millimeter wave scanners and the weirdos behind the monitors? We are the TSA and we want to go through your bag. Shut up and take off your shoes.
All else aside, I have to ask: what does openly carrying a rifle have to do with the TSA? This guy’s got to get some better message discipline if he wants to be taken seriously. I know the rifle was to draw attention to his protest, but is anyone at all talking about his concerns with the TSA now? Nope, it’s all about the rifle. Find another way to protest, Doc, this one isn’t working.
It worked for me. YMMV.
Yeah, but honestly, what wouldn’t work for you?
Bingo. It’s pretty dumb to spend all of your time trying to convince the choir that they’re right.
Everywhere in public spaces that government alphabet agencies are present, the militia is appropriate even moreso. Government continues with this security theater so it makes sense that the People (militia) would want to carry rifles in those same places.
There is a smart way to OC firearms when you ae attempting to shine light on the fact that it is safe, legal, and shoule be done more often…
…and then there is this guy.
And then there’s you, who is against what’s perfectly legal. Don’t you get it? You are already defeated before you even get in the game.
Yes, yes, yes! No one is arguing against OC! We’re just begging people to be smarter about it than this.
Easy solution… dont take your rifle to airport.
And don’t buy a nice car. All you need is a Yugo, comrade. If you qualify for one. And your choices of food at the grocery store are oppressive. We will give you vouchers from now on to make your dietary decisions for you so that you don’t buy too many cookies. And please remember, comrade, that your words, if misunderstood, can have a demoralizing effect on your fellow comrades and this can undermine the glorious revolution. We will tell you which words you can use from now on. And please recall, dear comrade, how disruptive to our equality it can be if you must compete for a wife. We will assign one to you to eliminate the reactionary behavior that results from having to select someone to give children to the state.
Or, you can be a free man and carry a gun if you damn well feel like it and not have to ask anyone’s permission.
To that Im sure our comrade friend would reply Blyat!
Seriously I got a really great kick out of that. Been reading up about the cult of personality lately and your joke was perfectly timed.
Man, that was good. Leave out the “comrade”, and it could pass for a lot of what is said today in perfect seriousness.
Can you say “massive lawsuit against the airport security people involved in this deprivation of 1st and 2nd Amendment rights?”
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”
Sec. 1983 cases are often brought and rarely won. It is very narrowly construed and the qualified immunity of police and others is not affected.
Sec. 1983 was an anti-Klan law. While it’s reach has expanded since it was enacted, it’s depth has not. Sec. 1983 is a paper tiger.
I don’t know if I’d call 1983 a paper tiger. It gets a lot of PDs to settle out of court (if even for a lot less money), so it still has value.
“I’m-a protestin’ the TSA!”
…Except the TSA doesn’t give two shits if you carry on the unsecure side at a starbucks. protesting the TSA is wearing an anti-TSA T-Shirt and marching around outside their checkpoint. Or hell, lugging around signs like every other protest like Moms Against Drunk Guns. But none of that happened. Mmmmm… Starbucks.
No, sorry. I know TAAG is all over the TSA angle like a rash on ass, but I’m calling BS.
Except the TSA doesn’t give two shits if you carry on the unsecure side at a starbucks
Really? Because there are news stories with video of the TSA calling the airport police on gun carriers in the unsecured side of an airport.
“Really? Because there are news stories with video of the TSA calling the airport police on gun carriers in the unsecured side of an airport.”
And those stories have nothing to do with this story or playing fast an lose with the mixed messages being pushed by this particular blog entry. But feel free to link these stories you say exist for peer review instead of hiding behind ambiguious heresay. I would love to see the reasons behind the police referals that i’m sure are all clearly unsubstantiated.
That’s what I was trying to say above. This guy is mixing up his anti-TSA message with a pro-2A message, and the two aren’t really related. Either the TSA thing is just a cover for him wanting to do an open-carry protest at the airport, or the rifle is there just to get attention. I’d like to know what he’s really trying to accomplish here.
What’s wrong with getting attention? That’s the whole point of a demonstration.
Doc got himself busted by a bunch of jerks with badges for doing something completely legal. I’d say that he proved his point.
What was his point again?
Stinkeye, if you really wanted to know what he was trying to accomplish, you’d simply ask him on his facebook page instead of reciting your mantra here over and over. You’re not really looking for an answer.
My point is, if you’re going to demonstrate, you should try to have a clear message. If people have to figure out who you are and track you down on Facebook to find out what the hell your demonstration was about, you’re not really getting your message out there, are you? That’s why most demonstrations have signs and chants and flyers, so that onlookers can get your message.
His “anti-TSA” protest seems to have had no contact whatsoever with anyone at the TSA, since he was arrested by airport cops, not TSA agents. The intimidation tactics and abuse of power by the local cops don’t prove any of his points against the TSA (most of which are quite valid), since the TSA doesn’t seem to have been involved at all.
His presence last year was anti-TSA. To what extent others were aware of it I don’t know. I don’t think he said why he was there this time, or if he did, I missed it. I do know from people I know in Arizona that he is a LGOC advocate, so maybe that was his only “message.”
Since his activities were lawful, I am more concerned with his mistreatment by law enforcement.
Pretty much this. I have no probs protesting the TSA. Or standing up for 2a rights. But this story reeks of justification after the fact and a desperate bid to recover street cred.
Yeah, I’m trying to understand why the doc thought he was protesting TSA body scans by sipping coffee at an airport Starbuck with his rifle. If he wanted to protest body scans he might have made the scan pointless by disrobing in the security line, avoiding altogether the scan and optional feel-ups. That would have been a courageous act of civil disobedience, and no one would have missed the point. Carrying an AR into an airport is just being goofy, and it surely turned some people off to carry rights.
It would be interesting to know the background of the complainants. The possibility exists that they were “swatting” the Dr.
I shared this analysis here: https://www.facebook.com/TheMarmelPage/posts/950123788348028
I went to the wesite; WOW! What a bunch of hysterical little children frightened of monsters in the closet and their irrational fear of an inanimate object.
These are supposed to be adults; they should just abdicate all responsibility for their own welfare and protection and place it in the hands of their “betters”; you know, the government.
Oh, wait a minute; that’s what they’ve done.
Fortunately; the cops and the people out here in Albuquerque actually act like adults. I’ve OC’d now for over five years and everyone just goes on about their business when they see I’m just a regular citizen just practicing a civil right.
Dumb cops and a dumb gun owner. Is there anything positive that you can expect from that interaction? A gun owner looking for trouble and making a Pyrrhic statement by taunting uneducated police officers. Do you want to go to court to press your case and 15 minutes of fame? Do so if you wish but it is a useless action unless you are planning to entrap the police department into a law suit for false arrest. What is Steinmetz real agenda. I hope he has a worthy one, otherwise he is just another idiot giving a bad name to law abiding gun owners.
I’ve heard this before; Supposed “fellow” gun owners were saying that about people like me that OC a pistol here in Albuquerque. Now, five years later, I don’t hear much about how bad OC of pistols are and how it will cause more restrictive gun laws; now, it’s how OC’ing rifles will frighten the “sheep” and cause more restrictive gun laws.
The tactic of OC’ing various guns, first pistols, has worked really well; in five years; the OC’ing of rifles will be more accepted and Ho Hum, no big deal.
It’s painful Alfonso, but people, even fellow gun owners; can learn to accept what was once the norm.
How, exactly, is peacefully and lawfully exercising a Constitutional Right “looking for trouble”?
All the police have to do to avoid any trouble is not hassle people who aren’t doing anything wrong.
I’m unsure how this could be any simpler.
Burning a flag at a memorial for soldiers would also be constitutionally protected. Why is it you think something can not be both legal and looking for trouble?
Ding, ding, ding! Winner! Just because something is lawful, or constitutionally protected, doesn’t mean it’s a great idea. Westboro Baptist Church anyone?
Ah, I see the anti-OC (and by extension anti-2A) clown patrol is out in full-force today.
Complete with red noses and tiny little cars to jump out of.
I LOVE those guys! It’s really sad, though, when you go to an accident involving one of those cars; The bodies just seem to keep on coming, one after another after another after another. It’s like they never STOP.
Oh, the Humanity!
That attorney sounds legit. His style and delivery were excellent. I’d hire him to defend me. Looks like Ralph is still the go-to guy for going after police misconduct.
The most difficult thing is choosing which cases of police misconduct to publicize. There’s so much of it going around.
I have noticed a bit of a change recently. A guy shot a cop who busted into his home and was no-billed. Another shot at cops (fortunately he hit nobody) who busted into his home and was acquitted. Another shot at cops who broke into the wrong home, and he was acquitted too. Two cops who shot dogs were terminated from their departments. All of NYC Det. Scarcella’s convictions are being investigated, several have already been overturned, NYC is looking at payouts exceeding $10 million (and maybe a LOT more) and maybe, just maybe, that pr1ck Scarcella will end up in the same prison that he sent people to wrongfully.
The tide may be turning, but it won’t completely turn until the police clean up their own act. They really have to, you know.
Nearly everyone having video/audio recording capability, and courts clearly stating that recording police during the performance of their public duties is a first amendment right, has helped a great deal.
Sometimes I think their might be a future for a product line that has a recorder compartment on an magazine carrier….
Our ability to record is becoming as important to securing liberties as our second amendment rights. They complement each other.
I know a couple of people who carry their audio recorders in their second mag pouch (I’d rather carry a second mag!) but I carry mine usually under my shirt, although occasionally in a pocket. However, I can see the advantage of a wide angle video recorder in a mag pouch if you can get it placed properly.
I wear audio/video glasses that record with a press of a button; they have replaceable lenses so they can be used as sun glasses or clear lenses so they can be used as safety/shooting glasses. I’ve recorded my shooting runs when I’m at the range with them, they have very clear audio and the video is very clear as well. So I have them with me at all times when I’m out and about. Never know when there might be a close encounter with a bad cop or a human predator.
I use I-Kam X treme, but there are other makers as well.
The ability to record…another great point, Dean, and may I suugest readers check out Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, a constitutional law prof at U Tenn, who has been posting on this for awhile.
I agree with you Dean, and Ralph, that the tide is turning. That is not to say we 2A rights believers should become complacent, for its only come with principled action, dedication, organization, money and time, coupled with key cases resolved in the courts. Kind of like the Civil Rights Movement, when you think of it.
So thanks to you both for the benefit of your long experience, and willingness to nurture and mentor new gun owners, and these principles apply to others who believe in personal liberty, vs the tyranny of the top down State, the current administration, and the Democrats in Congres would wish to jam down our throats.
Its working, but there is much to do, “and miles to go before I sleep…”
Keep Calm and Press On.
Colored me shocked the cops coerced those 2 cows into claiming their were terrorized.
Why use derogatory, perhaps even misogynistic, language about the two women? From my view, they probably suffered some collateral damage with the police using *them*. They are likely very nice ladies ( most are) and simply got caught up in something bigger than themselves, by accident.
It does no good to call them names. I would like to meet them. I suspect that they would be charming.
I live in Phoenix and that video was in the original local news reports the day the story first broke.
One of the original stories here:
Video is in there.
I believe that you are correct. It was just that everyone was looking for where he pointed the rifle at two women, and it was not there.
I’m sorry but this guy is stupid yes he is protected by the 2nd amendment yes I am a concealed carry an open carry person but I’m not that stupid to carry in AR 15 into an airport to make what kind of a statement its people like this that give 2nd amendment gun owners a bad name just because you can open carry don’t mean you should and reporter was right if this guy would walk into the Starbucks in my town what that ar I would have pulled my gun there is no reason for people to walk around with or shotgun strapped to their back the shoulders or wherever if you want to open carry carry a pistol if you want to concealed carry carry a pistol I believe people that openly carry long rifles are looking to get attention so they can make a quick fast buck in a lawsuit the whole idea behind carrying for me is the protect myself my family and my fellow man or woman from those who wish to do harm
Damn, that’s one long sentence.
Well since there was no period at the end, I presume it only stopped after he lost his breath and became unconscious after hitting his head on the table.
By the way, how can anyone “make a quick fast buck in a lawsuit” if they aren’t falsely arrested in the first place? Your outrage is misplaced.
He also misplaced his punctuation.
Clearly this person enjys the works of E E Cummings.
That was a tough read. So tough I had to try and fix it:
I’m sorry but this guy is stupid.
I don’t think he is stupid. At all. I think he is brave and upset about the present situation.
Yes, he is protected by the 2nd amendment.
I hope so. I wish. Doesn’t seem so from the actions taken place by law enforcement.
Yes, I am a concealed carry (and?) an open carry person, but I’m not that stupid to carry in AR 15 into an airport. To make that kind of a statement its people like this that give 2nd amendment gun owners a bad name.
If it is a legal to carry an AR15 in the airport – what is the problem? Is it legal or not? If anyone were arrested because other “felt” antagonized, anyone could be arrested for anything at any time.
To make that kind of a statement its people like this that give 2nd amendment gun owners a bad name.
You are allowing and accepting your name to be tarnished. His actions do not and should not reflect on us. We are all different. Are the actions of one black man representative of all black men? Are the actions of one man convicted of money laundering or antitrust laws representative of all executives? This is one man and his actions are his alone. I am tired of hearing about gun owners thinking that gun owners are a single entity to be judged.
Just because you can open carry don’t mean you should
The doctor was present at the airport as a protester (against TSA) and 2nd amendment rights advocate. He is there to educate people. Are some of them going to be scared? Probably. But in the end, they are going to be educated on the matter one way or another.
If this guy would walk into the Starbucks in my town with that AR I would have pulled my gun.
Why would you pull your gun on a guy following the law? If you did, you would be the law breaker not him. If you are pulling a gun on him and he is walking into a store who is the threatening one? Why is open carrying a pistol not threatening and ok with you, but open carrying a rifle unacceptable? In close quarters the pistol is actually more effective. I just don’t see the logic behind it. All I see is rifle = scary.
I believe people that openly carry long rifles are looking to get attention so they can make a quick fast buck in a lawsuit.
Good. Maybe they shouldn’t be tackling and arresting law-abiding citizens. Maybe that lawsuit will invoke change for the better.
There is no reason for people to walk around with (A rifle?) or shotgun strapped to their back (or) the shoulders or wherever.
Then there is no reason you should be carrying concealed. There is no reason to own any guns either. In fact, there shouldn’t be any rights – there should only be a purely liquid democratic system where the majority decides everything and the minorities keep their mouths shut and don’t complain.
if this guy would walk into the Starbucks in my town what that ar I would have pulled my gun
Then you would be a criminal and are possibly a danger to others with that mindset.
there is no reason for people to walk around with or shotgun strapped to their back the shoulders or wherever
According to your previous statement, you would present lethal force against someone because you disagree with them. You might be a danger to others with your mindset.
if you want to open carry carry a pistol if you want to concealed carry carry a pistol I believe people that openly carry long rifles are looking to get attention so they can make a quick fast buck in a lawsuit
The time, energy, risk, and aggravation is not usually worth any financial payout. The money, if any, tends to be symbolic when one considers what one must endure; the high risk of being wounded, killed, or incarcerated for a long time.
the whole idea behind carrying for me is the protect myself my family and my fellow man or woman from those who wish to do harm
Yet you freely admit that you would present lethal force against someone who you disagree with and that they are probably only OCing for a lawsuit payout? You might seriously be a danger to others with your mindset.
Punctuation…. it’s the law.
The issue here, is not about OC long rifle is stoopid or not.
This is about airport security that solicited information, and initiated the arrest.
That is the opposite of what the PD put out, correct? And with video and now witness confirmation that it was NOT careless muzzling, it looks more like deliberate coaching and false arrest.
This smells very bad. I look forward to the sworn statements by the “frightened women” in civil court.
“That is the opposite of what the PD put out, correct?”
Not exactly. As I noted in a previous article, the parsing of the statements was always a bit ambiguous. At first read, you got the impression that the women contacted the police, but when you parsed it carefully, you noticed that it was not clear who contacted whom.
A lot of deception can be done with those sort of inferences.
We are used to people contacting the police, so that was the default assumption.
The ambiguous parsing is part of why I thought it smelled from the beginning.
thanks. I should have been more precise. the security people initiated the contact with the women. then initiated the arrest. then the pd issued an ambigous statement, leaving it open to the default interpretation, that the police were responding to the citizen initiated complaint.
and the pedictable media hoopla ensued, including loss of income and reputation, to the doctor. Correct?
is it a known proveable fact that security was unhappy with the doctors past criticism?
if so that would comprise, motive, means, opportunity, correct?
IANAL, just curious about civil case elements, and the risk to the airport management and taxpayers of AZ for what appears to be a petty bit of thuggery…
I think you summed it up pretty well. The fact that they had 4-6 officers tailing the Doctor around the airport is also indicative that they were not treating him like any other citizen.
Just because someone has the “right” to pee in his own backyard doesn’t mean he should should also expose his penis at the local playground. C’mon, folks, face it: people like this bozo, lacking all discretion and common sense, give gun owners everywhere a black eye. Contrary to any daring “statement” they are trying to make, they actually undermine public support for private firearm ownership by unnecessarily antagonizing their fellow citizens.
Phoenix has a “stupid motorist” law that fines stranded idiots who drive through flooded washes during a cloudburst. Maybe we need a similar law for “stupid shooters” who can’t keep it in their pants in public places.
A firearm is not a penis. Also, a penis is not necessary to the security of a free state; at least not directly.
expose his penis at the local playground
Pretty sure exposing yourself in public at a playground is against the law. Fail.
Please explain why the peaceful, lawful exercise of a Constitutional Right should be required to be camouflaged.
P.S. Why are you so obsessed with genitalia?
Barrows Neurological Institute Doctors are the best brain and spine surgeons in the world. The doctors who work their have saved more lives that no one else could help. They save more lives year over year than the phoenix police.
Yes I work and live in the phoenix area. Yes I work in the medical field with medical and trauma patients.
There is a right way and a wrong way to support the second amendment. There is a right way and a wrong way to open carry a rifle. This man did it the right way. Security and police were following him and trying to find any reason to arrest him.
If you denounce him you only help those that are trying to shred The Constitution that so many have sacrificed to uphold and protect.
I applaud him for exorcising his first and second amendment rights that were promptly violated by the Phoenix Police Department.
Every time I feel like getting a cup of coffee, I head to the airport with my AR15!
Open carry fanatics are a blight on gun rights.
I see our local Sadducee has shown up to join forces with the Pharisees to crucify an innocent man who has broken no law. Again.
And I see that Danny has nothing more to bring to this than puerile ad hominems. Very revealing.
You may want to consult a dictionary.
No, Danny, apparently you do.
You have nothing to bring to this conversation other than cliches, repeated assertions with no evidence, and utter inability even to begin to understand the wisdom of foolish tactics the Doc used.
You have nothing to bring to this conversation other than cliches, repeated assertions with no evidence
In almost every OC thread, I present evidence and facts backed up with cites, yet you continue to cover your ears and say LA-LA-LA I can’t hear you,” always failing to respond with anything of substance. All you ever do is offer your opinion, which is OC is stupid. This isn’t about what you or I like. The issue here isn’t even whether what the doctor did was wise or foolish. The issue is the unlawful arrest of the doctor based on fabricated charges. The problem is that you seem to be okay with it simply because you disagree with what the doctor did.
Which is why I said, “I see our local Sadducee has shown up to join forces with the Pharisees to crucify an innocent man who has broken no law.” It’s very fitting.
“They have never demonstrated they have foiled even one plot, and of course, one’s chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are minuscule to start with compared to routine daily risks. For the sake of this security theatre, we tolerate a continual invasion of our privacy. Time to get rid of the expensive and wasteful TSA!” I know a guy who has a sister in law that works for the TSA and most of those people have a room temperature IQ. It is pretty much all just dumb theater.
I am not wild about open carry demonstrations, but I think when you see one of these people, one should not freak out. I have encountered open carry people in Wal-Mart and I sort of ignore them and continue shopping. I think when you just go about your normal business, it sort of unnerves them more than if you make a scene about them having a gun and drawing attention to them.
Let’s take note of this revolting fact.
The OC fanatic fan-boys around here have asserted that unless we all support idiots like the doctor who decided to grab a cup of java with his AR in tow, at the airport, we are not “doing anything” to support the RKBA.
One cannot serve two masters when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. It’s the nature of this particular right. If it’s infringed then it loses a lot of value as a deterrent and defense against tyranny. AFAIK, nobody is asking you to like it, rather, to accept that he did nothing illegal and it is fine in a free society for him to exercise his rights thusly.
And John in Ohio once more demonstrates the utter inability of OC fanatics to engage in wise tactics.
They are the best friends Bloomberg could hope to have.
Ironically, they have a nice platform on TTAG to continue to provide MDA/Bloomberg with the ammunition they need.
I responded with reason and did so politely. This is your response? Okay then, Reverend.
When you reply to polite comments in the future, you would be wise to consider Matthew 7:15-20. Your fruits are showing.
No, you did not “respond” you merely deflected.
Fortunately, the majority of people who bother to comment on these posts have seen through you and the half-dozen or so others who continue to grind away on these idiot open-carry incidents.
And we all know that the only purpose you serve is as poster-children for the cause of Bloomberg and crew.
Perhaps I misunderstood your initial comment. I was honestly presenting what I believed to be a clarification as to the message I wished to get across to you. No deflection was intended and I do not see where I attempted it. Would you be so kind as to restate your initial comment in a different way for clarification, please?
My comments are perfectly clearly. You are simply being passive-aggresive, because your arguments lack any merit.
Passive-aggressive? Nope, not me. Indeed, my therapist and good friend from years prior would wholeheartedly disagree with you; if anything, I’m a bit too much aggressive-aggressive in style. I tried to treat you with politeness in the hopes that an actual dialog could occur. Apparently, that is not your intention. Again, your fruits are showing. Such vitriol is coming from somewhere inside you and you can’t continue to blame the external for that which springs forth internally.
Well, I gave you a chance to engage in an honest discussion. This thread is here for others to read and they can judge it for what it is.
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.
Citations needed, please.
I don’t know what you guys are getting all worked up about. This guy is a child in a man’s body having a modern day temper tantrum. He got the attention he wanted, and now he wants to cry about it.
I went out on a call concerning two men at a local establishment carrying rifles. I showed up with a few partners, and found a pair of neckbeards that bore an uncanny resemblance to the two douchebags in that now-famous open carry photo. You know the one: the fat guy and the skinny nerd holding their crap Tapco rifles at port-arms.
I told them they can carry their rifles all day if they want, but keep them slung over their shoulders – if I have to respond to two losers carrying their rifles at port again, it wouldn’t end well. As we were leaving, I heard one of them quietly say it wouldn’t go well for me either…heh, challenge accepted.
One hour later, another call at a spot down the street from the first. Show up with the same partners and see the same neckbeards at port arms, but this time they’ve got some hambeast friend following them with a camera. We flank them, pistol point them, and in true Oath-keeper/3 percenter/sovereign citizen fashion, they crap their pants, put down their weapons, and start wimpering about their rights.
We arrested them, charged them with brandishing, etc., and confiscated their weapons. We confiscated hambeast’s camera as evidence as well. They were charged by the DA and they both ended up pleading guilty. Funnily, a video from another angle showed up on YouTube later, labelled as a victory for the open carry crowd – it conveniently left out the part where we put them in the back of our cruisers. It even left out the part where we had to use two pairs of cuffs on fat boy because he has a body fat percentage of 1500%.
Because they plead guilty to the class of crime they were charged with, all their firearms were confiscated and they ended up in a prohibited class. Their civil suit against me was dismissed. It wouldn’t have gone anywhere to begin with, because qualified immunity is a b*tch.
I say open carry all you want, but keep it slung over your shoulder. Better yet, conceal a pistol so no one will confuse you with a yokel. Insulting the public is no way to educate them.
Got links to any of this?
Please explain to us the legality of confiscating the camera, as it is clearly a constitutional right to video police in the public performance of their duties. Perhaps it was justified as evidence?
As the cameraman was not arrested, I suppose you gave him a receipt and the camera back, with the files entact, right?
You did take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, did you not?
It is perfectly legal to confiscate a camera. Why would you think it isn’t? If you record evidence of a crime, it gets seized to be used. It then should be returned in the same condition as before, once that evidence has been used against the defendant. But at the moment, yes, the police can take your camera to secure it as evidence and not allow it to be deleted (even if it a situation where they may need to get a warrant before actually looking at it, as with a cell phone now).
But then you still get the people who got their law degree from TTAG and will start fighting and think they’re going to get a big settlement until the real lawyer tells them the police were allowed to do what they did…
If you read my post, you see that I mentioned the confiscation of the camera as evidence. Confiscation did not seem the correct term, because it was not contraband. I believe it should have been “impounded”, but that is splitting hairs.
Then I asked if a receipt was given and the camera, with intact files, was returned. I did not receive an answer. Lots of strange things happen in evidence rooms. Lots of files have been corrupted, and disappeared.
The poster said that “Funnily, a video from another angle showed up on YouTube later, labelled as a victory for the open carry crowd – it conveniently left out the part where we put them in the back of our cruisers.” That implied that the original files on the camera were not available, and I was curious as to why.
I don’t know what you guys are getting all worked up about.
What appears to be unlawful arrest on fabricated charges? Really, you don’t see anything wrong with that?
So you won the piss match with those open carriers, congratulations. Maybe you should have been polite and explained the matter to them to avoid the situation altogether like the public servant you are instead of belligerently stretching the word “authority” over your inflating big head.
Then stop insulting us.
So, what’s your user-name on officer.com?
Officer, thank you for your service and I mean that sincerely, without subservience.
I have to tell you the first time I read this I was struck by the tone, of arrogance, contempt even, that it would be easy to mistake as an example of what many have noted about the power of authority to corrupt the individual…”absolute power. ” and all that.
Then I came back and took away your implicit advice, about the gray line, of judgement, in low ready carry being “brandishment” vs shoulder carry.
Just another example, for me, of the lesson learned about the limits of words to convey meaning, vs the 70% of communication that experts say is non-verbal.
Like how a picture is worth a thousand words. And how perception is reality. And why an OC carrier demonstrator can help, or hurt the cause, simply by forgetting the subtleties…
Yesterday I argued that it was highly unlikely that the officers involved would have falsely arrested the doctor, because they knew they were being videotaped and the video would show no offense occurred. Today I’ve learned that’s exactly what happened. As a cop, I have to say LE screwed the pooch on this one. Unless something drastic happened that’s not shown on the video (highly unlikely), then the officers did indeed arrest him for no reason.
Now, having said that…
I still hold that OCing a rifle into a private business or airport is a stupid act guaranteed to create enemies of the 2A. While the doctor’s actions have impressed many gun owners and TTAG readers, those aren’t the people who need convincing. Middle-of-the-road America needs to understand the reason behind the 2A. When activists like the doctor, who I think is a moron, walk into an airport with an AR, Regular Joe gets nervous and becomes more likely to oppose 2A rights rather than support them. OC rallies in private businesses have uniformly received widespread criticism in national media, and have led numerous businesses to at least ask gun owners not to carry in their stores. How does this help 2A rights?
Yes, the doctor was falsely arrested. Yes, he was in the right. And yes, he still looks like an unreasonable moron to much of America. That doesn’t help our cause.
Publicizing the illegal arrest of an innocent man is the best possible thing for this movement, as it reveals that people who are arrested for taking radical, peaceful steps are the ones in the right. Yes, there will be idiots who think that carrying rifles in airports is weird and awful, just as there were those who think that blacks sitting at lunch counters in violation of an actual law is despicable. People are often hostile to things that are out of the ordinary.
The doctor is demonstrating how effective modern civil rights movements work: you protest peacefully, you get arrested, and then you do it again and again and gain attention for the cause with every step. As a bonus, he also reveals the false-friends of the movement, namely people who are so concerned about appearances and offending an uneducated public that they’re incapable of telling right from wrong.
I know several LEOs. I’m related to one, and my girlfriends dad is a retired deputy sheriff. I spend a lot of time talking to both of them about gun rights. Matter of fact, I was talking to my GF’s dad about OC yesterday. You will not meet a more rabidly pro-gun, pro-2nd person than him, period. And you know what? He agrees that OCing rifles in public places is a terrible idea. The great majority of LEOs are staunchly pro-gun, but they support the law as well. The story related above makes perfect sense from a law enforcement perspective. “I agree with open carry, and I don’t want to interfere with your right to carry a gun lawfully. But if you persist in doing so in a manner that creates a public disturbance, i’m going to arrest you for creating a public disturbance.”
Westboro Baptist Church ring any bells? They were certainly within their rights to protest any damn thing they wanted. What was their message? Can anyone answer that? Something about not liking gay people, right? They went about making their point in such a noxious way, that whatever message they had was lost in the way they delivered that message. Protected speech, yes. Idiotic message delivery, absolutely. They were so patently offensive in the way they tried to spread their message, that they unified EVERYONE against them. Is this the sort of direction that the LGOC crowd wants the 2nd amendment fight to travel?
Except that if you look at the video, it is pretty clear that there is no “public disturbance”. People are acting normally, no one is even staring at the Dr. No one is running away, or even walking real fast.
The fact that there were 4-6 officers tailing this guy was more of a disturbance than him carrying the rifle. I have talked to a fair number of people who have been at these events, and the police response is almost always more of a disturbance than the event itself. The exceptions are the large rallies, at which the participants are well behaved and polite.
There are a number of disarmed population advocates that have pushed for making a public disturbance when they see an open carrier, Their rants are easy to find on the net.
On the other hand, I have been pleasantly surprised at the amount of public support that these events draw.
Perfectly stated, Officer Hernandez. If we freakout the vast majority of Americans who do not carry, who do not wish to carry, who do not understand the benefits of carry, then those Americans will turn against us at the ballot box. We will lose concealed carry in the legislatures and ultimately in the courts.
Not so many years ago, citizens in most U.S. states could not carry a firearm for protection. Through great effort over many years, that right largely has been restored.
Why was the right to carry taken away in the first place? Could it have been that goofy people purposefully carried in ways to make fellow citizens nervous and uncomfortable?
We almost have the right-to-carry fight won nationwide. Let’s not do stupid things to garner negative attention.
Why was the right to carry taken away in the first place?
Carry restrictions and gun registrations and such anti-2A laws almost all came about in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of “the wrong kind of people” (i.e., blacks and Mexicans, etc.) And it’s still going on. We are getting more pro-2A legislation passed in Michigan, but it is a slow struggle because legislators have come right out and said most of Michigan is okay, but we have unique problems in certain urban areas like Flint and Detroit so they won’t back it. And by unique problems in Flint and Detroit they mean blacks. And I’m talking Democrat legislators.
I have lived in Arizona for about six months so far. Open carry is not only legal, but it is quite normal. I used to try to spot people conceal carrying – printing – but it is so common that I now assume everyone is armed. The gun culture is ingrained in Arizona, if he files a lawsuit and it goes in front of a jury, I am pretty sure the doctor will prevail in a big way.
One more reason that open carry movements need to utilize competent PR folks and document their protests, and control the narrative.
If he had a friendly film crew with him this would not have happened.
If it was an actual protest against the TSA this wouldn’t have happened. It doesn’t do much good to stage a protest and not tell anyone what you’re protesting – until you think of it later.
In the quote, he told that to an officer at the scene. None of the media used it in there stories about the first event. I think he would have been better served by having some signage, but 90% of the problems we have is with a hostile media.
The old media have this definiton of a scandal: An event is a scandal when the Washington Post says it is a scandal.
Can’t he sue them for defamation of character?
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.
I like to poke Paul in the ribs once in awhile, and I appreciaye that elbows get a bit sharp here, in TTAG, so thanks for coming back, Paul.
Here’s a thought experiment:
Is it possible for two truths to exist, in space and time, even if they appear to be mutually incomptable?
Can a person agree with both, while respectfully disagreeing on details?
Here is my argument.
Winning 2A rights nationwide is about strategy, and tactics.
The RKBA shall not be infringed. The devil is in the details on strategy and tactics.
I agree, that if the law says OC long gun is permitted, it should not be infringed. But laws are made by voters, and they are not absolute, they can be changed.
Tactically, it makes little sense to carry in such a way as to frighten other voters. This is a gray area, but I would suggest thag doing so in a careful fashion, as part of a responsible group, with foreknowledge by the local law, is going to do far more good, than being arrested and made out to he just another example of a gun-nut, for the typical low info voter.
The StateRunMedia has had their way with Dr Steinmetz, and somehow, I doubt the subtlties of the story, and the correction, if any, will make it out later.
So, whats the bottomline, on tactcs, vs strategy, in this case?
Keep Calm and Carry On.
Avoid stupid people, doing stupid things…..with firearms. Case in point.
First and foremost, who elected this douche to speak in protest for any of us about open carry? Show of hands? That’s right, nobody! He elected himself to be a spokesman for the cause. But what cause? His? If you weren’t aware, we currently have a president who thinks just like Dr. Douche. Yet another member of the “I Know What’s Best For Everyone ~ And You Don’t Club” of self-anointed messiah’s. He’s a doctor…so fucking what? Are we all supposed to, without question, automatically infer that he has either great wisdom, or is remotely intelligent enough to speak for us about open carry,…or anything outside of his field of expertise? If you think so, it’s possible that your only purpose in life is to serve as warning to others.
Scenario: A terrorist walks into the non-sterile area of an airport with an AK-47….and, oh hey, it’s also properly slung. No one can tell that his AK-47 is a full auto version, or that he has extended magazines holding 2,000+ rounds of ammo under his jacket. But of course, that type of situation would never, ever happen….right? If it is anyone’s right to open carry anything they want into an airport, then doesn’t that create the perfect cover for a terrorist who’s Allah bent on death and destruction? Y/N? Hint: It isn’t N.
doesn’t that create the perfect cover for a terrorist who’s Allah bent on death and destruction?
Yet that is the law in most states. You want to outlaw guns in the non-sterile part of the airports? Get the law changed. Until then, stop falsely arresting people.
Your scenario has nothing to do with the present laws or what happened. Of course, even if guns were outlawed, there’s nothing to stop a terrorist with an AK-47 and a backpack full of magazines from going into an airport and shooting people, anyway. Or train station. Or bus station. Or shopping mall. Or school. Or…
Really, did you think your post through before you typed it?
Sorry, but a rifle carried into an airport, Anywhere U.S.A. is going to provoke the same response by the police. Why? Because they went there with the expectation that it would provoke a response from law enforcement. Get with the program, not even the police are walking around airports with rifles. It’s a matter of proportion, which all of these open carry cranks with rifles, just can’t seem to understand. If Dr. Douche had open-carried, say, a side arm, there is a chance that it would not have provoked any response from anyone, even the police. Anyone who wants to engage in the convenient self-delusion that a hand gun, is a rifle, is a shotgun, and that one gun is no different than the other, is laboring under a lie. All guns are not the same. Not in the eyes of the public, the police, or anyone with a shred of common sense.
So much for your terrorist scenario. You abandoned that like a stolen car abandoned by a thief being chased by the cops. I say again, if you want to outlaw guns in the non-sterile part of the airports, get the law changed. If you don’t want the doctor to OC in Sky Harbor, and you think it is in your purview, tell him. You know his fb address. He might disagree with you. He may have his own agenda. But until then, our focus needs to be on the cops who are falsely arresting people. They are the ones actually doing wrong.
If you really think he is doing something wrong, whining about it here isn’t going to do any good.
What people fail to realize, in a police state, is that tyranny has won. This doctor was still cuffed, lost his flight, was detained, and was forced to spend thousands to hire competent defense to protect his rights. He lost work, funds, and his personal liberty. The overreacting airport officials, calling the police, and the responding officers simply went home at the end if their day. Tyrants understand this truth and pen laws to be as onerous as possible. So even when we think to ourselves “well, I am in the right; I can win this”, tyrants know that they still win and leave a very public cautionary tale for defenders of liberty. However, they can only win if we allow ourselves to be intimidated.
You are exactly right. How many times have we read or heard cops say, “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride!” and laugh about it? They don’t care.
I suspect a lot of the guys who are defending the doctor for his (negative) attention-seeking also happen to be younger guys in their 20’s and 30’s. I’m 47, and I grew up in a state that didn’t have open carry, didn’t have concealed carry, didn’t even have in-your-own-freaking-car carry! You could carry a gun in a car, but the ammo had to be separate from the gun, and not readily accessible (ammo up front, gun in trunk, or vice versa.).
That was Ohio. Surrounding states were just as bad for the most part. In fact, in a lot of states, there was a very real possibility of an outright handgun ban.
Things were like that in most states for decades, and this situation didn’t improve until just recently (like during the last 20 years).
Young dudes: Don’t fool yourselves into believing the right to carry cannot be restricted again. It can, easily. Once public opinion changes, your ideological arguments won’t matter at all.
Public opinion, on the other hand, does matter, and most of the public doesn’t think it’s cool to carry AR-15s into airports and coffee shops. Why provoke a backlash? Where is the logic in that?
I’m 57 and Michigan’s laws were not any better than Ohio’s for the most part. You, like some others here, seem to be ignoring the main point: what the police did was wrong by falsely arresting the doctor. Don’t keep saying, “Look over there!” Put the blame where the blame lies. The doctor did nothing illegal.
I disagree with you on the laws. The genie is out of the bottle, and it would be hard, not impossible, but very hard to put it back in. Today is a different day, and America is a different country than it was 50 years ago.
If we go back to the way it used to be, it won’t be because of something small that one gun owner out of 100 million did. It will more likely be because of some larger scale revolution in the country where the police state clamps down hard.
I do agree with you that the police should not have arrested him. The police should be reprimanded (at minimum). But we definitely disagree that these sorts of antics don’t threaten gun rights.
It’s bad enough that we have insane people shooting up public places, and even if it doesn’t happen a lot, it happens enough. Like it or not, gun rights advocates will take heat every time there is a mass shooting. In the interims between those horrors, do we really need to tick people off or scare them for no reason whatsoever?
Air travel has been associated with terrorists even before 9/11, so when a guy shows up at an airport with an AR (which many people think is a “machine gun”) then it will naturally make some people nervous.
Why do that? How does that help us in any way?
BTW, Go Buckeyes 😉
and I grew up in a state that didn’t have open carry, didn’t have concealed carry, didn’t even have in-your-own-freaking-car carry! You could carry a gun in a car, but the ammo had to be separate from the gun, and not readily accessible (ammo up front, gun in trunk, or vice versa.).
That was Ohio.
I am older and I have carried in Ohio my whole life. First relying on a “prudent man defense” and relying on a concealed carry license after 2005. Many people I knew carried and this was mostly in Greater Cincinnati. I had been patted down by officers and was handed my firearm back after the encounters (pre-2000). Open carry has also been legal in Ohio for much longer than you or I have been alive. I moved to a rural town in the 1990s and open carry happened in the towns and in the countryside.
Things were like that in most states for decades, and this situation didn’t improve until just recently (like during the last 20 years).
I carried my whole life but didn’t have to pay for a privilege and all that goes along with it until 2005. I was not in favor of concealed carry licensing laws.
Young dudes: Don’t fool yourselves into believing the right to carry cannot be restricted again. It can, easily. Once public opinion changes, your ideological arguments won’t matter at all.
Too many of us refuse to go to the back of the bus. It isn’t happening in Ohio unless they amend the Ohio Constitution. There are also too many court cases in Ohio in favor of following the state’s constitution for law to change that much without an amendment.
Since most of us carried concealed all of those years, I guess many Ohioans assumed we were unarmed; just like you have. I assure you that we were not and I never was given any grief from law enforcement until around 1999 or 2000. After about that time we started to see a change. We were “out of sight, out of mind” for generations in Ohio and people such as yourself assumed nobody was carrying. Open carry is critical to ensuring that the right to keep and bear arms remains un-infringed.
You might be right about open carry in Ohio, but I never saw anyone carrying in the open in the 25 years that I lived in the state. Maybe it was out of fashion back then. Certainly, concealed carry was not legal until the recent law (2004, I think). Prior to that, trying to rely on a “prudent man defense” was not very prudent at all unless you had some sort of friendly relationship with the police. Also, carrying a loaded gun in a car was illegal. In any case, our gun rights are stronger now than they have ever been since 1968.
It seems that opinions are divided on whether carrying open in the manner described in this article is good or bad for the future of gun rights. My belief is that these sorts of antics are very bad for gun rights.
You might be right about open carry in Ohio, but I never saw anyone carrying in the open in the 25 years that I lived in the state.
Even now most people walk around in “condition white” in that they don’t even notice that we are open carrying. Personally, I like being unnoticed because it usually means that I’m being left alone. The reason so many of us didn’t open carry much back then was because we were carrying concealed. That, IMHO, was one of the problems that lead to concealed carry licensing. Instead of taking out a few ambiguous lines of Ohio law, we ended up with a licensing system. I believe that was primarily because how many Ohioans were actually carrying everyday was unknown. There was no way to track us. The only data really available to government were those who were concealing while also committing a crime. Those were the only data that the State of Ohio had at its disposal.
Certainly, concealed carry was not legal until the recent law (2004, I think). Prior to that, trying to rely on a “prudent man defense” was not very prudent at all unless you had some sort of friendly relationship with the police. Also, carrying a loaded gun in a car was illegal.
(Source: http://www.chuckkleinauthor.com/Page.aspx/187/ohio-ccw-case-klein-vs-leis.html) In Ohio, under the challenged law, it was a felony offense to carry a concealed firearm. The only exceptions were law enforcement officers and citizens who could prove they had an “affirmative defense.” The AD was, of course, indefinable as each police officer, judge, jury or prosecutor had a different opinion as to what constituted a sufficient reason to go armed.
It was legal. I and many others relied on that defense if we ever got into problems. I never had any problems and neither did anyone I knew. We didn’t like the idea of having to rely on that but we carried. I cannot recall if it was useful for vehicle carry but we carried in vehicles anyway. I had been stopped before and my firearm had been returned to me at the end of the traffic stop. In my experience, it was a non-issue then. It became one sometime in the 1990s. Again, I would’ve rather had constitutional carry but I preferred what we were doing over this licensing system turning a right I’ve exercised all of my life into a privilege.
In any case, our gun rights are stronger now than they have ever been since 1968.
I partially disagree. I now have to have a license to do that which I’ve done my whole life. Gun laws in Ohio aren’t better, IMHO. Rights are stronger now because of advocates like this Doc in Phoenix. We’ve (myself included) have done much in Ohio to educate law enforcement and citizens. It’s been hard work but it has paid off. Without the demonstrations, walks, and all around everyday open carry, our rights would not be as freely exercised in Ohio today.
It seems that opinions are divided on whether carrying open in the manner described in this article is good or bad for the future of gun rights. My belief is that these sorts of antics are very bad for gun rights.
I appreciate that you hold that belief. However, my experiences have taught me that these incidents do not harm actual gun rights, rather, they strengthen them. A right one cannot freely exercise is no right at all.
Carry on, fellow Buckeye, and stay safe out there. 🙂
Thankfully, that website I previously cited and quoted has the text of the old law: (Emphasis mine)
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 2923.12, The challenged law:
A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on his or her person or concealed ready at hand, any deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.
B) This section does not apply to officers, agents, or employees of this or any other state or the United States, or to law enforcement officers, authorized to carry concealed weapons or dangerous ordnance, and acting within the scope of their duties.
C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section of carrying or having control of a weapon other than dangerous ordnance, that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon, and that ANY of the following apply:
1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while the actor was engaged in or was going to or from the actor’s lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such a time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.
2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while the actor was engaged in a lawful activity and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon the actor or a member of the actor’s family, or upon the actor’s home, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.
3) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for any lawful purpose and while in the actor’s own home.
4) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, and was not on the actor’s person, and, if the weapon was a firearm, was carried in compliance with the applicable requirements of division (C) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code.
Please notice that it states, “ANY” (not capitalized in the original) of the following apply.
It sucked but we carried. Until we approached 1999, I never had any problems with law enforcement while carrying concealed. I like the fact that there is less potential for law enforcement harassment now but I don’t like the extra burden of a privilege. I believe that if the majority of Ohioans, including legislators, were knowledgeable and honest about just how many of us were carrying everyday, Ohio would’ve had constitutional carry instead of a licensed concealed carry privilege and an open carry right. The right was split by the new-ish concealed carry licensing law.
“Public opinion, on the other hand, does matter, and most of the public doesn’t think it’s cool to carry AR-15s into airports and coffee shops. Why provoke a backlash? Where is the logic in that?”
This is where the flaw is in your logic. What we have found out is that the old media driven “public opinion”, which is what you are talking about, does not matter all that much in these dynamics. Most of the public does not have much of an opinion on this one way or the other. Someone carrying a slung rifle, especially in an airport setting, is just a bit of unusual local color. After seeing it a few times, just like seeing holstered open carry, it becomes nothing to worry about. The old media tried to demonize concealed carry, open carry of pistols, and now, open carry of long guns. It has not worked. We have made the progress that you mention in spite of the demonization and attempt to shape public opinion top down by the old media and the elites. In fact, we have seen exactly the opposite occur.
When there is a media push for more restrictions, the public is momentarily more interested in the subject. Some of them educate themselves, and become converted to our side, because, frankly, the facts, the Constitution, and the culture are firmly on the side of the the second amendment. After the immediate furor subsides, more people support an armed population than did before. Over the last 50 years, there has been a ratcheting effect, and more and more people have moved to our side of the equation.
In a counter-intuitive way, publicity like this works to create more support *for* the second amendment.
I used to believe in the “public opinion will go against us” model. But the facts simply do not bear it out.
I am agreeing with Dean here, in his observation about the PR effect. The StateRunMedia has been used to having control of the message, and like the dinosaurs, some are not evolving fast enough to survive the massive change the innertubz have brought, leveling the information playing field.
Others have figured it out, Google, for data gathering, and FakeBook, for user opinion modification, via data filtering. That CIA sees fit to hack Senate databases, and NSA spy on all US citizens, via meta data colection, and private communication collection, and then lie about it, is very disturbing.
And even more reason to remember the lessons learned by the Founders and safeguards they installed in the BoR, for the individual to protect their own freedom from the Tyrrany of an out of control State. We humans have not evolved so much in the last 300 years that we can trust everyone to rule with integrity, and wisdom, and fairness for all. History is full of examples of citizens who thought otherwise.
Keep up the fine work, TTAG, and kudos to you Dean for Gun Watch. I like your style and your emerging voice, here.
Well…. that fact pretty much flush most of my speculation down the toilet.
Doctor holds press conference. Some of you can get your questions answered.
Thanks for posting. I’m pleased the media didn’t ignore it.
So this is an airport yet this is the best quality and only angle of video they have? What a bunch of crap.
Lets also not gloss over that the officer that picks the rifle up appears to swing it around much more than the Dr. did.