It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What wrong in this AR-15 picture..unlawfully detained

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:09 PM

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: zetnom
a reply to: zatara

I cant understand how walking down a high street with a loaded assault rifle (regardless if it is single fire or automatic) can be both legal and socially moral?

That is something I also have difficulty to understand. Maybe these gun laws should be adjusted..

Why? People walk down a high street saying things I don't like all of the time. Maybe our free speech laws should be adjusted.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:18 PM

originally posted by: tovenar
At some point, it is unconscionable to make the public fearful---justice Holmes compared it to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (Schenck v. United states). What about walking around in a non-gun-toting neighborhood, and refusing to give ID?

Not at all the same thing as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

The crime in shouting "fire" is the damage done by inciting panic. If one honestly believes there is a fire then even with the ensuing panic there is no crime. I cite every paranoid nut who has ever called the police for believing an umbrella to be a gun or a pile of spilled flour to be weaponized anthrax. And if there is no damage done or no panic incited then there is nothing to be charged with even if the shouter knew full well there was no fire.

That often used "reasonable restriction" on speech has nothing to do with free speech at all. It's all about the harm caused by inciting panic through willful deception. It's a bomb threat.

There is no such willful harm in simply carrying a firearm. Except of course to the egos of a bunch of dullard cops who make # up as they go and figure they'll find something they can charge you with that will justify their overreach.

The fact that if this rifle were in a case would somehow make this all a non-issue speaks volumes of how paranoid and stupid the population is. A rifle over my shoulder and a rifle carried in a case have the same threat potential. The rifle in the case potentially more so since it is already horizontal and the loaded/ready status can not be ascertained.

But that's the "better" way I guess.

When out of sight out of mind is used to support a "better" way it just shows how stupid people really are. Actual safety takes a back seat to "feeling" safe in this bizarro world.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:41 PM

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
Yeah, this guy was being a rude A**hole. I don't know the CCW laws in his state but here in Ohio, we are required to tell an officer immediately that we are licensed and have the weapon present. Not wait until we are asked. He waited WAY to long to tell the officer about the .45 on his side.

Regardless of any laws, I side with the officer on this one. With as many crazy people running around and the mass shootings happening, the officer had every right to question what the hell this idiot was doing. Taking the weapon from the guy was not about rights or laws, its a freaking safety issue. The officer needed to secure the situation is all. He didn't know this guy.

And no, OP, this man was not the least bit rational and calm. The rational and calm thing to do would be to comply until the officer assesses the situation, learns what this guy is doing and then lets him go about his way when everything is in order and the officer see's no laws are being broken. I've been there and done this. I was not detained or arrested.

I don't know the concealed carry laws in Texas but there is nothing in the Kentucky statutes that requires me to identify myself as a concealed carry licensee when I'm stopped by law enforcement. In our concealed carry classes we were "advised" to do so but told that we are under no legal obligation to do so. We were told that the proper procedure was to announce, "Officer I am a concealed carry permit holder and my weapon is located...." with both hands in clear view of the officer. That's the official position.
In private conversations with my friends in law enforcement, I was told that in some cases it might get me dragged out of the car and spreadeagled---even if I told them the weapon was in my purse on the seat! Every one of them said, "My wife doesn't inform the cops that she's got a gun unless they ask. You do as you wish."
I'd be willing to bet that if such a statute existed in Texas, the cops would have charged him under that law. But they didn't. They stood there in the road and made up law that the Texas legislature never dreamed of..."interfering with police duties"....seriously? It seems to me that the common sense definition of interfering requires some action other than simply walking down the road with a rifle. In a place where rattlesnakes are common...
I guess a lot of people really don't realize what rural life is and how we conduct ourselves. It is not at all uncommon in our neighborhood to see people walking around with guns. It is not at all uncommon to hear the sounds of repeated gunfire. On most nice days there is someone plunking at targets, tin cans or ...turkeys. It is no cause for alarm to hear gunfire. It is no cause of alarm to see someone carrying a gun. We don't shoot people, we shoot varmints, food and targets. We spend the time shooting the targets so we can be accurate when using our weapons. That's why the sound of people practicing their craft is a very comforting sound. It is not my intention to injure my target, it is my intention to kill quickly---be it the copperhead that has wandered into my yard or the deer that will fill my freezer.
I understand that if you weren't brought up in this culture it might be difficult to accept and understand. I will never ask you to become a part of that culture if you won't ask me to give up mine.
While I can agree that the victim was rude, crude and didn't handle the episode well at all, it is the police who are paid to be professionals, public servants in fact. These officers were a prime example of public servants acting like our Master. Being rude, crude and emotional is not against the law. These men knew they were going to cost this guy a great deal of time and money in return for his rudeness. That is wrong.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:03 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

Yes, Texas requires concealed carry holders to inform the officer of the fact, and present their chl along with their other ID.

While I believe in the 2nd ammendment, the 4th, and am a CHL holder myself, I think that displaying one without giving context is basically a sophomoric attempt at frightening people. Testing the boundary between individual rights and public well-being just alienates people.

Most of the people doing the posturing are generally the last person you want fiddling around with a gun they are not really familiar with, all for the sake of "exercising the right." The law students in the 2nd video seem like this. I don't think they know all that much about the gun they are carrying. That is no better than a "Barney Fife" deputy who is incompetent.

Being armed for civil or home defense is a matter of life and death. I would have no problem with a guy standing on a street corner with a long gun if a riot was brewing. But claiming you are "educating people" on a weekday morning on main street, by waving around your majestic iron rod, pretty much highlights what your issues are.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:26 AM
a reply to: tovenar

We can certainly agree on your point of context. Of the two cases presented in the video, the fellow walking down a lonely Texas road with his son carrying a rifle makes a whole lot more sense than the dudes on the busy street. Had the officer from the second video intercepted the guy from the first video, it would seem that there would have been a different outcome.
I have no idea of how to bring about a balance where people are mindful of their surroundings but are not freaked out by a camera tripod, thinking it to be an assault weapon.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in