[HTML1]
Let me go straight to the best bit: “police determined the weapon was a M1-.30 caliber rifle that was fully loaded with one round in the chamber.” Does that mean that there was only one round or that there was a full mag and one in the pipe? JK. OK, so, according to troy.patch.com, “Officers on foot patrol saw [Sean Michael] Combs with the rifle walking near South Old Woodward and Merrill at around 10:20 p.m. Officers stopped the man and asked for identification so they could verify if he was old enough to be in possession of the rifle. Birmingham Police Cmdr. Terry Kiernan said adults are allowed to carry firearms in Michigan, though Combs appeared ‘very young,’ Kiernan said.” Note to self: sip slowly from the fountain of youth once found. “Police said Combs refused to identify himself, and he was taken into custody for disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm and obstructing an officer.” Brandishing? I don’t think so.
I was stopped (well, maybe ‘contacted’ is a better word) by police while walking through suburban Boulder, Colorado with a 12-guage shotgun when I was 14 or 15 years old.
It was well before dawn, and my buddy and I had several miles to walk to the municipal reservoir where one might, occasionally, glimpse a mallard or honker in the distance if one’s binoculars were powerful enough.
I had my H&R Topper shotgun broken open over my shoulder, a backpack full of lunch and gear, and my waterfowl license in my pocket. The officer asked us where we were headed, wished us good hunting, and went on his way.
C’mon now, RF, you seriously don’t see anything wrong with this picture? Guy is walking down the street at 10:30 PM carrying a rifle? Of course the cops are going to stop him. Hell, we have open carry here in NH, but if I see some guy walking down my steet with a rifle at 10:30 PM, I’m calling the cops to have him checked out. Then I’m getting my rifle and keeping an eye on him from the window.
Yes, the state may have open carry and yes this guy may have been within his right to carry if he was of legal age, but walking the streets with a rifle is not a ‘normal’ activity, so he should expect the cops to come check him out. If he is not harming anyone, then he should be allowed to go on about his business.
Just another example of “just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do it”
Yeah, but being taken into custody for it is something else altogether. I’m not sure what Michigan’s identification statutes are but here in Florida (and most states I’m aware of) as long as you provide your name and possibly birthday you’re good to go. No ID needed unless you’re doing something that requires ID (like driving).
LT, you are on track with what you are stating. Generally, all you have to provide is your name, Address, D.O.B., and if none of the above your SSN. Some states also allow officers to do a legal inspection of the firearm (i.e run the serial number to make sure it isn’t stolen). The officers did their job and followed the book in my opinion. If you fail to provide any of your background info listed above or lie about it, you can be charged in most states. Brandishing a firearm is all dependant on what the states legal deffinition is. But where I am from, walking down the street with a loaded gun is not brandishing. If you make a threat (verbal or physical…pointing it at someone) then it is brandishing. My home of record is in Ohio where the laws on open carry are very grey as there isn’t laws against it but there isn’t a law for it either.
It wasn’t too long ago that carrying concealed wasn’t considered “normal.” Just because you’re aware that he’s carrying doesn’t make it wrong.
If cop A can “contact” him and hassle him for engaging in legal conduct and for being “uncooperative” (bending over and being treated like a criminal), than must cop B and later cop C?
When police harassment makes legal conduct impractical, what good are our rights?
I don’t open carry (I’m not fit enough to want to get into a fight for my weapon), but it sounds like you need an open carry parade down your street.
As for what is normal, please explain a legit reason to be walking the streets at 10:30 carrying a loaded rifle. Expecting any Redcoats to jump out of the trees? Sure, you can argue the 2nd A gives you the right, but the cops have the right to question you as well. You could say that you were walking back to your house. That’s legit. You are still likely to be questioned tho.
Your analogy to concealed carry is innane. Big diff between carrying concealed and open carrying a rifle. Unless we have a Red Dawn situation or I live near hunting lands, I don’t expect to see people walking the streets with rifles. If you think there is nothing wrong with it and it is normal and accepted in your neighborhood then I’m glad that I don’t have to live where you do.
Police, acting as agents of the State, do not have rights. They have powers. People have rights.
There is no legitimate reason why you should have to have an excuse for exercising a right. I can think of plenty of reasons why I would need to walk down the sidewalk at 10:30PM carrying a rifle. None of which are any of your damn business.
You can say they (the police) have the power to do this and the power to do that, and they should have the power to do more. And, sooner or later, they always end up with the power to throw you into a camp.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
Woollard v. Sheridan
Open carry is either legal or not. If it’s legal, but the police harass anyone who actually exercises their rights under the constitution or law, then that right is being infringed.
The analogy to concealed carry is appropriate because when states started permitting it, the leftists and statists were in an uproar, asking exactly the same questions as you are asking: Why would anyone want to do that? It’s not “normal!” “I’ll call the police if I see anyone doing that!!”
None of those objections were legitimate. Neither are yours toward open carry.
C’mon now, RF, you seriously don’t see anything wrong with this picture? Guy is walking down the street at 10:30 PM carrying a hammer? Of course the cops are going to stop him. Hell, we have open carry here in NH, but if I see some guy walking down my steet with a hammer at 10:30 PM, I’m calling the cops to have him checked out. Then I’m getting my rifle and keeping an eye on him from the window.
Yes, the state may have open carry and yes this guy may have been within his right to carry if he was of legal age, but walking the streets with a hammer is not a ‘normal’ activity, so he should expect the cops to come check him out. If he is not harming anyone, then he should be allowed to go on about his business.
Just another example of “just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do it”
See how foolish you look if you replace “rifle” with “hammer” or any other legally owned inanimate object?
People like you are the problem, with your unending need to meddle in other people’s lives – not people like this kid who was calmly going about his own business.
Ummm yeah. If there’s one thing I enjoy as much as my gun collection, it’s my hammer collection.
(Seriously, you’re not going to convince anyone who doesn’t agree with you with that kind of argument)
Agreed. There is really no point in arguing with something as retarded as Mr. Hammer.
The hammer is my penis.
It’s good to know someone else has seen Dr. Horrible’s Sing-along-blog.
Yes, thank you Netflix.
I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, I was merely pointing out the foolishness of your “This evil inanimate object is scary because he had it at night!” argument.
“Hell, we have open carry here in NH, but if I see some guy walking down my steet with a rifle at 10:30 PM, I’m calling the cops to have him checked out.”
Then you are part of the problem we all have to face.
FLAME DELETED
You really would have no problem seeing a guy hanging out in front of your house late at night with a rifle? Guess in the backwoods of Western Hicksville it’s okay. In most places where people have still have all their teeth that sort of behavior is considered a little odd.
He was walking down the street – he was not “hanging around” someone’s house. But hey, it’s good to lie to scare people into supporting your irrational views. Also, how very liberal and gun-grabber of you to sneer and say that only uneducated people believe in freedom and following the law.
I’m starting to think Mikey has created another alias.
Warren, MI – right next door to Detroit, and a hop, skip and a jump away from Birmingham – is not the backwoods of Hickville, smart guy.
FLAME DELETED – NOTE: IF I MISS ONE PING [email protected]
You know what I’m doing if I see someone carrying a rifle? Going about my own damn business and not getting involved unless they’re threatening people or shooting at innocents. Freedom is dying in this country because of busybodies who are obsessed with controlling people.
If someone carrying a gun in MI appears to be possibly ‘under the legal age’ to carry and then refuses to identify himself then it seems reasonable the police should take further steps to ensure public safety. What is it with all these individuals needing to push the hot buttons of the police? Turn this around. What if the man was 17 years old and the police did not take him in, and he later shot up a liqueur store killing several people? Do you want every thug in high school to get off from producing ID by claiming he is over 18 years old?
Ensure public safety from what? A person walking down the street?
What is it with the police and their supporters wanting to harass and imprison people who aren’t committing a crime and expect the police to actually follow the law?
I get into it every time around here. The State worship – and worship of those who wear the State’s costumes – runs deep ’round these parts.
Give it time. I bet some wannabe pops in with a “sheepdog” comment sooner or later.
“What if the man was 17 years old and the police did not take him in, and he later shot up a liqueur store killing several people?”
—–
Wait, what? How would his age factor into that argument? A 17-year-old shooting up a liquor store is worse than an 18-year-old shooting up a liquor store?
What Combs did was either legal or illegal. If it was legal but scary, who gives a flying f^ck?
It’s scares the hell out of me that freedom has become scary in America. Frankly, we should all be a lot more intimidated by hordes of cops than of someone peacefully transporting a rifle.
Thank you. Freedom and personal responsibility are such alien concepts to the populace living in certain parts of our country that they overreact when seeing a person exercising his rights. An experienced LEO can tell the difference between a person who is up to no good and a person who is going about his business. The problem is that not all law enforcement officials have the same level of experience.
This is the most salient comment on this thread.
I don’t see this as an “open-carry” issue. The police officer didn’t stop him for open carrying; He stopped him for possession of a firearm by a minor. The guy looked like he was too young to legally possess a firearm. So the officer asked him for an ID to prove he was old enough, and the guy refused.
Now what choice did the officer have. The evidence he had indicated that a crime was happening. He had to arrest the guy.
All the guy had to do to avoid all these problems was just show some ID, and the officer probably would have let him walk away. 30 seconds, a tiny bit of cooperation, and he’s on his way again. Was it worth it? I don’t think so.
Right – it’s the freeman’s fault, not the fault of the overbearing cop or the panty-wetting coward.
People like you, and Jim Barret, above, are part of the problems we all face as gun owners every day.
Gun owners like you are the reason that it will take us much longer than it should to convince the rest of our fellow mmbers of the public that the 2A means what it does. You can blather all you want about what you think the 2A means or what the founders meant it to mean or whatever. Fact is that it means whatever the hell the courts and the politicians like it to mean. That sucks, but its how it works. By changing the average person’s mind, you undermine the whole anti-gun structure one person at a time. It takes time, but it will ultimately be effective as can be seen by the nationwide movement towards more firearms freedom. It IS working, there is no disputing that.
Alternatively, we can have slackjawed yokels like you screaming about how its everyone’s God given right to run around doing whatever the hell they want, screw the facist police and their masters. I’m sure that sooner or later we’ll read about more of your ilk who feel that the best way to achieve social change is to shoot it out with the cops or blow up a Federal building.
I’ll leave you with one further thought. There is place where you can run around with full auto weapons, shoot them where and when you want (including weddings) and no one will think anything is wrong. Only problem is that you have to learn another language and move to the mountains of Afghanastan or Pakistan. Oh yeah, and change religions, but after all, for folks like you, the only real religion is the gun, so that should be no prob. Plus, if you do that, you get to shoot at agents of that accursed Fed government you obviously hate so much.
Sounds like a great plan, eh?
“slackjawed yokels”
—–
There’s the ad hominem. I knew it would show up sooner or later.
He got one above, too. Something about where I live, Warren, MI – Michigan’s third most populous city, sharing a Southern border with the once mighty metropolis of Detroit – as being, “Western Hickville” or some such where people don’t have teeth.
But I get a FLAME DELETED when FLAME DELETED.
PLEASE SEND ME THE LINK TO THE COMMENT YOU FIND OFFENSIVE AND BE ADVISED THAT PERSISTENT FLAMERS ARE PERMANENTLY BANNED.
Is that a joke?
You’re obviously reading the comments, and seem to pay particularly close attention to mine for some reason. Here’s a clue: instead of just reading mine, read the ones I reply to as well the ones that reply to me. I think you’ll be shocked – shocked! – at what you’re letting fly when you’re castigating me about panty wetness of varying degrees.
I stopped reading this garbage after the third sentence. You can claim to be pro-second amendment all you want, but everything else you say blatantly outs you as being anti-gun. Perhaps you’d be happier commenting on Michael Bloomberg’s personal blog than on an “evil” gun site such as this?
tl;dr
You’re going to beat the system by playing by all its rules and buying in to (and perpetuating) the fear and lies they spread.
Gotcha.
I have to agree. Simply showing ID and all would be solved..
I don’t think the police officer was trying to infringe on his rights, but rather make sure he was of legal age. The fact is he did not at least cooperate a little with the police officer so what was he supposed to do.
The kid was acting like a punk so he got taken down town to make sure he was not wanted, etc…
As soon as they confirmed he was ok he was sent on his marry way.
In life you get what you give.
The kid was acting like a punk
Wow, you really think exercising your rights and expecting the police to obey the law is “acting like a punk”?
I bet you get upset when you buy your beer/alcohol and the attendant/clerk asks for your ID.
Clerks are legally required to ask (and you’re legally required to show) ID to buy alcohol – there is no such law regarding walking down the street carrying something you legally own.
I’ll save Rob the time – FLAME DELETED.
You can only legally own a rifle if you are 18, just like you can only legally own or possess alcohol if you are 21.
You are assuming he was 18, the cop could not assume that, he was required to verify if he had any doubts.
I’m inclined to side with the cop on the refusal to identify, the brandishing charge not so much.
There is no legal obligation to provide proof that you own a gun. Also, the law only states the age you must be to purchase a gun, not own it. It’s perfectly legal to give a 16 old a rifle as a birthday present.
Much obliged.
Agreed. Glad you’re not looking at this in simplistic black/white extremist thinking.
Why should anyone else have to cede their natural rights because of your nanny state bullshit?
Should the police, then, pull over everyone in a car to make sure that they’re over 16 or that they have a license?
+42
Or, more accurately, should they stop every person walking down the sidewalk smoking a cigarette to make sure they’re 18? Should they just walk into a bar and detain every patron just to make sure that they’re 21?
The kid wasn’t otherwise commiting a crime. They stopped him becaue they either thought he was suspicious based on their own prejudices (about guns and/or people carrying them) or they simply maliciously stopped him because they didn’t like that he was armed.
“So the officer asked him for an ID to prove he was old enough”
The burden of proof rests on the state. The young man was under no obligation to assist the officer in determining if a crime had been committed. I think the officer could make a legally supported case for detaining him, based on the reasonable suspicion that he “looked very young”, but he had no probable cause for arrest. However, depending on the “Stop and ID” law in MI, refusing to provide ID to an officer conducting an investigation could possibly be grounds for “Obstruction.” The SCOTUS upheld that little gem, essentially undermining the 5th Amendment.
Regardless of the “legalities,” I agree with Totenglocke and others that we are in a sad state of affairs when peaceably going about your business with your lawfully owned property is viewed as suspicious… especially by a group of folks who claim to support freedom and liberty.
Edit: if the law only restircts under-18 from purchase and not possession, then the police would have no reasonable suspicion to even detain the lad, much less arrest him. The obstruction charge would also be spurious, since the initial detainment was unlawful.
Directly from Michigan Compiled Law:
750.234f Possession of firearm by person less than 18 years of age; exceptions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234f.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual less than 18 years of age shall not possess a firearm in public except under the direct supervision of an individual 18 years of age or older.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an individual less than 18 years of age who possesses a firearm in accordance with part 401 (wildlife conservation) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.40101 to 324.40119 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or part 435 (hunting and fishing licensing) of Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.43501 to 324.43561 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. However, an individual less than 18 years of age may possess a firearm without a hunting license while at, or going to or from, a recognized target range or trap or skeet shooting ground if, while going to or from the range or ground, the firearm is enclosed and securely fastened in a case or locked in the trunk of a motor vehicle.
(3) An individual who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
“As soon as they confirmed he was ok he was sent on his marry way.”
Sure. After he was cited, given a court date, and posted bond– according to the linked article.
I agree, People who say “Just show him your ID and be on with it” is a JOKE!!! These cops had no right to arrest him, there was no probible cause to approch him in the first place, and then when he says “Um Im not doing anything wrong why do you need my ID” and they say “Oh abstruction of…. an Officer… yea thats it, your under arrest for walking down the street with a LONG GUN… ” Anybody who says he should have just did what they ASKED might as well take a piss on our rights.
And you Jim Barrett… you are going to get your gun out and watch from your window like he is some sort of criminal just for walking down the street with an open carried firearm? Why is it that we are being alienated for owning guns?
Why just the other day I was asked why I feel the need to carry. I said becuase its my right to, and I would rather Have one and not need it than need one and not have it. To which he responded… well we are a sophysticated country now and we dont need guns and you shouldnt carry just because you can… what a joke…
Is it just me or is it impossible to carry a loaded Garand without one in the chamber?
Heck, it’s nearly impossible just to not to lose a fingertip after popping the clip in there, that sucker slams shut right quick
Could it have been a M1 Carbine in .30 Carbine?
I was going to ask why the M1 Carbine which is chambered for 30 cal is being illustrated by a M1 Garand 30.06?
Two completely different animals!
Oops! I’m so not a rifle guy. Do you have a link to a particularly good video or pic?
Both the M1 carbine and Rifle are called “.30 cal” in their official labels. The M1 Garand is officially named “United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1” and the M1 Carbine is officially named “United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1”.
Since reporters don’t know a shoe from an AK-47, we have no way of knowing which one it is.
One of the rare instances you can use the word “clip”, you say “magazine”. (Although not improperly – a full clip in the magazine means a full magazine.)
I just thought it was funny. We’ve heard the correction so many times, I think some of us are developing an aversion to the word “clip”. I once saw on a message board where someone referred to an “en bloc magazine”.
Sean Combs? I could have swore P. Diddy was older than 18.
In a free society, no one is obligated to show their “Papers, please.” In a free society, even if under suspicion of a crime, no one is obligated to assist in their own prosecution. In a free society, the state must prove a “suspect” broke the law… it is not the “suspect” that must prove he did NOT break the law. In a free society, peaceably going about your business with your lawfully owned property is not viewed as suspicious, neither by the state nor your fellow citizens.
Ah, America… the land of the free.
Ah, America… the land of the free.
Not for long. One thing we know for sure — the American people are for sale — and cheap.
I’d say, with our current welfare state, most Americans have already been bought.
The brainwashing is especially obvious on this day in particular, when people are happy and grateful at receiving their tax “refund” instead of righteously indignant and angry that they were stolen from in the first place.
^^^THIS. I wish I could take mandatory, interest free loans out from people and then only pay them back what they are able to prove I owe them.
I’m pretty sure there was an evil empire a few years back that would throw you in jail and beat you if you refused to “show them your papers” on demand. I guess we’ll never learn.
If I see someone walking down the street at night with a firearm, I’m going to stop him, I’m going to ask for identification, and I’m going to determine why he is doing what he’s doing. If he is uncooperative he will problem have other problems as well. If he makes an overtly aggressive or threatening move with the weapon I’m going to shoot him.
That’s life in the big city. What ought to be and what is…is usually two different things.
If I see someone walking down the street at night with a firearm, I’m going to stop him, I’m going to ask for identification, and I’m going to determine why he is doing what he’s doing.
On what legal authority? Even if you’re a cop, you’re simply handing his lawyer a harassment lawsuit on a silver platter. Walking and open carrying (in a state that allows open carry) is NOT A CRIME. Even as a cop, you cannot harass someone for no reason.
If he is uncooperative he will problem have other problems as well.
Translation: “If he doesn’t cower before me, I’ll assault him”. You just really want to pile up the charges against yourself, don’t you?
If he makes an overtly aggressive or threatening move with the weapon I’m going to shoot him.
Nice, you start an altercation with someone peacefully walking down the street, assault him, then kill him for daring to even act like he’s going to defend himself against your criminal behavior.
Joseph… You are a fool… Plain and simple, you are a fool. If I am walking peacably down the street with a gun over my shoulder minding my own buisness, and you (civilian or cop) come up to me mad because I am carrying a rifle and demand that I hand over my ID.. I am going to tell you to kick rocks. You have no right to demand anything from me, big city or country side, you have no right at all to even approch somebody like that. If you act in this manner as a civilian I am going to feel like I am being threatened by you, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to do this, ESPECIALLY if you are a Police Officer as they are heald to higher standards than the average American. There is no excuse for ignorance and not knowing your rights as a US citizen. And there is certainly no excuse for harrassing somebody just because they carry a gun, open or not. Excercising ones rights is NOT a crime!! Why is this so hard for people to understand??!!
Alaska….Joe actually makes my point. Not all cops are going to respect your rights, and if you give them a problem, YOU are going to have a problem. This kid is just fortunate that he did this where he did it.
“What ought to be and what is…is usually two different things.”
—–
So how about being part of the solution, instead of part of the problem? Just a thought…
Joseph….that’s life in the big city I grew up in…and you’re the kind of cop I want patrolling my streets. Anybody foolish enough to walk down the street with a loaded rifle “because they have a right to” deserves whatever consequences come with being so foolish. Everybody who says they don’t have a problem with it would be singing a different song if it were some kid walking down their street, in their town.
I love my guns and my right to carry them as much as the next person if not more so, but having grown up in an enviroment where people die simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having a skin complexion that gets me pulled over and questioned for um….driving down the street? It’s laughable that this kid, and many others find nothing wrong with walking down the street with an M1 carbine. Locked and loaded at that. What is the need for a fully loaded semi automatic carbine in this instance? None. The graveyards are full of people who were exercising their “rights”, and as some posters have said, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. He is lucky the police walked up to him calmly, asked him for identification (which he refused to give), and they very nicely arrested him. While his parents were pumping him full of his constitutional rights, they should have taught him common sense. Such naivete is truly a luxury. I’ve seen people get their skulls thumped by cops for much less. He was lucky that he did this in a well-to-do community where he fits the demographic and the cops are for the most part very friendly and professional. This could have ended much differently.
Comments are closed.