https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Gx73R3p1U

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

365 COMMENTS

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

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

      • What have you got against Green-Card holders?

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Hmmmm…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Because our cops are managed to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      This arrest was unlawful.

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

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

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

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

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

          There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Stop attacking OC’ers as low IQ.

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

      • +1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Freewill is a bitch ain’t it.

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

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

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

    • Gay Pride Parades seemed to work out ok…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      John [in Ohio],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • And more typical cop-bashing…..

        Predictable as clock-work and just as boring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Papers, please – your papers, comrade!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • I think you’re missing the picture here. If the law allowed, he would be carrying a concealed pistol, and not causing a bit of concern. That is what he said.

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

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

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

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

    • Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        It don’t WORK that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • if judge/jury/case law agree as to the reasonableness of a suspicion of a law violation (suspicion of being under 18 in this case “was reasonable”), given the facts involved at the time, the demand to be identified, and subsequent arrest for refusal, would hold up quite well. If not deemed reasonable, it would fail – its that simple.

        • Right on…
          We are asked for ID for cigarettes/alcohol/credit card use…..
          No one throws a fit if a cop asks for id if you are drinking or any of the other above mentioned when asked…. why the double standard when it comes to the second amendment….
          If you are a law abiding citizen that is doing what the 2nd amendment is intended for then you would have no reason not to comply as long as the officer was courteous as this one was in the beginning……. do cops make mistakes? Yes should they be hammered for it every time they do no…. as long as it was not a gross violation…. nobody complain s when the cops stops you for speeding and you know you were and he lets you go….. no compliant about a cop using his discression there or violating his duty to uphold the law..

        • @Steven: Rights vs privileges; commerce vs existing in a public place. Your comparisons are flawed. Consuming alcohol or operating a motor vehicle are not currently considered constitutionally protected rights but the keeping and bearing of arms is. Why require a search warrant or not give consent to search if one has nothing to hide? Why invoke one’s 5th amendment protections? Is the Constitution protecting innocent people from government abuse or does it only protect criminals?

          If you are a law abiding citizen that is doing what the 2nd amendment is intended for

          For what do you believe it was intended?

  13. The teen says he’s doing it for self defense in the video, but says in the news report “The teen says he’s on a campaign to call attention to open carry laws.”

    So how was he carrying it, slung over the back or low ready? He’s 18, maybe he looks 17, or 16? My guess is that if he looked 35, they would not card him.

    If you are really doing it for self defense, carry it in proper (not low ready position), and provide ID. How hard is that?

    I actually thought the police were very nice about it.

    • The police said in the video (did you watch it?) that he was not carrying in a threatening manner. In which case, they had no cause to get out of their cars, much less arrest him. And while you may *think* that if he looked 35 they wouldn’t have hassled him, but I *don’t* think that’s the case. Charges against him will be dropped, correctly, and charges against them will never be so much as considered, which is abusive.

      • If he shows ID, confrontation over. If he does not he gets a whole lot of eyeballs courtesy of TTAG. He was not doing it for “self defense” he admits he is doing it to call attention to the law as a protest. He probably can carry a black powder pistol openly too, but he chose a shotgun and chose to be confrontational. Not really sympathetic.

        • If he shows ID, confrontation over.

          What makes you think so? And *HE* stated on the video he was doing it for self defense, the media said he was doing it for some other reason. I believe what I heard him say, not what the media reported were his motivations. And both reasons are not mutually exclusive, I suspect he would rather he attracted enough attention to get the age for CC dropped to 18 so he could stop carrying a 12-guage for personal protection. IOW, his only other legal choice is to be unarmed. That would (did) sure p1ss me off. My answer was to carry concealed for around 30 years, illegally. I was “caught” several times, no officer even mentioned it.

          Of course, at the time, everybody knew the law really meant black people could not carry legally, and I’m white.

        • I can just as easily say it wouldn’t be the case and the confrontation would’ve been over if he showed ID…. we’ll never know.

        • If he shows ID, confrontation over.

          This assertion completely misses the point. Without a specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, there should have been no confrontation in the first place.

    • Why, yes: it’s always so much better when badge-wielding thugs are nice while conducting a false arrest. I’m sure it makes their victim feel so much better about the whole thing.

  14. He seemed unreasonably polite to them in my opinion. They were being asses without justification simply because they didn’t want him to walk away. Obstruction bs. Respect my authority is more like it. These cops are not acting like public servants, they are acting like badge-wearing bullies. Not NYPD worthy bullies admittedly, but still bullies.

  15. I’ve gotta agree with him. The brady campaign basically screwed over anyone from 18-20 by saying we are somehow second class citizens and don’t deserve to defend ourselves.

  17. Please stop arguing with the police on the side of the road. Keep the arguing for the courtroom where it belongs.

    Stop talking to the police. Am I free to go. If not shut the hell up. If so then leave.

    • He tried that several times, but they essentially detained him, the finally really detained him by arresting him for “obstructing an investigation”. They will get destroyed in court b/c no crime was being committed, therefore no obstruction, wrongful arrest.

  18. What if he was walking down the street carrying an axe. You can use that for self defense. How about a chain saw, those too can be used for self defense. Or, a mace, a sickle, a cricket bat, a bike chain, or shot filled length of hose. All those things can be used for self defense.

    • Dude, your on to something. I think a chain saw is a totally sweet weapon of choice for open carry. Very fallout/madmax style. Someone jumps out at you and you just rev that b*tch up and charge at them screaming ahahahahah!

  19. They don’t represent a potential challenge to the authority of government. The people in government are obviously out of control and marching towards tyranny so it is natural for them to want to try to disarm the populous.

  20. “low ready” means the buttstock is in the shoulder pocket. ive never seen someone open carrying a long gun in “low ready”. carrying a long gun in front of my body with my hands on it is not “low ready”. words matter.

    • “Low ready” is great for skeet and trap, otherwise not so much. If I have a shotgun and an intruder, no one will mistake my position for “low ready”.

  21. A comment from the victim from the video:
    “I am not hiding anything to begin with and second of all if I were to give them my ID I would be reinforcing their behavior by essentially telling them, “Yes, it’s okay to harass law abiding citizens for no reason.” We need to train APD like a fuckign dog, “No, bad dog you cannot stop people for no reason.”

  22. Multiple issues with this scenario:

    For one, the officer is being a bully and not listening to the kid’s valid point where carrying a shotgun is not illegal. And he didn’t offer proof of the general public “being alarmed”, he was just fishing for an excuse to get his way with the kid. Once the officer mentioned that the kid was causing people to be alarmed, I would’ve asked for the officer to show me proof, not just opinion. Was there a call placed that was alarmed? Was there an address given?

    Because it seems to me the bigger picture issue here is the general public not being aware of OC laws, and it’s the officer’s duty (as a law enforcement officer) to

    1. Know the law
    2. Enforce the law

    In this case, the officer should’ve assisted the kid in educating the “public” that was “alarmed” with this Open Carry demonstration and letting them know that OC is, in fact, legal, and what they were alarmed about, was actually a lawful act. No crime is being committed by walking around with a shotgun. And that’s all there is to it. Educate and inform.

    The officer was coming down on this kid like he had committed a crime and is a suspect and that’s just BS.

    HOWEVER, the kid should also know that armed civilians don’t have the benefit of having a badge or uniform to project the fact that we’re good guys. The police have that luxury. If all police officers didn’t have uniforms or badges, you can be sure there would be a lot of panic caused by them too. So it would be wise for future OC demonstrations to maybe make signage that educates and informs people would be a good idea.

    And it’s also not really fair to blame the general public for panicking a bit if some kid is walking around with a shotgun, because of the very fact that mass shootings are on everyone’s mind and they don’t know if you’re a good guy or a bad guy. This is where common sense comes into play. Be self-aware of your appearance, especially when OCing. Context is everything.

    So in this case, the police were not wrong in questioning the kid, but their manner could use some work. For one, it’s pretty apparent with how calm the kind was that he wasn’t up to no good. He was succinct, knowledgeable, and polite, the officer should’ve behaved in kind.

    • To clarify, the second officer is an example of a well-informed police officer that handled the situation correctly. The first is a typical bully — I hope those types get phased out in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

        He had no need to ID. The cop even admitted that the only reason he wanted it was because the man was had a gun.

        The cop had no RAS in this case.

      • True enough.

        I just wrote a reply regarding the benefits of showing ID, but that was timed out. So here goes:

        Regarding showing ID
        Regardless if the ID is required to be presented by law, as a law-abiding citizen, you aren’t really benefiting your situation or the officer’s perception of you by withholding your ID in this encounter. The officer is correct in that they don’t know you and asking for your ID is the only way they can verify if you have any sort of criminal record, felonies, etc. If you think this your opportunity to “stick it to the man” or outsmart “big brother” or some other nonsense, then perhaps you need to grow up and re-assess the situation. All you have is a police officer asking you for your ID so they can be on their way and so can you.

        As a law-abiding citizen, why wouldn’t you want to provide the officers that have contacted you with your ID and any information that exonerates any suspicion, especially if the whole point of this exercise is OC education and having a brief, positive police encounter?

        The kid kept harping on the “have I committed a crime?” angle, when maybe, just maybe, he should realize the police can’t read minds if you maintain your position as a complete stranger and the only way to verify your status as law-abiding citizen is to access your records … with your ID.

        Communication goes both ways. Being difficult and withholding vital information doesn’t foster trust and just raises suspicion. And why shouldn’t it? Put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

        If the police have no way to question anyone with a firearm, that seems silly. Just as silly as law-abiding citizens being a pain to the police, for no real gain.

        • The cop also demanded he hand over his shotgun so the cop could “check if it is stolen”. He did not even claim there was a report of a stolen shotgun, and some suspicious souls would say he simply wanted to assure it was registered, which in many places is illegal.

          If the police have no way to question anyone with a firearm, that seems silly.

          Really. How do you suggest they should be able to question anyone legally CCing, when they do not know those people have firearms?

        • @Larry

          True. I’m not defending the first officer — who was a bullying moron who had lots of unlawful requests. I’m just saying that withholding ID in this case, just exacerbated the whole situation, especially when the reasonable second officer stepped in to assist and seemed on the kid’s side.

          The kid kept on going on repeating the phrase about being a detained, but it sounded like he was not quite understanding that presenting his ID would’ve gotten him what he wanted — for the police officers to verify his lawful record and let him on his way.

          There’s a difference between making a point and getting results.

        • As a law-abiding citizen, why wouldn’t you want to provide the officers that have contacted you with your ID and any information that exonerates any suspicion, especially if the whole point of this exercise is OC education and having a brief, positive police encounter?

          Why not give DNA? Why not allow a strip search? Why do we have a 4th and a 5th amendment anyway? It’s quite simple and linked to one reason why people OC long guns. If we allow IDs to be demanded or OCers to be harassed, it will become normal. If they don’t have legal privilege to demand identification when there is no reasonable suspicion of crime then they can ask and the individual can refuse; all walk away. That’s not what happened here. When we have incidents like in the video, it’s even more important that people refuse to identify. If officers didn’t behave this way I would probably identify most every time. Unfortunately, we see officers going beyond the law and try to demand identification when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. That cannot stand.

        • especially when the reasonable second officer stepped in to assist

          He wasn’t reasonable. He was an ass. His bias against people learning about what’s legal and what’s not is palpable. These officers are demonstrative of why so many of us choose not to engage at all; “Am I being detained? Am I free to go?” at the very beginning of an encounter.

        • @John

          I like how you equate giving an officer your full name and ID to a strip search. Get some perspective please. The officer asked a simple question to verify the kid’s age. The kid didn’t comply. He did obstruct the officer’s investigation and that was the only means the officer had at his disposal to get the information that he was not given.

          The only other thing I can think of would have been for the officers to offer to drive the kid home and talk to the parents to verify his age. Assuming the kid would even get in the car for that to happen.

          Again, the information the police officer was asking for is not sacred. I bet that kid (and every other) has his full name plastered all over the internet via Facebook and online, so really, he was the only person putting himself in trouble with the police.

        • @tjlarson2k: It wasn’t a direct comparison. That would be silly. The point is that what the People allow government does. Absent credible (aka reasonable) evidence of some crime, government is not supposed to interfere with people. The officers had only one lawful option; to leave the man alone. He even told them his birthdate. As far as we know, there were no calls such as, “So-and-so is carrying a shotgun and he is underage.” There officers were violating the law.

        • There was no investigation to obstruct. The cops had no question about his age until he told them what it was, then they had no cause to doubt it, their own opinion is not probable cause. Look. Cops pass back and forth these silly ideas on how to pretend something is allowed so they can push their authority on everyone. They think circumventing the clear intent of the law and the constitution makes them so sly.

        • “As a law-abiding citizen, why wouldn’t you want to provide the officers that have contacted you with your ID and any information that exonerates any suspicion, especially if the whole point of this exercise is OC education and having a brief, positive police encounter?”

          http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

          The above video is why. Talking to the police can only provide them with a means to arrest you. If they are going to hassle you, they are going to hassle you. Maybe after running his ID they would have let him walk, but more likely, they would have still arrested him for Disorderly Conduct or some other BS law. Why would I assume that? If they were good cops, they would know they had no right to demand ID and would have let him go when he refused. They were fishing, pure and simple.

        • You really have no concept of what it means to live in a free society, do you?

          That your quisling rationalization of police abuse of authority is coming from someone who ostensibly claims to be a second-amendment rights supporter is somewhat scary.

        • “As a law-abiding citizen, why wouldn’t you want to pin the little yellow star to your jacket, so police could identify you as a Jew?”

          There, FTFY.

    • And it’s also not really fair to blame the general public for panicking a bit if some kid is walking around with a shotgun, because of the very fact that mass shootings are on everyone’s mind and they don’t know if you’re a good guy or a bad guy.

      How many crimes – much less, mass-shootings – are carried out by people who casually open-carry their soon-to-be murder weapon down a public sidewalk?

      It’s not the kid’s fault that the general public are idiot hoplophobes.

  23. But the cops’ reaction to their refusal makes me say, well, maybe OC’er shouldn’t provide their name or show ID.

    I’m generally a pleasant person and would be inclined to identify myself but the quoted statement is one of the big reasons that I usually refuse to ID. Your eyes are opening! Another good reason is I believe that if people don’t refuse to ID then requiring ID on demand will become the norm and required by law. It’s one of those “use it or lose it” arguments.

    • “use it or loose it” Good point, The kid should have shown his ID, I fail to see he would have suffered any consequences by doing so. The officers made it clear they didn’t want to “disarm” him.

      • I does not matter what you feel the guy should of done. He had no legal obligation to ID.

        I hope this guy bring a civil case against these thugs and gets payed for his right being infringed upon.

        • Until the police can read minds, how else are they to ascertain if the kid was lawfully in possession of his firearm? All that information is stored in your ID… which is already on file. All the police are asking for is the ability to access the information on you that they already have.

          The fact you even have an ID card means your information is public record, so why are you being so obtuse about it? One day, they’ll have the technology to just scan your face, and perhaps then they won’t have to ask you for your ID. Until then, be polite and don’t be a dick. It’s not that hard.

          What if this kid went on to kill a dozen people at a nearby public venue and this stop was the only thing that could’ve stopped it if they discovered this kid was unlawfully carrying a firearm? What then?

          And that’s the point. He’s a total stranger to the police and the public. OCers assume people know they’re the good guy. Well, people don’t.

          Stop assuming.

        • So why not just go ahead and show them your ID, and then sue the police dept. for unlawful arrest?

        • @Gunr: Courts don’t see these cases as strong enough and sometimes no standing otherwise. Detainment is the threshold. If the officers followed the law then there would be no reason for lawsuit. They approached him. They violated the law. They are in the wrong.

        • tjlarson2k: In a free society, an individual doesn’t even have to acknowledge when an officer is speaking to them. If an officer has strong enough evidence then the officer can detain. The very heart of 4th and 5th protections means that we are not supposed to be compelled to make the case for government. Be careful of that for which you wish. If we didn’t live in a soft police state then the young man could’ve just kept on walking without even acknowledging the officers. That puts the burden back on government where it belongs to be damned sure before depriving an individual of Liberty for even a moment.

        • By law, his name and the SN of that shotgun are not linked anywhere. Those cops intended to make that link in official records. The cops were pure wrong, besides being bullies.

        • @John

          I get your point about how officers should be approaching the talking to citizens. And I get that lately, officers do have way too much power to just suspect whoever with no concrete reason given and getting away with detaining or delaying citizens without much cause.

          However, I have to question the point of depriving the police from being able to gather basic information from citizens on the street.

          The major problem that seemed to result from the above video was if the kid was 18 or not. Granted, it didn’t start out that way. The first officer wrongly focused the fact he was OCing at all — which was lawful and shouldn’t have been the issue. Then it became a game of “pin the tail on the donkey” regarding searching for a reason to detain the kid, which ended up being whether or not he was 18.

          Without a picture of the kid, it’s hard to tell if the cops had reason to suspect he wasn’t over 18. But you can’t blame them for detaining the kid when they clearly gave him multiple chances to give them the information they needed to verify his age. Because the result would have been clear and it was the only way for them to determine of a crime was being committed. If he was not 18, he would’ve been committing a crime by carrying that shotgun. So, the kid, was, in fact, obstructing them from investing a potential crime.

          Whether or not it would have ended there is unclear, but that’s a whole other issue.

        • @tjlarson2k: If it allowed for those that appear young then it will become accepted for all. These things start at the edges. Do you realize that we have people that don’t look young that were harassed and arrested for not showing identification? I have been harassed and threatened by officers for not identifying and I certainly don’t look underage.

          However, I have to question the point of depriving the police from being able to gather basic information from citizens on the street.

          The point is that a free people do not live by the leave of government. We exist and it is the government’s responsibility to prove that a law has been broken. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the bedrock of our justice system. If everyone identifies then law enforcement and the public at large will come to accept this as lawful. It is not lawful nor is it compatible with a free society.

        • @tjlarson2k: I’ll try to state things another way. If he was underage then by producing identification he would’ve been incriminating himself. If he was not underage then why does he have to prove his innocence to government? It is not his burden to do so and he ought not be compelled to give up his 5th amendment right.

        • @John

          I get that, but again, how are the officers to know if a crime has been committed when that crime is directly linked to a person’s age, without a full name and DOB? It’s a catch 22

          The information that is not being produced is the same information that is under scrutiny…

          That’s like seeing a guy running across the street with a purse in hand and being stopped and questioned. Is he returning the purse or stealing it? If he can’t tell you who it belongs to and why he’s carrying it, then you’re kind of stuck.

        • @tjlarson2k: When the information being sought may incriminate the individual, that is where the 5th matters! Ironically, if he was underage and refused to answer on 5th amendment grounds, it wouldn’t be obstruction. If he was of age and he refused to answer because he doesn’t have to when the officer has no reasonable suspicion of a crime, it wouldn’t be obstruction. There is no reasonable suspicion of a crime because there was no credible complaint like “so and so is underage and carrying a shotgun”. There’s no catch-22. It doesn’t matter that he looks young. He gave them his birth date without hesitation. He told them that he legally purchased the firearm at Cabelas. In the absence of evidence that he was not being truthful, the matter should have ended there.

          In the case of the purse, there would be a victim of a crime making a complaint if the purse was stolen.

      • “The officers” were lying. They are trained to lie. You lie to them, you go to jail. Something is wrong.

        • How were they lying? The first officer tried to bully his way into getting information. The second officer very plainly gave the kid the way out: give us your Full name and DOB so we can verify your age and let you on your way.

          The kid kept thinking he was being detained and suspected of a crime – he was not. They just wanted to verify the information he was telling them about his age and lawful possession of his firearm.

          Seems pretty straightforward.

        • If he was not suspected of a crime, they had no cause to even say hello to him. They were LYING! They were searching for something to charge him with, both because he had a gun and because he was filming the encounter. They would not allow him to leave, would not answer his question about whether he was being detained, and refused him the right to remain silent. And you are, what, saying they were just about to let him go because they said so? Police are authorized to lie. What makes you think they were not doing so?

          And yes, it does seem pretty straightforward, they were way far outside their authority and their commission, and should be at the least fired.

      • If nobody refuses it identify in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime then all will eventually be compelled to identify without cause. Just because he was exercising one right doesn’t mean that he forfeits all others. He had a right to carry. He had a right to refuse to identify. He had a right to not be harassed by agents of government in a public place. By not enforcing boundaries, our freedom is toast.

        • Shoot, let me go farther than that. We already have a situation where, if someone in authority asks you if you did something and you refuse to answer on the grounds you might incriminate yourself, you are now guilty until you prove you’re innocent. And nobody else is looking for any such evidence, we now know you are guilty. It is not supposed to work that way, regardless of what you refuse to acknowledge, you are supposed to be presumed innocent. That right, also, has been eroded because people did not insist on it. Our best chance to get back to the constitution is going to be the “every man has a GoPro” defense, where the actions of the cops cannot be denied, there are ten different videos. Its already started with iphones.

        • Yep. For those who really understand individual Liberty, things seem already FUBAR. So many people seem to comment about recordings without realizing that video and audio are sometimes the only thing that stand between being found guilty or prevailing in court. If the videos & audio aren’t uploaded for everyone to view then nobody will know that it is happening to people. Some of those same people who are critical of uploaded videos are the the first to disbelieve the story and point to the lack of video to support their disbelief.

          I don’t like recording interactions. It feels like the wrong thing to do for me. However, I’ve learned enough to know that it is for my safety that I have to record. I don’t like it but it is necessary.

          • Some of those same people who are critical of uploaded videos are the the first to disbelieve the story and point to the lack of video to support their disbelief.

            This! Cops and some others on another board I frequent are always talking about OCers with their “show off” videos, and how they are just trying to “trap” cops or get an “easy paycheck” from a lawsuit for false arrest. (Hey, then stop arresting people falsely!) An OC story came up not too long ago and those same cops were refusing to believe the OCer because, after all, where was his video or audio proof the police abused his civil rights? They couldn’t get it through their heads that not every OCer goes around with a video recorder, that they just want to go about their lives peaceably and don’t expect to be abused by law enforcement.

            It’s astonishing.

  24. Several thoughts occur to me;
    – – – In CO, does a minor (under 18) have a right to possess a long-arm unsupervised? IF that were the case, then the possibility that he was only 17 or 16 or 15 would seem to be a moot issue.
    – – – Let’s assume that in CO it is unlawful for a minor to possess alcohol or tobacco. Would a young person smoking in public or carrying a six-pack be subject to a police demand for evidence of age? If so, then it would seem no more an infringement that he be asked for evidence of age to possess a gun.
    – – – There is the possibility that he had no 2A rights. Perhaps he is an alien; or has renounced his citizenship; or has been convicted. (This is the most interesting question). An analogue here might be that he is leaning against a car adjacent to an open driver’s door. Keys in hand. He appears to be in possession of the car; albeit not driving the car. If sitting behind the wheel with motor running then he would be a motorist and subject to show a driver’s license; but such is not the case. Do the police have the power to demand that he show license, registration and insurance to prove his lawful possession of property absent any compelling reason to suspect the car is stolen? What if he were walking down the street carrying a TV at 2 AM? Absent a report that evening of a home burglary, may the police demand he show a sales receipt for the TV or an ID? I think the answers to such questions should be answered by State law on the duty to identify oneself; and, in any case, the TV, car and gun ought to be treated the same way. To treat possession of a gun more harshly than the TV or car would seem an infringement; however slight.
    – – – Suppose, for the sake of illumination, that we concede the point that the police ought to be able to rule-out the possibility that a stranger possessing a gun might be dis-abled under the 2A. THIS is an issue entirely independent of identifying an individual who is not under suspicion of having committed a crime. Further, suppose we concede that a CCP isn’t objectionable for 2A purposes. It occurs to me that, for the narrow purposes contemplated here, that the Sheriff/Chief could issue a CCP with a photograph and descriptive information (height, weight, hair/eye color) but NO name or address of the bearer. Thereupon, it would suffice to prescribe that anyone carrying a gun (whether openly or concealed) is obliged to show his CCP on demand by police. The police could validate the serial number of the CCP as being in-good-standing without being given immediate access to the holder’s name or address. Now, the police could readily dispose of a complaint that someone – not in uniform – appears to be carrying a gun. The entire contact would be completed in 15 seconds by the showing of a CCP. The opportunity for further harassment would be truncated. Whether the bearer had overdue books at the library would not serve as the object of a fishing expedition.
    – – – Further, consider the practice of stop-and-frisk (formally known as a Terry stop). This police practice is subject to considerable debate. Arguably, it is an infringement on the 4A; yet, it may be effective in constraining freedom-of-movement of felons-in-posession. Let’s see where the CCP takes us, in – say – Chicago:
    – – – – Cop: “Excuse me, sir: Is that a gun in your pocket? Or, are you just happy to see me?”
    – – – – Civilian: “[ Yes | No], (as the case may be). Would you care to see my CCP card? In any case, I’m always only too delighted to see a diligent member of the constabulary.”
    Whether the civilian’s answer is Yes or No, the civilian’s offer to show his CCP card is dispositive of the cop’s inquiry. Even if the answer is “No” but the civilian is lying, the CCP rules-out the possibility of felon-in-posession. If the cop suspected the possibility of a crime-afoot, that suspicion would be diminished by the bearer’s CCP. (If the cop decides to arrest for spitting on the sidewalk, she may thereupon frisk the arrestee anyway. We are now outside the scope of a Terry stop.)
    – – – A Shall-Issue law together with modest fees and prerequisites might very well reduce the conflict around stop-and-frisk; particularly in the inner-city where the practice meets the greatest objections.
    – – – Now, introduce the idea of a “learner’s-CCP’; i.e., one which may be acquired by a minor! Although a minor may not BUY a handgun (under Federal law) she may – in SOME States – possess one. In any such State, it seems a reasonable argument for minors of militia age to be granted a “learner’s-CCP” that would genuinely evidence eligibility to carry. In other States, a “learner’s-CCP” would be evidence of the youngster’s adherence-to-the-law-to-date. It might not save the youngster from a physical frisking; however, it might save her from further harassment for the crime of loitering. The idea of certifying youngsters as “sheep” vs. “goats” might go a long way to reducing summary harassment of minority youths. Moreover, it might inspire young “at-risk” people to acquire their “learner’s-CCP” and stay-out-of-trouble so that they will be qualified for a full-fledged CCP when they reach the age for normal issuance.
    – – – Should there be any merit in the idea of a “learner’s-CCP”, it may be a means of building support among minority groups who have ambivalent-to-negative attitudes toward the role of guns in their societies.

    • Suppose, for the sake of illumination, that we concede the point that the police ought to be able to rule-out the possibility that a stranger possessing a gun might be dis-abled under the 2A.

      Suppose that we don’t! Since the USSC has ruled several ties on different subjects that police cannot arbitrarily decide to question someone without probable cause. No matter how much they suspect you of running drugs with your car, they cannot pull you over and search your car, insist on ID, etc, unless you do something illegal. Normally, they just pull you over, break your taillight, then do whatever they wish, calling you a liar in court when you testify to what happened. IOW, did they have some reason to suspect he was disabled under 2A? And the answer was no, unless you accept the assertion (clearly made up on the spur of the moment) that in one officers *opinion* he did not “look” 18. That is clearly twisting the law, and pretty clearly doing so to force compliance with unlawful orders from a bully. The kid done good. The cops should be facing jail and bankruptcy as former LEOs.

      And the cops may very well question smokers or beer drinkers because they might be underage. It is still illegal for them to do so.

      • I said that wrong. The police may ask. The person they ask may refuse to answer without giving cause for harassment. Harassment is then illegal, regardless of the tricky word games the cops have been trained to employ.

    • I’ve gotta say, a CCP is objectionable. Just before Newtown I was on the way to getting my permit; pursuant to that goal my wife and I attended a class together in early December. After Newtown the ensuing political fallout led me to change my mind.

      I’m in AZ, so I have a choice. Our CCP has certain advantages, like reciprocity, but I choose to exercise constitutional carry because I do find the notion of a permit to carry objectionable. Freedom to carry is so much more … free. 🙂

      • “I’m in AZ, so I have a choice. Our CCP has certain advantages, like reciprocity”

        If I lived or spent significant time in the state, I’d get an Arizona CCW permit just so I didn’t risk 5 years in federal prison every time I passed within 1000 feet of a school.

  25. Some belligerent and perpetually insulting jerk who stands up in a pulpit and claims to speak for god has no business claiming that a young man with a rifle is just “showing off.”

    The OCer was exercising a right. If you can’t handle it, join MDA.

    • Maybe I’m missing something in the video, but I didn’t see anything to indicate his 2A rights were being violated. The issue seemed to be over the showing of his ID.

      • He also has a 4th Amendment right, the cops had no legal authority to ask for ID in the first place.

        • OK, but it was such a small thing to ask (showing the cop your ID). You have probably heard the expression “Dead right” meaning in a car accident, you were in the “right” and the other guy was in the “wrong” But if you Died, would it have been worth it if you could have avoided the outcome by such a simple thing as showing your ID. Is the hassle he is now gonna have to go through worth his satisfaction of not having to show the ID.

        • You are right. We should therefore worship this kid as a hero, he risked a lot to help protect the rights you care nothing about?!?! What’s up with that?

        • He also has a 4th Amendment right, the cops had no legal authority to ask for ID in the first place.

          I agree. However the voters in colorado elected people that thought that “stop and identify” statutes were a great idea (Reminds me of Nazi’s). Thus, if a police officer in Colorado asks you your identity and you refuse – you will likely be arrested:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

      • Ralph’s comment was specifically addressed to Paul T. McCain. A so called 2A supporter (“but” – not open carry) and preacher from Missouri.

        Regarding the violation of his rights in the video:
        He was stopped to identify himself on the basis of him open carrying – a legal act and not one of legitimate “probable cause.”

    • Ralph, you sound like Lew Rockwell, haha. But seriously, Paul is wrong on so many things, I just shake my head in disbelief. I guess being a man of the cloth comes standard with a sense of arrogance and superiority. Hey Paul, I peaked at the end…the devil did it!

    • And “Ralph” provides just the kind of thoughtful, intelligent response we can all expect from the OC/Chipotle Ninja crowd.

      Stick to movie reviews, Ralph.

      • Paul. I did not know you were a preacher. Is this true?
        Is so, then you more than most should know that words matter.

        The line between a gentle jibe, and bitter contempt can be a very gray one.
        You have a lot to offer…I appreciate your gun reviews, for example.

        But you demean yourself, and lose credibility, if the message is bitter, or personally disrespectful.
        Who and what cause do you serve, then?

        What would Jesus do?

      • IANAL, so I am going with the opinion of the local law school prof, that this kid has an uphil battle ahead.

        If his strategy was to secure his right to self defense, via long gun OC,

        and his tactic was to gain visibility, as we might imply from the multiple youtubes,

        then why risk losing the strategic win, on OC, on a side argument on a simple ID yes or no?

        Seems like the cops were at least engaging, and seeking info, to validate his situation, and legal right.

        Lesson learned: if you are citing the law, then know the law…

        • Lesson learned: if you are citing the law, then know the law…

          Given that the officers never offered a specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, I’d say the kid knows the law well enough.

          “I can’t tell if you’re 18” and “how do I know you’re not a felon” may be articulable, but they are neither specific nor reasonable.

  26. Paul McCain in other posts calls AR15s assault weapons. That tells you just about all you need to know of his elitist opinions.

    Just because open carry is not common practice does not mean that it shouldn’t be done. Police need to stop harassing people who open carry.
    There is a popular video of TheHossusmc being hassled by police in Eugene Oregon for open carrying a handgun.
    There are those in our cause who consider themselves an aristocracy and above other people. It is ridiculous. Open carry is a valid form of carry.

    It is better to open carry than not carry at all. I’d rather face ridicule by an arm chair elitist wannabe operator expert than to have to pull my weapon on somone who has nafarious purposes to harm or kill myself or somone I care about. I would also have no issue with an encounter with police who try through manipulation will abuse their authority and violate my rights. Police have no right to demand ID or “Show me your papers”
    You are not required to carry ID in the USA.
    Both of my parents were police officers and I have several friends who are current LEO. And if you think there isn’t low hanging fruit in that profession you are wrong. When power and authority is abused in a department and then it is covered up and applauded by people who proclaim to be an advocate for freedom and liberty is evil and what liberals do now.
    Diversity is what makes us American.

    • Well, in TX if you are CCing, you are required to carry your license, as well as when you are driving most motor vehicles. Unless you are saying that requirement is unconstitutional, which could be an argument (about CC, not driving).

      • Well, in TX if you are CCing, you are required to carry your license

        Yeah, well in Michigan, if you are open carrying, you aren’t required to show ID or carry any ID with you whatsoever. And I doubt Texas requires you to get a driver’s license to CC. But what does Texas (or Michigan) law have to do with this case?

        • I was responding to A-Game’s assertion that you cannot be required to carry ID in the USA. If you are driving a car, you certainly can. As one example.

        • I was responding to A-Game’s assertion that you cannot be required to carry ID in the USA. If you are driving a car, you certainly can. As one example.

          But in that case, you are proving that you have a State-issued permit to conduct an activity that is duly regulated by the State (driving an automobile). Driving and hunting are both duly State-regulated activities for which officers of the State may lawfully demand you to produce your permit for the activity.

          Mere existence requires no such permit – nor, under the second amendment, should carrying a firearm.

    • Paul McCain is simply anti-open carry. Simple as that.

      He is an “I support the 2nd amendment, but” guy. And a textbook “Uncle Tom.”

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

    Oh yeah. Big time. Been going through it for a couple of years.

  28. Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. End of story.

    My locality has a similar statute, and I have made many arrests under it. I’ve been sued more than once over it, haven’t lost yet, and my state is more likely to curb police power than Colorado.

    I never debate dweebs like this. I ask them once, they start in on their stupid arguments, and before they have even finished their first statement the cuffs are on.

    The guy probably looks really young, so I would have asked him for ID also. The only thing the cops did incorrectly here was not check the kid’s weapon immediately and they debated him before arresting him. In my experience, the only time to leave them uncuffed is to avoid having to Mirandize them. Guys like this kid always think they are smarter than everyone else and think they can debate their way out of everything, so they typically make a bunch of incriminating statements you can use against them later. I get the impression a number of the commenters here fall in to this camp.

    • I am curious as to whether, in the two cases where you were sued in federal court, were the people that you arrested convicted of any offences?

      It would be interesting to know, of all those cases where you arrested people on not showing ID, what percentage ended in convictions.

      I do not believe telling us these facts will compromise your anonymity.

  29. Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. End of story.

    My locality has a similar statute, and I have made many arrests under it. I’ve been sued more than once over it, haven’t lost yet, and my state is more likely to curb police power than Colorado.

    I never debate dweebs like this. I ask them once, they start in on their stupid arguments, and before they have even finished their first statement the cuffs are on.

    The guy probably looks really young, so I would have asked him for ID also. The only thing the cops did incorrectly here was not check the kids weapon immediately and debate him before arresting him. In my experience, the only time to leave them uncuffed is to avoid having to Mirandize them. Guys like this kid always think they are smarter than everyone else and think they can debate their way out of everything, so they typically make a bunch of incriminating statements you can use against them later. I get the impression a number of the commenters here fall in to this camp.

    • So, let me get this straight. You are saying you are even more of a bully than those depicted here, and arrogant about your violations of the constitution as well. You’d have had him in cuffs FOR WHAT??? If he had been carrying a concealed pistol, IOW actually breaking a law, what would lead you to jack him up and show off your power? “I’da been showing him who was BOSS!” By all accounts he was not suspected of any criminal activity, are you saying you’d have arrested him, or just cuffed him to show off your power, slam his face into the car door “accidently”, and do all those other neat cop tricks which you then lie about in court, suddenly remembering that’s not what you’re supposed to say.

      If he “looks like a doper” to you, are you gonna slap the cuffs on him and search his car and his house, then question him for 48 hours straight until he confesses? What a hero.

      Get a real job. You talk like a punk.

    • I have the reasonable suspicion that you are a phony. If you are NOT a phony, I would LOVE to know the name and address of your department so that your allegations can be checked and verified, because if you are doing what you claim to be doing, here and elsewhere in other threads, you are a rogue cop and you need to be terminated and charged with USC 42 1983 violations. No, I’m not blowing smoke; Your attitude is grossly wrong, and any other reputable law enforcement officer, or former sworn officer, would be ashamed of you. Only a true reprobate would crow about civil-rights violations he has committed.

      I rather hope that you ARE a phony. Luckily, as you write like you are a mall cop, that’s probably the case.

      • Been sued twice in Federal court, and won both times. My department backed me up, and the tax payers footed the bill.

        Using the law to my advantage is not violating the Constitution. I know I have probably violated your “version” of the Constitution, but fortunately for me, Article III outlines who decides what the provisions in the Constitution mean – your name isn’t in there.

        You’re probably mad because I’m confident in my use of the law, and I know how to employ it to get my job done. I have never let suspects scare me with the threat of lawsuits, and I’m not about to start now.

    • Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are dispatched to the scene because someone called 911 about a man with a gun walking down the street. You arrive at the scene and see this guy with a shotgun strapped to his back. You watch him for a while and realize that he’s not in engaging in any unlawful activity by walking down said street openly carrying a long gun as allowed by state law. He ‘s not threatening anyone or anything. So instead of calling dispatch and telling them that everything is fine, it’s just a guy legally open carrying and moving on about your day, you think to yourself: hmm, he “looks” a little young. I don’t NEED to make contact with him, but if I do I can demand ID, and disarm him. After I do that, I can run his ID and the serial number of the gun to see if either one is in the system for anything I can bust him for. Well, I had to drag my ass all the way over here anyway, might as well see if I can make it worth my time. Something like that right?

      As a kid I was raised to respect police officers and I always wondered why minorities were always so wary of the police. I don’t wonder why anymore. I swear, you cops can be your own worst enemies.

    • What is the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity by which the cited statute applied, and compelled the kid to produce his identification?

      Go ahead; take your time. We’ll wait.

  30. You get to smoke dope. Quit whining about some dork getting his butt kicked by cops. He went with intent to go armed. He got armed up side the head. Now puff puff pass.

  31. I think he was talking too much, too. Don’t talk to the police. Just ask if you’re being detained and then go about your business if not. If they say yes, then do what they tell you to do and argue in court. Cops are brute force. They are not required nor desired to debate. They act on what they think, and they don’t spend time thinking about whether they are right or not. Don’t ever argue with them, you will always lose.

  32. Why do we hardly ever see black OCers? Are black people with guns treated different then whites?

  33. I dont think open carry of any kind is legal in Aurora. I know its not legal in Denver and possibly Arvada.

    • I believe your statement is incorrect. Only Denver of those three places has an OC ban on the books.

      • Places other than Denver might have them “on the books”, but none of them are valid except for Denver’s. Only Denver has received a judicial exception to Colorado’s state preemption.

        • Long gun open carry’s not legal in CO, inside city limits. Handgun open carry’s legal everywhere except Denver. The law’s wrong, but the young man was on the wrong side of it.

        • “Long gun open carry’s not legal in CO, inside city limits”

          I must presume that you can cite the relevant state statute.

        • And unless/until you’re prepared to either a) retract the statement “Long gun open carry’s not legal in CO, inside city limits” or b) provide the state statute backing it up, I must say that I’m ashamed to share a surname with you. 🙂

    • Uh, I gathered this was in Aurora, no? If OC is illegal there, they would have had him in cuffs in 30 seconds without any discussion.

  34. This also serves to point out that talking to the police unnecessarily is a bad idea, it looks like the cop got the “justification” (in air quotes) to arrest the guy from the guy himself, when the man was explaining why he was too young to buy and conceal a handgun. It seems to me that that was the inspiration for the cops “under 18” crap.

    You never “talk your way out of something” with the police, you either blather at them until they get bored and let you go, or they listen long enough for you to give them something to use against you. Like this guy did, in my opinion.

    • What did he give them to use against him? I musta missed that. I thought they arrested him for obstructing an investigation which did not exist, by not answering questions they had no authority to ask.

  35. I’m sorry, I’ve been have radical thoughts ever since I no longer needed a security clearance for a job. 🙂 So now……..f*cken make me.

  36. In colorado this kid could actually possess a handgun at 18 if this incident occured before July 1 of last year. In fact, if he can still possess a handgun and open carry it. As i did some reading and open carry is legal in Aurora.

    Thans SteveinCO, i knew denver had one for sure but wasnt certain on the othera

  37. They’ll haul you off to jail, or at least ticket you, for “failure to identify” in Texas, despite having broken no law. Idiot cops just don’t know the law and can’t stand it that others do. The law in Texas is that you may not falsely identify yourself to an officer. That’s a different situation from when you must identifying yourself.

    When you must identify yourself, and when failure to do so constitutes a crime, is only when you’ve been arrested. Simple detention (except when stopped for something else, like a legitimate traffic offense), is not sufficient.

    They bust out this obstruction nonsense just to throw their weight around. There was nothing to obstruct until the cops started sticking their snouts into someone’s business and rooting around. What he’s “obstructing” is their harassment, which is not a legitimate peace officer function. You cannot obstruct what they have no authority to do.

    Same thing with “disorderly conduct”, which is just their catchall harassment tool. And they themselves admit it’s b.s., because they threaten to arrest you not immediately and for your supposedly disorderly conduct, but just because you refuse to identify, which, see above, is not a crime. Pure circular reasoning from typically rotund gun bullies with badges.

    • +1

      It used to be commonly accepted that one had to produce identification when pulled over in a vehicle because traveling by vehicle became accepted as a privilege. I guess now just existing in a public space is being accepted as a privilege. Soon enough, they will be able to force their way into your home without reasonable suspicion and demand that you prove you live there just because you might not!

      • What most jurisdictions have is a requirement for the DRIVER of a lawfully-stopped motor vehicle to have ID in the form of a license; The only requirement for a PASSENGER to have ID or to provide identification is if said passenger committed a violation, such as not wearing a seatbelt if required by law, said ID a requirement for the issuance of a citation and so on.

        It is rather frightening to see just how many here are willing to roll onto their backs and offer their underbellies to be scratched by anybody ‘in power’, such as the police. Of course, it worked out well for ME when I was On the Job, but that doesn’t make it right.

  38. The cops were wrong and were looking for an excuse to hassle him. They should not have stopped and talked to him in the first place because he was not committing a crime. Then the kid knew the laws, and used them, and the cops didn’t like it. They had no PC, but they tried to control him and illegally detain him by insisting on his name and ID. Leave him alone!

  39. I have a CPW and some nutter walking down street of my urban neighborhood with a shotgun or AR on their back would make me uncomfortable. It shows a lack of consideration for those around and you poor judgement skills at the very least. I’m not saying I’m against open carry but geez use some freaking common sense – it may be legal but that doesn’t make it appropriate or even right in certain circumstances because quite frankly it scares people and that’s just uncool and at the very least a little bit crazy.

    Every time I get into educating someone what the gun debate is about sure enough they bring up the open carry AR15 events and how put off by it they are and I have nothing to say because I agree with them.

    • It has to continue until people are no longer harassed for it. Carrying a rifle is a PITA and I’ll be glad when it’s less needed (for these purposes — it will always be necessary to the security of a free state).

      • So you’ll be carrying forever or until it’s completely illegal because I will always feel harassed by it in an urban setting or in a Walmart, Target etc. If you think that open carrying long guns are going to desensitize people to it, think again – It’s only going to make people and that includes my second amendment supporting self support laws that will put an end to it.

        I don’t want to see open carry going away but I’ll vote to stop it if these irresponsible, thoughtless individuals continue.

        Want to divide the gun community keep at it.

        • Jim, you are making sense, and of course, you will be dismissed, and demeaned, by the OC/Chipotle Ninja crowd who simply want to make believe that the tactics they cheer on are actually going to work to accomplish what they hope to accomplish.

          And, I have a pretty strong hunch, given that most of the OC-fanatics around here post anonymously that they are just paper tigers. They talk a big game on the Interwebz, but I doubt they actually ever put their money where their mouth is and go on a “gun walk” around their local community with their long guns.

          There is more than a whiff of rabid conspiracy theorists in their rhetoric as well.

          Honestly, it’s just a tin hat fiesta when it comes down to most of this stuff.

        • I already am carrying forever. Happens its a .380, concealed, what is the difference? Are you terrified by everyone you see since everyone *might* be carrying? Even if it is NOT legal, everybody might be carrying unless they are naked. When I know someone *is* carrying, yes, I keep an eye on them, just as I do everyone else, but I don’t get all freaky about it. Most lgs people OC in their stores even in TX, since that is legal, hasn’t scared me yet. What is the problem?

        • I have no problem with people carrying concealed or holstered pistols anywhere or even with someone walking down a rural road with an AR15. However in an urban environment such as a shopping center busy street walking around strapped with a long gun when there is no good reason for it other than you are either an attention seeking whore or someone about ready to start a spree killing is literally hanging a sign around your neck that you are either slightly unbalanced and lacking good judgement or mentally ill and yeah unbalanced people with semiautomatic weapons make me nervous.

          There are much better ways to push an open carry agenda that doesn’t alienate the people you are trying to win over.

        • “However in an urban environment such as a shopping center busy street walking around strapped with a long gun when there is no good reason for it ”

          How about these for reasons:
          * Cannot purchase a handgun from an FFL because he’s under 21
          * Cannot obtain a concealed handgun permit because he’s under 21
          * The only firearm he can lawfully purchase from an FFL, then carry around, is a long gun

        • I think you just made an argument for why 21 is the age for concealed permits in most places in that they assume you have better judgement at 21 than at 18. This video is a demonstration of his poor judgement in my opinion and why he shouldn’t be carrying either a handgun or long gun in public. Maybe the next three years will help him grow up a little.

          I find his argument dubious that he was assaulted behind a McDonalds and what was he doing behind it to begin with? Buying drugs? I don’t know maybe he was doing something as innocuous as taking a piss, walking to his car – who knows. In either event it doesn’t negate my arguments . He was ready with the video camera and he posted it to the web – ie. attention seeking. Does he have a right to defend himself, undoubtedly but he needs to find a less effective way than a firearm until until he’s legally allowed to carry handgun concealed or unconcealed.

          I support the “I have a right shit,” but you also have a civic responsibility to the people around you and you need to balance your needs and wants with theirs. Failing to do so is a sign of immaturity or self obsessed lunacy. I’m tired of being lumped into the same category as these idiots because I own firearms. And more to the point I don’t want to lose my right to my firearms because of them.

        • that includes my second amendment supporting self support laws that will put an end to it.

          Then prepare for massive civil disobedience and possibly civil war because I’m not the only person in this country that won’t go so quietly. Vote as a traitor to the Liberty all that you want. That’s on you so stop blaming other people.

          I don’t want to see open carry going away but I’ll vote to stop it if these irresponsible, thoughtless individuals continue.

          Bring it! The RKBA isn’t going away in our generation. After we’re all gone, y’all are on your own.

          Want to divide the gun community keep at it.

          You weren’t much of a right to keep and bear arms supporter if you fold so easily. Quit your crying and work on repealing the 2A already. 😉

        • So you’ll be carrying forever or until it’s completely illegal because I will always feel harassed by it in an urban setting or in a Walmart, Target etc. If you think that open carrying long guns are going to desensitize people to it, think again – It’s only going to make people and that includes my second amendment supporting self support laws that will put an end to it.

          I don’t want to see open carry going away but I’ll vote to stop it if these irresponsible, thoughtless individuals continue.

          Want to divide the gun community keep at it.

          Talk about hoplophobes in the woodworks. I see you are afraid of guns. Please see my post here:
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/open-carry-advocate-arrested-aurora-co/#comment-1909142
          Where I discuss irrational fear on open carriers with slung rifles.

          Before you go voting to eliminate open carry please read my post here:
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/open-carry-advocate-arrested-aurora-co/#comment-1909127
          Where I provide several examples as to why open carry should be protected.

        • I couldn’t care less how you feel. Your fear is irrational, and law-abiding citizens are not dependent upon acquiescing to your feelings in order to exercise their rights.

        • I think you just made an argument for why 21 is the age for concealed permits in most places in that they assume you have better judgement [sic] at 21 than at 18. This video is a demonstration of his poor judgement [sic] in my opinion and why he shouldn’t be carrying either a handgun or long gun in public.

          So, in your opinion, 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds in Colorado should not be allowed to carry firearms for self defense. Even though they can vote, marry, enter into contracts, enlist in (and be drafted into) the armed forces, etc. Got it.

          In Colorado, the only firearms persons 18-20 years of age may purchase are long guns and the only way they can carry them in public is openly. This man was carrying the only type of firearm he can lawfully purchase and he was carrying it in the only lawful means available.

          His only “poor judgment” was thinking that the Aurora PD would obey Colorado law, and would only demand identification if they had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. The subjective “well, we don’t know if you look like you’re 18” doesn’t meet even that low threshold.

      • So, what you’re saying is you support the right to open carry as long as nobody exercises it. Are you reading what you’re posting? And what right do you have to question why he was behind a McDonalds? Since he would have been 17, my assumption was he worked there. Yours is that he must be up to no good? Deeply into guilty until proven innocent much?

        • “So, what you’re saying is you support the right to open carry as long as nobody exercises it.”

          No, I am not “saying” that.

          Do you even bother to read what I’ve been posting?

        • Walking through a Target with a long gun on your back is tantamount to walking through a Target naked – it’s indecent behavior. If you don’t get that than I can’t explain it to you.

          The fact that you have someone on your own team telling you that this behavior is a problem and contrary to what you want to accomplish and you won’t even stop to consider what they’re telling you or even acknowledge that they might have a point belays your poor judgement because no matter what anyone says you can’t even consider that you could be wrong. Kind of sounds like a description of Bloomberg, huh.

          Ohhh! you accused me of being anti-second amendment because I don’t support thoughtless, irresponsible open carry and I’m not saying all open carry is thoughtless or irresponsible. If that’s the case meeting Dick Metcalf for lunch doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

          If you can’t be intelligent, safe and considerate with how you approach your goals you should know that my primary concern is my safety and the safety of my family both in the short and the long terms. This means that I’ll support whatever legislation that helps do that. If that means I have a different interpretation of the second amendment than you do then so be it. Just know that whatever you tell yourself your losing the support of members in the gun community.

        • @jim: I won’t lose a wink of sleep over not having your support for it was no real support at all. You don’t even understand the right to keep and bear arms. Go ahead, trade Liberty for some perceived safety. Stop threatening and start your anti-RKBA activism already. You see, rights aren’t something that mommy government hands out to the masses. We are endowed with them individually and independent of government. Voting to infringe is traitorous to your people and your nation.

        • Interesting accusations. Have you ever really given thought to why the Second Amendment exists, why the constitution exists and the purpose behind it? Let’s put it this way. I see someone burning the flag and a part of me wants to kick their ass. Then someone passes a flag burning law and I’m the first person out there burning it. Do you know why? The same goes for guns. I have a right to keep and bear arms but I also have a responsibility to do it wisely.

          The difference between you and I is that you allow your fear of anti gunners to rule you and I don’t just like they allow their fear of guns to rule them.

          When I was 17 I had a friend point a loaded replica navy revolver at my head and ask me what I’d do if he pulled the trigger. My response, “I’d die now get that thing out of my face.” to which he responded as he pulled it away, “it won’t go..BAM!!” The bullet missed my head by inches.

          I support everyone’s right to own a gun until they prove they as individuals prove they’re irresponsible and dangerous to others with one. Just like some people lose their right drive because they can’t do so safely. If you can’t understand my reasoning then you fall into the extremists category and there is no reasoning with you just like there is no reasoning and debating with the Michael Bloombergs.

          There’s a big difference between believing in something and worshiping it.

        • @Jim

          Walking through a Target with a long gun on your back is tantamount to walking through a Target naked – it’s indecent behavior. If you don’t get that than I can’t explain it to you.

          So let me get this straight. Guns are scary so we need to hide them by shortening them to pistol size and concealing them so nobody can see it (I.E. Concealed Carry). Somehow, people walking around with concealed carry pistols is acceptable and invokes warm fuzzy feelings whereas if they are carrying a firearm openlly and honestly, where everyone can see it, they are somehow – more dangerous? Indecent? Your opinion is shared and comparable to antis not wanting you walking around with concealed carry pistols because that is “inappropriate” and “indecent.” Nobody needs to open carry a long gun in public. Right? Well, maybe nobody needs to conceal carry a pistol in public? Maybe nobody needs guns? Guns are scary, need to be hidden, or better yet – should be banned. Owning guns – that’s indecent.

          Get it? It is all your opinion and perspective of what is appropriate or not.

          Please see my example here:
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/open-carry-advocate-arrested-aurora-co/#comment-1909127
          Where I provide several examples as to why open carry should be protected. Perspective and opinion should not be in the determining factors for the arresting party. When you are peaceful and carrying your slung firearm in a safe manner, your rights should not be up to the whim of opinion, perspective, and interpretation of an Officer.

          The fact is, people are being arrested and harassed for open carrying, when they are peaceful, non-threatening, and carrying their firearm in a safe manner – all when open carrying is supposedly legal. This is a problem. It means the scenarios I provided in the above link could result in an arrest and they shouldn’t.

        • I also have a responsibility to do it wisely.

          You aren’t talking about “wisely,” you are advocating “cowardly” and making threats to vote against gun rights. Wisely is not putting other innocent individuals at real risk. Wisely is following constitutional laws while bearing arms. Wisely doesn’t mean NOT exercising the right. If you’ve read anything I’ve written in comments on TTAG then you know what comes next… A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,… The 2A isn’t about target shooting, collecting, hunting, or even defense against ordinary crime (although those would’ve been so common sense as to not spell them out). The 2A is about defense against tyranny and invaders. The deterrent and defensive value of the militia is greatly reduced if the People do not bear rifles in public. There are many reasons to do so but an important one is that if the militia only bears them when there is trouble then they would be telegraphing their intentions to a tyrannical government. The meaning that you and some others wish to attribute to the 2A is weak and pointless in relation to it’s clearly stated intent. You do not understand the 2A or the importance of the RKBA in our free society.

          The difference between you and I is that you allow your fear of anti gunners to rule you and I don’t just like they allow their fear of guns to rule them.

          I am concerned about tyrannical government. I’m not concerned about anti-gunners. That is what you and some keep squawking about… what your fellow anti-gunners will do. I don’t care one bit what you do.

          When I was 17 I had a friend point a loaded replica navy revolver at my head and ask me what I’d do if he pulled the trigger. My response, “I’d die now get that thing out of my face.” to which he responded as he pulled it away, “it won’t go..BAM!!” The bullet missed my head by inches.

          So what? Is that some sort of dramatic instance that is supposed to change an opinion? Sounds like some hysterical Bloomberg funded mom’s organization I’ve had the displeasure of hearing in person at too many anti-gun protests.

          I support everyone’s right to own a gun until they prove they as individuals prove they’re irresponsible and dangerous to others with one.

          Your threats earlier had nothing to do with someone proving themselves individually irresponsible. You were throwing an online tantrum. Are you stating that this young man has proven himself irresponsible and dangerous to others with his open carry activities?

          Just like some people lose their right drive because they can’t do so safely.

          Driving is currently considered a privilege under the law so this is a false comparison. Privilege =/= Right

          If you can’t understand my reasoning then you fall into the extremists category and there is no reasoning with you just like there is no reasoning and debating with the Michael Bloombergs.

          I am extremely attached to my individual Liberty so you might as well save your typing for those letters to politicians asking for more gun control as you threatened.

          There’s a big difference between believing in something and worshiping it.

          If I have not Liberty, I have nothing. Enjoy your chains.

    • Open carry of a holstered pistol makes some people feel uncomfortable. Does that mean we should not OC a holstered pistol because we aren’t showing consideration for those around us?

      • Danny Griffin is again very intentionally trying to obfuscate and deflect from the point. OC-fantatics like Griffin are so intent on their agenda that they can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to tactics.

        Carry a holstered sidearm “openly” is one thing.

        Parading around with a long gun waiting to video tape an encounter with legal authorities is quite another.

        • “Carry a holstered sidearm “openly” is one thing.
          Parading around with a long gun” …

          … is precisely the same thing, if a) you are not allowed to purchase a handgun, b) you are not allowed obtain a permit to carry concealed a handgun you may have lawfully acquired, and c) you may only lawfully purchase and carry a long gun.

        • Don, I think you are missing the “I have the right, piss on you” aspects of Paul’s arguments.

        • Danny Griffin is again very intentionally trying to obfuscate and deflect from the point.

          Actually, no I wasn’t. I was replying to another’s assertion that we should not do things that make others feel uncomfortable, even if they are legal.

          Please try and pay attention in the future.

        • In 1950, seeing a black kid in a white neighborhood made people uneasy. Some might even say scared. Moral and just people understand that rights are rights. I understand where you are coming from. I would honestly probably be taken back by someone open carrying a long gun in a shopping center, BUT, I will support their right to do so until they violate a law. If I only support the rights I am comfortable with, then I am a tyrant. Part of being a member of a free society, is recognizing other rights despite how they make me feel.

          I don’t personally support abortion, but I support those who choose to do so. I don’t personally agree with gay marriage, but I support those that want to. I don’t personally agree with long gun open carry inside city limits, but I support others rights to do so. All of the above, WITHOUT being harassed.

        • Carry a holstered sidearm “openly” is one thing.

          Parading around with a long gun waiting to video tape an encounter with legal authorities is quite another.

          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 (or concealed carry pistol) is not. 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.

    • I have a CPW and some nutter walking down street of my urban neighborhood with a shotgun or AR on their back would make me uncomfortable. It shows a lack of consideration for those around and you poor judgement skills at the very least. I’m not saying I’m against open carry but geez use some freaking common sense – it may be legal but that doesn’t make it appropriate or even right in certain circumstances because quite frankly it scares people and that’s just uncool and at the very least a little bit crazy.

      Every time I get into educating someone what the gun debate is about sure enough they bring up the open carry AR15 events and how put off by it they are and I have nothing to say because I agree with them.

      I’m not saying I’m against open carry but geez use some freaking common sense
      You are clearly saying you are against open carry. Your interpretation of the sake of appearances and the formation of fear in your mind indicate you do not condone open carry. The fact that this person “scares” you indicates that you do not condone open carry. Keep in mind that anti’s are “scared” of gun owners with guns. So it is simply fear that is your problem no one elses. Ask yourself this question: Would you be afraid if you knew that person was concealed carrying? Lets look at it logically. He has a rifle slung on his back. It is more probable that you could acquire a target faster with your concealed carry than he could unsling his rifle, shoulder it, and line up his optics or irons. Your fear is irrational and I hope one day you rationalize the matter to conclusion.

    • some nutter walking down street of my urban neighborhood with a shotgun or AR on their back would make me uncomfortable. It shows a lack of consideration for those around and you poor judgement [sic] skills at the very least. I’m not saying I’m against open carry but geez use some freaking common sense – it may be legal but that doesn’t make it appropriate or even right in certain circumstances

      It’s both appropriate and right when a) it’s the only type of firearm an 18-year-old in Colorado may lawfully purchase and b) “openly” (i.e. “on their back”) is the only lawful means of carry for that 18-year-old.

      Or are you saying that, in Colorado, adults under the age of 21 don’t have the right to armed self defense?

  40. For what it’s wort (not much) I have lived in Oregon for 15 years, and I can never remember seeing anybody but cops open carrying. I do know there are a lot of CC, including myself.

  41. The kid gave the cop something to pursue with “I’m 18 and can’t carry…”
    Yes BS, but by speaking he gave the cops something to run with….i.e. You look 15….
    If the kid hadn’t “provided” his age, he would have walked.
    As always, STFU with the po po as much as possible, which doesn’t JUST apply to DGUs.

    • I have to agree, at least partially. I suspect if he said he was 20, it would not have occurred to the cop to lie about how old he “looked”. Or if he just refused the conversation of why he was carrying a shotgun by asking “why? Is it illegal?”

  42. This guys is just an agent provocateur for Moms Demand Action. We can all blame him when new municipal laws come out.

    • And then we can all laugh at those “municipal laws” since, with CO’s statewide preemption, those laws mean squat without a court decision saying the municipality has some “really good reason” to override state law via “home rule”.

    • Presuming you’re replying to my post above, where I said “really good reason”…

      No, making a “public safety” claim is not enough. Before infringing upon someone’s rights, you must first demonstrate that such infringement will actually serve a beneficial government interest (e.g. “public safety”). In the state of Colorado, nobody has made such a claim, much less won a judicial ruling, apart from the City and County of Denver – and that ruling applies only to that jurisdiction.

    • And you believe the media report? And the cop’s statement? I got some property around 50 miles east of Miami you might be interested in …

      • So, Larry inTX, you are saying the entire story is a lie? Parts of it? The kid was lying about doing it before? Or, the paper made it all up?

        Loosen up that tin foil cap.

    • (From the news link:) The incident Sunday wasn’t the first interaction Lohner had with police. He said he has been stopped under similar circumstances more than a dozen times, all in that same area, but never before charged with a crime.

      Then it is likely that the officers already knew that he was of age and committing no crime. That would mean that they were indeed harassing him.

    • Don’t care.

      If badge-wielding thugs weren’t so keen to give him the opportunity, his videos would be pretty boring, wouldn’t they?

      (Actually, I love seeing the videos where police officers properly engage a law-abiding citizen. It maintains my hope that the majority of police officers are more like them, than they are like the thugs in the above video.)

  45. “Public Safety” is just another weasel phrase used as an excuse to establish state authority of the individual

  47. You, my young friend, are a dumbass. It’s stunts like that that give the rest of us a bad name. You walk around with a firearm, in Denver of all places, you better expect a confrontation. All you had to do was give them an ID. Path of least resistance…oh yeah, and stay away from that MacDonalds. Don’t go lookin’, just be prepared…and show a little maturity and respect.

    • “… you better expect a confrontation.”

      For peacefully and legally exercising a Constitutional Right? I suppose that telling you to get bent would be rude…

      “All you had to do was give them an ID.”

      Actually, no, he didn’t. No legal requirement for him to do so, no legal justification for the police to demand it. I’m starting to feel rude here….

      “…show a little maturity and respect.”

      He did. But it was for the Constitution and the Law, not the presence of the police.

      Seriously, tell us what your officer.com user-name is.

    • And he was NOT in the City and County of Denver or they would have simply arrested him right off.

  48. “That’s a dangerous line of thought.”

    Nope. Quite the contrary; it would be supremely dangerous for you to NOT have that thought.

    Think about it.

  49. This may make some angry but it is a tough question that every armed citizen must ask themselves and answer: When is it ok to shoot a cop?

  50. So, here’s why you might not want to provide your identifying details to a cop unless required to under the law…

    “Contact reports” filed for all contacts (details vary) are funneled to regional, federal “fusion centers” (all they can get), where they are absorbed into dossiers (“We want to know everything.”) keyed by the identity of name, DOB, and maybe address. These dossiers, which have no standard for veracity of content or method of review, are available for review with subsequent contacts by multiple agencies (details vary). Federally, they form the basis for generating surveillance based on “suspicion”, and feed into other things including both DHS “watch lists”, and the infamous TSA “no fly list.”

    Look at any of the diagrams showing data sources and propagation via the NSA. Vacuuming up phone call metadata is the least of it. Any “contact” with any kind of law enforcement is sought, absorbed, collated, and sent back out, to more or less all of them.

    Further, arrest and holding for processing even when charges can’t possibly stick, or are never filed, isn’t the only kind of summary “justice.” Anything generating enough “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause”, say a “pattern of contact”, can lead to further investigation, including trashing stuff on your person, or in your car, search warrants, including trashing anything and everything in or near the “location” being searched, and surveillance, which can be real obvious when somebody in your life is around who might be spooked to notice that you’re being followed by cops.

    The laws and cases limiting the requirement for disclosure of name & etc. were developed long before the post 9-11 surveillance apparatus, TSA / DHS summary prohibitions, border patrol unlimited search and seizure w/in 100 miles of the border, and so on.

    “Never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention.” Bureaucracies, especially security apparatus, are indeed immortal in this sense.

    Also “Show me the man, I’ll give you the crime.”

    And in the end, even if it doesn’t stick, “The process is the punishment.”

  51. Why do people and cops think that someone with criminal intent would really want to draw that much attention to themselves?

  52. Forget that he is carrying a gun or a weapon or bearing arms of any sort. instead, choose to leave it blank, so that you can imagine he is carrying any number of items:

    instead, imagine he is carrying a protest sign (against the wars in iraq and afganistan, or against abortion, or against genetically modified foods, or against candy crush invites)

    instead, imagine he is an immigrant (maybe from Mexico, or from Croatia, or from China)

    instead, imagine he is carrying a Bible (or the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Watch Tower publication)

    now, imagine he is openly carrying a shotgun on a sling on his back

    now imagine a cop stopping him to question him about one of previous hypothetical situations.

  53. I am on the side of the police on this one. They were courteous and tried to be easy going as possible. The kid obviously don’t know the law…. In Colorado you can purchase and possess a pistol at 18, he just can’t purchase from an FFL (private sale only0. That is issue 1. Secondly, There is no must show ID in CO, but it has been my experience that acknowledging immediately that I am carrying and have permit to carry (if concealed) is greatly appreciated as a common courtesy and given leniency when contact is made. As a law abiding citizen there should be no reason not to cooperate and if they (police) are overstepping their bounds, address after the confrontation is complete or follow-up with department and file grievance. I am sure he has had not training as this is always preached in most classes and all of mine a firearms instructor. 3. the kid wanted to know why they wanted his ID, is he old enough (because he says so is not sufficient, because people don’t lie to the police), if he had any warrants, wanted for crimes, of committing a crime.
    Cooperating with police when they are acting like these officers should be no issue. If he just showed his ID (as they said) they would confirm the gun wasn’t stolen, and his story is accurate he would be on his way…….. I personally know several of Aurora’s finest and none of them are a@^holes , there are a couple as with any department but generally they are good to go and only trying to serve and protect… when a call comes in they have a duty to respond, because if they didn’t and the kid did do something crazy then the people would be in an uproar because they were called and didn’t respond or follow-up on the call…….

    • if he had any warrants, wanted for crimes, of committing a crime. Cooperating with police when they are acting like these officers should be no issue.

      You can’t be serious. You think these are valid reasons any cop can walk up to any citizen and demand to see ID, just to see if he has any warrants?

      You need a remedial lesson in history, the Constitution, and our laws.

    • is he old enough (because he says so is not sufficient, because people don’t lie to the police)…

      What was the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that he was under 18?

      …if he had any warrants…

      What was the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that he had any warrants?

      …wanted for crimes…

      What was the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that he was wanted for crimes?

      …of committing a crime.

      What was the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime?

      Cooperating with police when they are acting like these officers should be no issue. If he just showed his ID (as they said) they would confirm the gun wasn’t stolen

      What was the specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that the gun was stolen?

      It’s as if some people have never read the Constitution, have no idea what the fourth and fifth amendments are for, what the equal protection and due process clauses mean, or have any understanding of what innocent until proven guilty means.

    • In Colorado you can purchase and possess a pistol at 18, he just can’t purchase from an FFL (private sale only0.

      As of July 1, 2013, you must be 21 to purchase a handgun in Colorado, private party transfers included:
      * An FFL may not sell a handgun to someone under 21.
      * C.R.S. 18-12-112 requires a background check by an FFL for any firearm transfer except bona fide gifts or loans between certain family members.
      * That CO statute also says “The licensed gun dealer shall comply with all state and federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, as if he or she were transferring the firearm from his or her inventory to the prospective transferee“. This would include the prohibition on FFLs selling handguns to persons under 21.

  54. There’s a big difference between being upset at law enforcement for arresting or searching people without cause and supporting an effective strategy for expanding gun rights. I don’t think legal open-carriers should be arrested. If they are, they should sue. At the same time, I think provocative but legal open carry (Chipotle low-ready, airport doctor, OCT march through black neighborhood, etc.) is far more likely to result in the restriction of gun rights than their expansion.

    A lot of folks on this board (and to some extent the owner/operator) conflate objecting to illegal arrests with provocative open carry being a good idea.

    I’ve yet to see anyone clearly articulate a specific rationale for how provocative open carry is likely to expand gun rights. Instead, the supporters of provocative open carry fall back on three positions that have nothing to do with whether the strategy is likely to result in the expansion or restriction of gun rights: 1) If you don’t unequivocally support provocative open carry, you’re a Fudd/statist, boot licker, etc.; 2) Being defiant worked for civil rights; and 3) Being flamboyant worked for gay rights. #1 is silly. #2 is correct, but the wholesale regional marginalization of people based on race is not the same as the expansion of what is already a reasonably well-protected and exercisable right. #3 is a questionable proposition at best. If you can’t directly explain why your strategy is likely to work, your strategy probably won’t work.

    I’m still waiting for a cogent rationale for why provocative open is likely to expand gun rights. I bet I won’t see one in response to this post.

    • “Provocative open carry” like the publicized OCT marches with banners, etc. are having a positive effect (despite what some say). The fact that a few people here can only focus on two or three isolated incidents out of tens of thousands of OC encounters tells me you are grasping at straws.

      Focus on illegal behavior, not legal behavior. Stop drawing division lines where none exist.

      • We’re not talking about “marches with banners, etc.” We’re talking about some jack ass walking down a suburban street with a shotgun in his hands and a video camera. I’ve got no problem with organized open carry demonstrations that identify themselves for what they are. My problem is with stunts (like walking down a suburban street with a shotgun in your hands) that are intended or likely to have no effect other than provocation. And I’m still waiting for a cogent explanation for why stunts like this are likely to expand gun rights.

        • We’re talking about some jack ass walking down a suburban street with a shotgun in his hands.

          Actually, he was carrying it slung, and even the police officers admitted that he was carrying it in a non-threatening manner. But hey: don’t let facts get in the way.

        • “We’re talking about some jack ass walking down a suburban street with a shotgun in his hands”

          If we’re still talking about the 18-year-old in Aurora… Who says he had “a shotgun in his hands”? The news report linked in the original post says “strapped over his shoulder”. How else should an 18-year-old, who can neither lawfully purchase a handgun from an FFL nor obtain a Colorado CHP, carry a firearm for self defense?

        • “lawfully purchase a handgun from an FFL”

          That should probably read “lawfully purchase a handgun from anyone“. CO law says that even a private-party transfer, except those that are bona fide intra-familial gifts, must go through an FFL, and the “licensed gun dealer shall comply with all state and federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, as if he or she were transferring the firearm from his or her inventory to the prospective transferee”. That would seem to include the federal prohibition on FFLs selling handguns to persons under 21.

          So, the only way for an 18-year-old to lawfully obtain his own handgun in CO is as a gift from a close family member.

    • A lot of folks on this board (and to some extent the owner/operator) conflate objecting to illegal arrests with provocative open carry being a good idea.

      Your argument would carry considerably more weight if you weren’t conflating the Chipotle open carriers with this kid, who was doing nothing other than walking down a sidewalk, minding his own business.

      • He was not minding his own business. He was walking down a suburban street with a shotgun and video camera. He was clearly looking for a police confrontation and was clearly well prepared for one. He was engaging in the same kind of counter-productive stunt as the other mentioned clowns.

        I don’t see anything in the news reports that says the gun was slung. To be fair, I don’t see anything that specifically says he was carrying it in his hands either.

        And I’m still waiting on that cogent explanation for why stunts like this are likely to expand gun rights. Anyone?

        • He was not minding his own business. He was walking down a suburban street with a shotgun and video camera.

          That sounds an awful lot like minding his own business to me.

          He didn’t make Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum accost and illegally detain him. They did that all on their own – and if not for that camera, it would be his word against theirs.

        • I don’t see anything in the news reports that says the gun was slung.

          If you’d watched the first 34 seconds of the KDVR news report video linked in the original post, you would’ve heard the reporter say, starting at 00:30, “walking along a public street here with a shotgun strapped over his shoulder”. Does that count as “the gun was slung”?

        • And I’m still waiting on that cogent explanation for why stunts like this are likely to expand gun rights. Anyone?
          He was carrying in the only lawful way available. He’s under 21, so he can neither purchase a handgun in CO nor apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. His only lawful means of carrying a lawfully-purchased firearm is to openly carry a long gun. What’s the problem with that?

        • I don’t see anything in the news reports that says the gun was slung.

          Really? Four hours before your comment that contained this gem, I replied to another of your comments. I replied:

          “Who says he had “a shotgun in his hands”? The news report linked in the original post says “strapped over his shoulder”.”

          Do you not read comments in the thread before you post? Or do you intentionally ignore them?

        • I read the article. I didn’t watch the video. So he had it slung, according to the reporter. He was still pulling a stunt, as evidenced by the fact that he was ready to video tape the police encounter he was baiting. And the question is still how are these kinds of stunts likely to expand gun rights. Restating this guy’s pretext for walking down the street with a shotgun does not explain how his actions or the actions of other open carry provocateurs are likely to expand gun rights.

          • Restating this guy’s pretext for walking down the street with a shotgun does not explain how his actions or the actions of other open carry provocateurs are likely to expand gun rights.

            In what way, exactly, was he provocative?

            Is there any possible way that you can answer that question without implying that all exercise of open carry of long guns is inherently provocative?

          • does not explain how his actions are likely to expand gun rights.

            I think you should look up his facebook page and give him a piece of your mind!

        • From TT: “So he had it slung, according to the reporter. He was still pulling a stunt, as evidenced by the fact that he was ready to video tape the police encounter he was baiting.”

          So, according to you, he was expressely engaged in strong, symbolic, political speech in order to exercise both the first amendment and the second amendment. Currently, the first amendment is much more strongly protected than the second.

          http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/05/nyts-links-to-gun-watch-carrying-guns.html

          As to how incidents such as this build the case for the second amendment, here it is:

          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 slung shotgun 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.

          http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/book-review-rise-of-anti-media-by-brian.html

          Eventually the police come around. Most people have noticed the effect. “Officer” a few posts ago on another thread, said he would have no problem with scruffy guys carrying slung rifles.

          It takes cases like these and some retraining to educate them. We will see if this 18 year old is convicted of anything, or if any settlement comes of it. One of the biggest problems we have is that the qualified immunity for officers and the near total immunity of prosecutors has been widely abused, or at least the perception is there.

          But I get the impression that the greater public is getting tired of it.

  55. RF,

    “…process of radicalization.”

    Interesting question. Personally for me, no.
    Education, yes, definitely.

    “Seek first to understand…”
    is the line in one old but still useful book.

    TTAG is helping both on gun facts, and especially on the discussions on of the “culture war” (h/tRalph)
    that are gun related,

    for example 2A rights, and the example of many readers here have led me personally to be more respectful and open to conversation on others views, and I see more and more comments from others, showing more “diverse” readers lurking and “coming out”,

    that I am convinced that TTAG is confirmation of a national trend underway…

    more people are questioning “the conventional wisdom” that the progtards cite as fact,
    and the surveys on public opinion, and shift in laws and court rulings, toward more 2A rights, is another confirmation of longer trends.

    The early trend realization is perhaps validated in the increasing shrillness and desperation, in their the radical lefts hired sock puppets pr, and news/propagandizing by their eablers in the StateRunMedia.

    This is a sign that TTAG is working, along with many other parallel efforts.

    The progtards are radicalizing in their fury that more and more independents are leaving their thought control plantation.

    More power to them. As A81 said, never interrupt your opponent as the are shootinh themselves in the head….

    • P.S. thats not to imply more moderation…your editorial and staff writing choices have been good for me, and the page views prove it…keep following your nose, I think its a good one…

  56. For all those who say the man is an idiot, jackass, or whatever for openly carrying (strapped over his shoulder, according to the news report linked above) a shotgun down the street in Aurora, Colorado…

    * In Colorado, you must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun. As of July 1, 2013, all firearm transfers, except bona fide gifts or loans between immediate family members, must go through an FFL, and the FFL shall obey all state and federal laws as if the FFL was transferring the firearm out of his own inventory (CRS 18-12-112). Thus, the federal prohibition (18 USC 922(b)(1)) against selling or delivering handguns to persons under 21 applies.

    * In Colorado, you must be 21 years of age to obtain a concealed handgun permit. Even if he received a handgun as a gift from an immediate family member, the subject of this thread could not have carried it concealed.

    So, the only firearm the man can purchase is a long gun, and the only way he can carry a firearm is openly. And that’s exactly what he did. If there is any other way for this law-abiding adult to carry a firearm for self defense in Colorado, apart from depending on the charity of family members, please describe it.

  57. This isnt some grizzled old vet walking around with a shotgun, its an 18 year old kid. Considering the legal age to carry in Colorado is 18 years old, I really don’t think its outside of the laws jurisdiction to ask the kid to prove that he is, in fact, old enough to be carrying that shotgun around.

    • …I really don’t think its outside of the laws jurisdiction to ask the kid to prove that he is, in fact, old enough to be carrying that shotgun around.

      What part of innocent until proven guilty is so difficult to comprehend? Absent specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that the kid was not 18 years old, he bore no burden to prove anything.

      • Somewhat along the same lines…

        Do LEOs routinely pull over solo drivers who “look like” they “might” be under 16? Or do they wait for them to commit some traffic offense, then pull them over and ask for a DL? Pulling over an obvious toddler is one thing; “well, he might be 15 or [in my subjective opinion] a young-looking 17” is something else.

      • Asking someone for their ID is fundamentally different then arresting and charging them.

        Again, I don’t think its outside the bounds of normalcy to ask a person who looks like they may, or may not be 18 walking down the street carrying a fully loaded shotgun to produce proof that they are, in fact, allowed to do so. Just like I don’t think its a big deal for the local grocery store to ID people who look like they may be under the legal drinking age when they want to buy alcohol.

        Its just common sense.

        • Again, I don’t think its outside the bounds of normalcy to ask a person who looks like they may, or may not be 18 walking down the street carrying a fully loaded shotgun to produce proof that they are, in fact, allowed to do so.

          Precedent federal case law disagrees with you.

          Just like I don’t think its a big deal for the local grocery store to ID people who look like they may be under the legal drinking age when they want to buy alcohol.

          Actually, they are required under law to card, based on appearance.

          Of course, unlike the right to keep and bear arms, there is no constitutionally protected, inherent human right to consume alcohol. So, the analogy is as moot as the oft-repeated driver’s license analogy.

        • In Colorado, the police are allowed to compel identification if they have reasonable suspicion that a law is being broken. Considering the person in question is again, 18 years old, I think its “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be under the legal age to carry the firearm based on his appearance.

          So to me, this is all above board.

          • Considering the person in question is again, 18 years old, I think its “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be under the legal age to carry the firearm based on his appearance.

            What specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion did they have that he was not 18?

            “He looks young” doesn’t meet that threshold.

            The kid’s lawyer ought to have a field day with that one, with the police officers on the stand: just present each with a lineup of variously aged young men and women, ranging from 17 to 18 years old (or, to prove a point, from 16 to 22 years old), and see how miserably they fail at guessing ages based solely on facial appearance.

    • You might have no problem with divulging personal information to every government employee who asks, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us (including the man in Aurora) are so cavalier about it.

    • Wrong. He did say who he was. He gave the officers his first name.

      What he didn’t do, however, was willingly succumb to a violation of his fourth- and fifth-amendment rights.

  59. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote concerning the entirety of the elements of the Second Amendment; “We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” However, Scalia continued, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

  60. So, here’s a kind of related story…

    A few weeks back, a few weeks out of the hospital, I was walking home, 1.125 miles or so, from the local semi-bohemian coffee shop after close. I live on a variably-sketchy block in a slightly sketchy neighborhood. There are different levels of predation here depending on the season, time of day, and recent enforcement history.

    Coming up to the last intersection before my block, I swerve slightly while I glance left and back, having heard something. I was still a bit unsteady after my hospitalization, thus the swerve, and the walking stick, which stuck out a tad to my left arresting my swerve.

    The gentleman on the half-his-size kid’s bike swore as my irregular movement startled him, interrupting his blowing by me at speed on the left of the sidewalk. No prior call of “On your left!”, nor later communication as he sprinted away after he barely missed me.

    I asked, twice if he was OK: “Oh, sorry. You OK?… You OK?” as he sprinted away and collected himself without looking my way. Until across that intersection, when he slowed waaaaaay down, looking back at me for several beats, zigging back my way, then turning back the other way. Never breaking stride, I watched him move at moderate speed past several houses (big, Victorians on 1/4 acre w grass, drives, and the occasional period-appropriate tree), swivel-necking in all directions. With one last 3 60 survey, he turned into a driveway deep in greater shadow, with no outlets or connections.

    The last I saw him he had started turning as if to position facing *out* from cover of the house.He doesn’t live there. I know the people who live there by sight. Apparently, he was staging for another blitz-attack, snatch and grab, possibly on me should I walk that far.

    So, that encounter was predation. I don’t get targeted, except this time I was unsteady (as if a little drunk, common in this area) and slow-ish, without my usual level of situational awareness. When I’m normal, nobody gets that close to me unawares. And I’ll be facing you as you go by, thank you very much.

    The gentleman might have hesitated just behind me, given the large computer bag I was obviously carrying was slung cross-shoulder, which is less obvious at a distance. A likely target, not so likely as you get closer. My walking stick was similarly not as obviously visible coming up from behind.

    Unsteady, a couple weeks out of the hospital, I am – or was – a more likely target for predation. If he was just getting somewhere, the street was empty the whole time, plus before and after.

    Was I open carrying a non-gun weapon?

    I don’t have one of those hospital canes. As serendipity has been working overtime, before I went in I already owned a nice oak walking stick that looks like nothing so much as a traditional Irish shillelagh, with a gorgeous brass knob vs. wood knot on the top. My mother wouldn’t use a lame cane, so when my sister found something mom would actually be seen with, I got one, so we can go walking together.

    I really needed my stick – or something – for getting around. I didn’t need something that would make so fine a weapon, nor did I choose it for its weapon value. Clearly it is not a gun.

    – So, can I be stopped for simply carrying this thing? What if someone calls it in?

    – What level of suspicion is reasonable and sufficient, for such a guy carrying a walking stick? Older guy? Guy a little unsteady on his feet? What about an unusual stick like this?

    – Given that “I had a stroke. I’m still a bit unsteady.”, is there reason for any additional investigation or interrogation? Does this answer on its face lead to additional or different suspicion: “Only a true criminal would make up that lame story.”, or something. Or is it sufficient, so the stick becomes non-suspicious?

    – Under fatigue, my symptoms come back a bit. (They tell me this is normal, and will reduce over time. It already has.) So, I sometimes carry my walking stick when I’m *not unsteady*, but *may become so* as I get tired from being out for a while. So, I don’t look unsteady, thus my story is obviously BS, and I need to hand over ID to the cop, right?

    I thought of these things as I began walking with that stick, sometimes. I thought it through.

    FWIW, I speculate that the visible stick discouraged a couple other developing predation attempts. It certainly looked that way, as attention picked me up in a scan, then moved along after a closer look. The fact that I had that stick figured in my choice sometimes to walk somewhere at night – “I’m less of a target with this, so on balance its OK to go.”

    I now carry my walking stick rarely, and need it a bit less than that. Meanwhile, I’m visibly more steady, aware and vigorous in my movements than right out of the hospital. If you didn’t know, you couldn’t tell I had been unwell. Indeed, I was out on my bike for 18.2 miles during the day, two weeks ago today. Walking around, I’m now about the same target I was before.

    I wonder about carrying that stick. Is it wrong that I’m happier when I’m carrying an umbrella, for the discouragement potential, and the fact that the wet or threat of it drives the sketchy people away – mostly.

    “Officer, I will gladly provide you additional ID and cooperate as required in your investigation, or if I’m being detained or arrested. Otherwise, I’d like to go on my way.”

    “I’m asking you a question.”

    “And I’m declining to answer, unless its required by an investigation, or if I’m being detained or arrested.”

    “Why won’t you give me an ID? Something I’m gonna find?”

    “I don’t need a contact report with my name on it. So, unless this is an investigation, or I’m being detained or arrested, I decline. If you’re investigating something do tell me what. Maybe I can help.”

    In NYS, given a suspicion, or a call in, which leads to a suspicion, the cops can ask you what you are doing, and why you are in the area. In NYS you are not required to produce ID on demand, absent an investigation, detainment or arrest.

    “You’re turning this into something. You need to show me an ID or you are going to jail.”

    “OK. Arrest me. Or do you mean that I’m under arrest already and I don’t know it?”

      • Thanks, John.

        I wish I could take credit for crafting that analogy. The story’s true. Serendipity gave it to me.

        FWIW, and complicating matters should I be stopped. My recovery is so good, so far, that my story about my stroke might be taken for BS. Fortunately for me, “Mostly dead is a little bit alive”, so various miracle pills allowed the remaining spark to blossom again.

Comments are closed.