http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE#at=120
I open carried in Rhode Island. I’ll do it in Texas—once The Lone Star State gets its you-know-what together. But I’m not an idiot. I know that open carrying can draw unwanted attention, leading to police interaction. Did I say unwanted? Truth be told, attention-getting is an open carry raison d’etre. For one thing, deterrence. For another, gun normalization. But then there’s the dark side of that deal: narcissism. Now I’m not saying that kwikrnu’s decision to open carry a modern sporting rifle through a city (Nashville) indicates some kind of psychological issue. But open carrying a modern sporting rifle through a city wearing a bullet-resistant vest is meshugah and asking for it. And I’m not sure it matters what “it” is.
It’s one thing to push society into a more accepting view of private firearm ownership and another thing to shove.
Society needs more than a shove. They need a swift kick in the backside. These cops were completely out of line. Their fear does not trump the right of the individual. As I pointed out in the comments section of the video. This guy was breaking no laws and the cops had no reasonable suspicion of anything. They performed an illegal warrantless search and exceeded their mandate. If the cop is in fear for his life from a guy who has his hands on his head, he needs to turn in his badge until his balls drop.
This guy is the dumbest guy I have seen this week…..giving gun people a bad name by doing dumb sh*t!!!
I’m sorry… So holding the cops accountable for their Gestapo tactics is dumb now? He knew exactly what reaction that it would cause because the cops are out of control. The more we comply with their thuggery, the more out of control they get.
+1
I have said before that profiling for an individual is actually just risk assessment and is legitimate.
To say every black person wearing a hoody, sustains reasonable cause to stop and question is profiling by police in the negative sense of the definition.
Upon seeing someone with an EBR and a Tac Vest, tell me what your risk assessment would be? I know damn well that I am going to code Orange with a tinge of Red.
My hand is resting on my M&P Shield after drawing it out of my Infidel IWB just enough to make sure the safety is off. And I cross the street and look for cover. Why? Because I’m now in the presence of stupid person doing a stupid thing.
The percentage of hoody wearers that are an actual threat is way lower than the number of Tac Vest AR carriers that have shot up theaters.
Lets go RF’s way for normalization first, well dressed, on the hip. And to soften it more, make it a black polymer that looks like a cops gun.
Hey, what is our goal here?
Given that I spent several years of my life around people who ran around all day in crowds of civilians while wearing full MTVs and carrying “machine-guns”, I don’t feel quite as threatened by non-threatening people wearing gear they are legally allowed to wear.
Serge,
Nashville is neither the Gaza Strip nor Baghdad. This is just an example of an irresponsible firearms owner. He’s not initiating a dialogue, he’s provoking a response.
All this kind of thing does is help the media continue their narrative that gun owners are unhinged.
If you are wearing an OTV and carrying a carbine in public, people are going to assume you are looking for trouble.
@DJ
Sometimes it takes a bit of force to remove filth.
DJ nailed it. Though I would take it a step further and say anyone who agrees with these asshats are in fact unhinged as the media believes. If you can’t see that this is hurting far more than its helping than you are batsh1t crazy.
Sorry, the guy’s a dumb ass.
The dude can do whatever he wants. Too much attention whoring for my taste. I do love how he whines like a bitsh about his “fused” wrist in the cuffs. He should have thought about that before his stunt, whether lawful or not.
Yeah, what do you figure the odds would be on ending up in handcuffs after walking around a major city all tacticool’ed up, carrying a rifle? 99.9999%? Whether he’s within his rights or not (he is), the fact is that he went looking for a confrontation, then whined about it when he got it.
These kind of attention-whoring antics don’t really help the cause of gun rights at all.
Amen, our Laws are based on the premise of “What a reasonable would do/think.” Putting himself out there to challenge the cops while carrying, dressed in body armor…..I would have drawn down on you and you armor would not have helped you !
Common sense and stupidity are mutually exclusive !
pwrserge, I know what you’re saying, and while you’re technically right, you’re also outrageously wrong.
Look, here’s the deal — you have the right, the absolute right, and there is no law against it, to fart in an elevator.
But to do so would make you an absolute jerk and an ass. So don’t do it.
While we cannot presume to know exactly what was going on in that guy’s head, the guy in the video most assuredly did not set out to exercise his rights, he set out to antagonize cops and force a confrontation. Had he answered any of the officer’s questions at all (which he doesn’t absolutely have to, but anyone who wasn’t setting out to be an ass would have), he could have simply said “I am aware of the law and I can assure you it is not loaded.” That’s all it would have taken. He could then have continued to pass out his flyers, public panic would have been abated, and the officers could have actually become assistants in spreading his message, because when sheep called in and reported the gun-carrying individual to 911, the 911 operators would then be able to say “Police have addressed the situation, and the man in question is doing nothing illegal, it is legal to openly carry a rifle.” Then his supposed message would have been spread further and the cause of extending liberty would have been served.
Instead, this guy set out to be as provocative, combative, and non-helpful as possible. And by refusing to answer the most reasonable of questions — “is it loaded” — which ANY rational reasonable thinking person would recognize as a wise and reasonable thing to do, this guy did the gun community and himself no favors. Instead, he committed the equivalent of not only farting in an elevator, but doing it in the most noticeable and ostentatious way possible, loading up on burritos and making as much noise as he could.
The old fart in the elevator defense! Brilliant! I am definitely going to use that one.
I haved mixed feeling about these types of antics, but your post pretty much reflects how I feel.
Well said
I see where you are coming from. But I happen to be tired of being on the defensive to libenazis constantly. My right to cary a weapon is not subject to negotiation or the democratic process. If they don’t like that, they can go to hell.
I’m going to enumerate few things about this since I live in the area.
This guy, from here on known as dickless, has a history of being a shitbird.
Past incidents: Walking around residential neighboorhoods at night with a loaded revolver in each hand (not in holsters, but loaded and in his hands).
Following around park police for miles on foot while open-carrying a draco (ak-style pistol) that he had painted the tip blaze orange so it looked like a toy.
Neither of these is the actions of a sane, stable individual. These are the acts of someone looking for a confrontation. This just adds to his list.
Back to this incident: The law in Tennessee is that you cannot carry a loaded rifle, even with a carry permit.
Strip away everything else and we have a guy who appears to be violating the law because he’s carrying an AR15 with a magazine inserted. Mag in rifle = appears to be loaded. At this step alone, the officer has cause to inspect the rifle and make sure it isn’t loaded. Dickless refuses this polite request.
Now, add on the fact that dickless has a history of unstable behavior.
Now, add on the fact he’s wearing a plate carrier full of loaded magazines.
Now add on that he’s walking through a business district during business hours wearing a vest full of loaded magazines in an area where people exclusively wear suits or at least office attire.
So, you have a guy who, by all appearances is breaking the law, has a history of unstable behavior, had his permit revoked, it potentially wearing body armor, is wearing several loaded magazines, and is all tacticooled out in a business district where that is completely inappropriate.
Everything about that situation scream “check this guy out before he goes balls-out crazy and shoots people.”
His behavior is 1,000% to the Colorado theater shooter than a sane, safe and responsible gun owner.
Metro police have never had a problem with me open carrying by my big-ass 226 with TLR. They aren’t anti-gun by any means. I completely understand and support this officer stopping someone who, from all indicators, seemed to be ready to carry out a mass shooting and at a minimum was signalling that he was illegally carrying.
African Americans had to shock the southern public with sit ins, refusing to go to the back of the bus etc. Gays had to shock the public by kissing, holding hands in public etc. It worked for them, then again they had the media on their side.
Good point about having the support of the media, I think. In poll after poll the mass media gets rated as low as the US Congress by the American people. It would help to have the support of the mass media yet so far not crucial. The Internet is slowly helping to free people from the traditional gatekeepers of society.
In another generation the old “media” very well be irrelivent vs the internet, Honestly I think we need to credit the invention of the internet as the single biggest “thing” to gun people since the 1911.
I’d have to disagree. The first step to equality is social acceptance. Blacks didn’t achieve equality simply because they demanded it. It took a generation. The real heroes of the movement were Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding to name a few. They did much more for the cause than MLK or Malcom X. Same with the gays. They can thank Elton John and Freddie Mercury.
People holding sit ins or kiss ins aren’t generally perceived as about to go on a homicidal rampage. My first thought on seeing a guy walking down the street in a metropolitan area with an assault rifle and tact vest is he’s either 1) LEO looking for someone, and that someone is bad enough that he needs to be walking down the street with his rifle, or 2) he’s either the person the LEO is looking for, or will be looking for soon enough. Either way, no good can come from that situation.
Anyone who doesn’t fall into either of the above options is simply screaming “Look at ME!!!”. The fact that he was at the ready to record it only reinforces that conclusion. Simply answering the officer, who is totally being reasonable in his concern, instead of taking a completely belligerent stance could have ended this video 5 minutes earlier.
This sort of crap is not how we win those sitting on the fence and those marginally on the other side over to our cause.
Assault rifle eh?
Seems like we can see what side of the fence you reside.
Peaceful civil disobedience is vastly vastly different than the risk of a weaponized fool shooting unarmed civilians. The comparison is as foolish as the perp in the video trying to anger the Police. Then again, the Police are way too militarized many times in code red for open carry and tac vests. Be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.
And push we must, at least where we can.
RF stated a phrase in the post that I believe needs amplification: “gun normalization”.
That aspect of gun ownership and use has been hammered by the liberal gun control crowd and their mindlessly regurgitating hoplophobic followers especially in the lefty media and in our liberal run schools.
I see it especially in CA where average gun owners and even off duty LEOs are often shy and almost apologetic when their firearm(s) are seen in public, not for reasons of security, but because of the anti gun atmosphere that has taken pervasive hold particularly in metro and urban areas of this state. This is due to the anti gun politics and the media’s championing of that attitude to its viewers (OMG, police recover BIG BLACK GUN, OMG) for viewer consumption, passive mind control and social engineering.
One of the reasons this state’s comatose voters are so apathetic about gun control legislation is that this anti gun brainwashing has been going on for so long the sheeple populace accepts it as normal and does not see a problem with suppressing firearms ownership and use.
Seeing firearms being carried or transported as a part of everyday life would go a long way toward normalization and acceptance of gun ownership and possession, with a likely parallel rise in courtesy, respect of others, and personal security. But this state’s progressive liberal statist politics has taken the anti gun attitude so far into the negative side of the scale I’m not sure it will ever recover any reasonable semblance of equilibrium.
First answer to the po-po’s question of “Can you stop for a second?” is “No.” He was looking for a confrontation a la Infowars.
That “might” not go well. Try the old standbys: “Am I under arrest?” Am I free to go?”
I was reminded of this:
“Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
Sadly, this is just one more incident in a long line of extremely moronic behavior out of this clown. It makes us all look bad, especially my fellow Tennesseans. His carry permit was revoked after his last incident. Somehow he still got issued an FFL. I’m ready for this idiot to go away. As a gun owner, and as a Tennessee resident that is sick and tired of these foolish antics.
And how difficult is it to figure out how to get your cell phone camera to orient itself correctly so I don’t need to spend 7 minutes with my left ear on my shoulder?
It was a iPhone. And he obviously didn’t RTFM.
Technically it’s YouTube, iPhones orient themselves automatically then embed code into the video file that it will read on playback to correct itself. YouTube doesn’t read the embedded code so it ends up sideways, annoying for sure. 🙂
If you are talking about the suppressor, that is an NFA item and requires a $200 stamp. The paper work has to be signed off on by a sheriff or police chief and has nothing to do with a ccw license.
An FFL is a different ball game.
No. He has an FFL and an sot.
I fully understand the differences between an FFL and NFA items. This man has an FFL in Nashville and he is a full on nuisance. This is the same idiot that painted the tip of an AK pistol orange and went frolicking through a park in Nashville looking for the same kind of trouble a few years ago. He is not anyone you want to throw your hat behind, trust me.
The fact that he has done stupid things in the past makes him no more wrong in this case.
He’s already wrong in this instance, so anything would make it difficult to make him “more” wrong. But, if there is one thing, it would be that he has history of pulling these same kind of stupid antics.
Narcissism, pure and simple. This guy is looking for an encounter.
Well, given that open carrying is his only legal method of carrying (according to Kittenfists), and that open carrying usually garners police attention, and that you’re more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090221100148tsop.nb/topstory.html), wearing a bullet-resistant vest to mitigate your risks just seems like the smart thing for a person concerned about personal safety. Which is, ostensibly, why he’d be carrying in the first place.
Please don’t try to justify stupid…
I was pondering the old west history of not to long ago.
A time when a simpler, more cost effective system of citizenship;
You saw open carry as not a sign of threat, but yet that of protection.
When the town bank got robbed, the sheriff & locals took care of it.
The Militia as an armed citezenry could be called to act in the defense of a city or town was a spontaneous & productive affair.
It was not vigilantism of an undirected effort, yet a well executed cooperance from a payed enforcement professional to standing citizens exercising their rights to keep & bear arms, through to the privelidge of helping & protecting others.
In this regard, if given a known populations violent tendentcies in a given area (high-murder rate per capita) and being known to be called to the most extreme of services any moment, it becomes much more logicaly accepted.
Then the organized militia became Federalized and incorporated into units as part of the regular mititary.
But they still draw from the citizenry.
The guy is an Ahole. It’s one thing to be carrying a cased rifle; the bullet-proof vest is an obvious provocation. Open carry is, 9 times out of 10, more about making a statement than simply enjoying a right.
That’s right. It’s a statement. The statement is that “My rights trump your paranoia 10 times out of 10.” If the cops have a problem with people who obey the laws, perhaps they should turn in their badges. In that area, I can walk down the street in full assault gear with a slung or holstered weapon and those clowns still don’t have a right to touch me.
My thoughts are just because “you can”, why the hell would you want the aggravation? Just like I wouldn’t roll down in a bad part of town in my BMW knowing I would get pulled for thinking a white guy is trying to buy drugs from black community….common sense of what not to do in certain situations….once again I agree he has every right…but why provoke?
Because the cops need a wakeup call. Not one step back. Those cowards need their balls kicked up between their ears. The quickest way to do that is to point out that they too are mere mortals.
I look forward to your exercising that right, pwrserge.
Regardless of him being an a-hole, the arrest appears bogus. The cops seemed dumber than him as well because they were whining that the wire lock kept them from checking to see if the rifle was loaded.
Of course claiming the 5th right off the bat is stupid and sounds like a moron asking for a lawyer be provided. Which sounds like he is asking to be arrested. Of course then the officer started in with the “I am in fear for my life and have children.”
Given that the officer was the only person in the encounter with a weapon that was known to be in condition 1… I found that lack of testicular fortitude disturbing.
Except the detainee didn’t seek out the policeman. The policeman sought out the man with the rifle case on his back. The policeman’s fear is irrelevant.
Of course claiming the 5th right off the bat is stupid and sounds like a moron asking for a lawyer be provided.
Except that a Supreme Court decision from the last session held that claiming the 5th after initially talking with police may be interpreted as probable cause.
And after probable cause comes the summary punishment of arrest, maybe some physical distress in the name of officer safety, time in the tank, and having your person, stuff and residence tossed … for which you have no recourse.
And if they find something they think they can claim in “asset forfeiture” it’s then on you to make the case that you came by whatever it is legitimately. Of course asset forfeiture in principle applies to narcotics trafficking, so they need evidence that you’re involved in trafficking – say like carrying a gun, invoking your 5th amendment rights, and having the whatever-it-is on you.
The point, along with right-to-carry, is that Joe-citizen is at risk of significant summary punishment any time the cops are involved – not from the good ones, but from the bad ones, and / or getting caught up in “the system.”
I think Joe-citizen could make his point better with the same positions but a different attitude and delivery. There’s nothing wrong with smiling. Especially since he’s recording, cite the Supreme Court decision when pleading the 5th. Assert that you intend to comply with commands. Assert what you are required to do, and not, then shut up.
Don’t argue. Simply “I have already said, I want my lawyer. I have already invoked my 5th amendment rights, declined consent to any searches, and confirmed that I am in fact being detained.”
Provoking-a-response-guy also forgot the rule that showing agitation is itself a justification for other intervention by the police.
In conclusion…
Having spent months under the onslaught of babble over the Martin / Zimmerman show trial, that video looks like the same dynamic all over again. Someone stridently, aggressively “where he’s allowed to be”, easy to take offense. Someone else righteously enforcing safety, perhaps a bit more directly than would lead to actual safety.
While Joe-citizen can’t control what the cop in his face chooses to do, I can’t help wonder what would have happened had he, for example, simply talked slower. Calm is contagious, just like agitation.
Here’s an example of exactly the same kind of open carry encounter, where everyone stays calm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSoGwQvMLK0
Of course, the cop may not be so professional. In the case where the cop is actually screwing up, the calmer you remain, the worse the jackboot looks.
I am completely in agreance with you. You have a right to open carry, with a Kevlar vest and to be an ahole to the cops. The consequences of such actions are the cops are going to meet aholism with their own brand. If the guy just stopped and answered the officer to begin with then it is doubtful he would have been detained or his case opened by this officer. Granted there are “warrior” cops out there but this one definitely didn’t fit that mold. I say he was being a good cop.
I agree… it’s completely reasonable for a cop to become concerned when he sees a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle and a black case (that apparently had a suppressed pistol in it).
The rifle was in a vacuformed case, the suppressor was on the rifle. No weapon in this incident was actually uncased.
The kicker is that if the guy wasn’t a giant bag o douche and allowed the cop to do his job he would have been on his way with no issues. But no he is out to prove a point and make a video. Guys like that hurt our cause by making us all look like crazies. Not all cops are giant nut busters they have a job to do like all of us. Being a cop is a customer service job where all of your customers are assholes.
Interesting that you stated that all customers are a-holes. I treed LEO with courtesy even when they are a-holes.
treat
Wow… Poor cops. Maybe they should man up and act like decent human beings, and then fewer people will treat them like the jack booted thugs that they are.
Leonard…Is that you???
Nope… Serge is the name. Hence the handle. I lived a good part of my early life in a country run by jack booted thugs. I have no desire to go back to that now that I live in a country where that is, in theory, illegal.
No, Alex Jones.
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, if you are not breaking any laws, you should be left alone. On the other hand, you can’t blame people for getting nervous in this situation and cops would be pretty much obligated to at least see what the guy is up to. If the police were polite and professional, I wouldn’t have any issues with them talking to the person.
The political issue of whether or not open carry of long guns, especially an EBR, helps normalize things or sets the cause back is probably more cut and dried. I’m sure this analogy will piss some people off, but open carrying a Glock would be like two men walking down the street holding hands. Donning a bullet proof vest and strapping on an AR would be more like one man wearing only a thong and leather chaps leading another man on a chain leash.
“Donning a bullet proof vest and strapping on an AR would be more like one man wearing only a thong and leather chaps leading another man on a chain leash.”
Obviously, you’ve never been to the Capital Hill neighborhood of Seattle…
Or DC.
Zing.
I think ever since the armored bank robbery incident in LA a few years ago the cops would rightly profile a guy in a Kevlar vest carrying as a potential threat and question him.
Part of me agrees that OCing a rifle in a city is a dumb idea but another part of me says it is needed.
Back in the day guns were a common sight, if someone saw you loading a rifle bag into your trunk there would be no MWAG call to 911. Yet this happens all the time in urban areas, the sight of anything and everything GUN sends the general urban public into a panic and they call 911, the thought the gun could be lawfully owned by someone who has no ill will doesn’t even come to mind. Urban areas have become so sensitive to even HEARING the word gun that its time to shock them.
The freedom riders had to SHOCK us into desegregation, gay activists had to SHOCK us into accepting that two gay people can kiss or hold hand in public, I think its time to SHOCK urban communities into accepting the sight of lawfully owned firearms and firearms related business. If we don’t do something the numbers of lawfully “visible’ guns will continue to drop in many urban areas and we will slowly loose the fight.
Sort of like the blue tooth, the first few times you saw someone using one you thought they were a crazy person talking to themselves. Now its normal.
If you think about it gun rights and gay rights are very similar except guns are going in the direction of being more restricted while gays are getting more rights. Back in the day if you were gay you had to hide it, no one could know, it was taboo. Now in most urban areas you had better hide your gun ownership, not discussed it, keep it under wraps less the cops be called on you or you receive a lecture about how you are an evil school shooter or zimmerman in waiting.
“Part of me agrees that OCing a rifle in a city is a dumb idea but another part of me says it is needed.”
Sure. No problem with that. Exercise legal rights, legally and sanely.
Just don’t be stupid and provocative about it.
Look, I’ll tell you, before I was a Person Of The Gun, the first time I went to a gun show, it was pretty frickin’ unnerving to see a bunch of guys openly walking around with AR15’s on their backs (with little flags on them saying “for sale”, but still…) I’d never seen that before. It was concerning.
But after an hour at the show, I still hadn’t been shot. Imagine that. So I quit worrying about it.
If people saw open carry more frequently, they may very well ratchet down their code-red alarm responses to it.
Just remember that if you act suspicious, people may be suspicious of you. And you can’t blame them for that.
If you set out to provoke an encounter, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the middle of an encounter.
If I were to do something like this, in an effort to bring awareness to open carry and extend the right of those who live in open carry states, I’d probably invite my lawyer out to lunch and have him/her walking with me. When the cops arrive, as they will, my lawyer could explain in one sentence what’s going on, and the cops would absolutely step out of the way (or, if they behave like serge is afraid of, well, I’ve got a lawyer right there, y’know?)
Not that everyone needs a lawyer at their side. I’m just saying that’s the tactic I’d want to take. But then again, not everyone feels a need to go provoking cops into a confrontation either. If you’re truly interested in excercising rights and raising awareness of legality, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it.
Same thing as saying Martin shouldnt have worn a hoodie or your teenager shouldnt have blue hair. If we werent all such fans of pre-criming everything we see there’d have been no stop. Doesnt matter what Im dressed like or what property I’m carrying with me. As long as there is no harm to person or property there is no crime.
My attire and my property shouldnt be probable cause.
Was it really in a locked case? If you live in a dense city chances are you park in a garage. Should I be stopped every time I walk from my apartment to my car for a range day?
^ This.
See my similar comment below.
From what I picked up from the video, the EBR wasn’t in the case but slung to his back.
A Kevlar vest is a lot different than a hoodie. Common sense please.
Not at all different. It’s just a garment. Hoodie, pasties, puffy shirt, spiked road warrior football pads, hot pants, etc… it’s all just clothing. Not cause to be harassed. Certainly not cause to be detained.
A Kevlar vest is a lot different than a hoodie.
Not really.
Both are utilitarian but also signal membership in a group or culture. Consider going to a Fortune-500 job interview. What do you wear? Not just a suit, but the right suit for the job.
People signal all the time with clothing, posture, gestures, key words with alternative in-group meaning. When we had field anthropologists, they studied such stuff. (They’re all cultural anthropologists now, telling stories about who is oppressing whom.)
Body armor is not just clothing. It is tactical equipment.
That’s like saying a tank is just transportation. It is worn when the user has an expectation of being shot at, or in this case wanting to provoke a police encounter. It is uncomfortable, hot and heavy so only worn when needed.
I’m sorry I wasn’t explicit enough…
Clothing, equipment, posture, movement are *all* signaling sometimes. You’ve described what wearing body armor might signal. Or not. Depends on the rest of the context.
*I* was replying to the assertion that wearing a hoodie & wearing body armor are completely different. No, in the sense of signaling membership, intent, they aren’t.
For example, if I’m somewhere near where the tactical police training happens, a guy carrying a long-gun case wearing a vest might just be walking to his car. Or, if I’m in a particular neighborhood in my city or any other, wearing a hoodie, or a hoodie of a particular color, or a bandanna, or etc. may signal, explicitly, membership in a criminal gang, complete with territorial claims, and well understood penalties for infractions.
Of course they signal somewhat different things – they are different objects. But both can, and do signal. And both can, and do signal different thing depending on the context.
Hard to know what’s going through peoples’ minds when they do things like this but a big part of me wants to think of all the $ he will waste in court battles that could have been donated to real organizations like GOA or SAF.
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, if you are not breaking any laws, you should be left alone. On the other hand, you can’t blame people for getting nervous in this situation and cops would be pretty much obligated to at least see what the guy is up to. As long as the police were polite and professional, I wouldn’t have any issues with them talking to the person.
The political issue of whether or not open carry of long guns, especially an EBR, helps normalize things or sets the cause back is more cut and dried. I’m sure this analogy will piss some people off, but open carrying a Glock would be like two men walking down the street holding hands. Donning a bullet proof vest and strapping on an AR would be more like a dude wearing only a speedo and leather chaps leading another man with a spiked collar on a chain leash.
Is it bad that I find the latter example both disturbing and hilarious? The point is that neither example is illegal.
Removing my comments because I support shocking the public with OC? Brave…real brave…
Legal is legal.
When we start telling people what they can or can’t do when that behavior is legal, then we have ceased being a free country.
Is it legal? If so, then let the man be. Or we are slaves.
I agree 100%, if its legal its legal…if you don’t like the law get it changed. I know a lot of you are afraid of OC leading to gun control but you either normalize guns with the urban public or you lose the long game.
Well, there’s the question — apparently (not being in Tennessee so I don’t know the law) but apparently, the cop is allowing that if it’s loaded it’s illegal, if it’s unloaded it’s legal.
How is the cop to know?
So he asked the simple question — “is it loaded”? And the guy absolutely refused to answer. And not only declined to answer, but did so in the most obstructive way possible.
Wouldn’t that raise your suspicion level? Was it really out of line for an officer who’s being polite as hell, and being met with combativeness by a guy wearing a bulletproof vest, to start to get a little suspicious?
And since when do we have to illegalize all stupid dumbass behavior? Why can’t we recognize that we live in a society and, even though some things are legal, they’re just not polite? How would answering “it’s not loaded” have impinged on the guy at all, in any real, tangible way?
As far as I know (which ain’t all that far), when you go into a public restroom, you’re not supposed to crap in the sink, you’re supposed to crap in the toilet. Is it actually illegal to crap in the sink? I don’t know. But does it have to be illegal? Isn’t it pretty plain obvious that you shouldn’t do that? Why do we have to write a law about it? And why would someone feel that “hey, it’s not illegal, so I’m going to exercise my right to crap in the sink”? Why the hell would someone do that?
It all comes down to intention. Either you intend to get along or you don’t. Either you intend to exercise your rights and your freedoms, or you intend specifically to antagonize and try to force an issue specifically so you can file a lawsuit. Seems to me, based on what little I saw, that our rifle-carrying vest-wearer would fit in that second category.
Wait… the video and description say he was transporting a rifle in a locked case. How is that open carry? And, then, what relevance is a vest? I guess the cops should stop the Brinks truck guys too.
Ridiculous.
He’s a long way from being a Brinks guy…
For a moment, when the police officer cited Terry v. Ohio, I thought this was actually going to become an interesting legal discussion between two people who sort of knew what they were talking about.
It would have been awesome if the OC dude had actually given the cop the name and phone number of a pro-2A attorney to call. Had the attorney actually shown up, this might have been an interesting video instead of just another OC haul-away.
If the guy carrying had articulated his knowledge about Terry v Ohio, and asked the cop what crime the cop had reasonable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit that would’ve put the police on the spot. The fact that he couldn’t makes me think this guy is unfamiliar with Terry Stops.
It appeared the reason was suspicion of carrying an accessible loaded rifle.
Carrying an accessible, loaded rifle is a crime? Why? How about carrying an accessible, unloaded rifle which a person can load in a few seconds? What is the difference? Either way, millions of people who hunt or visit ranges are criminals.
Is it a crime to possess a 3,000 pound missile capable of killing dozens of people? Then everyone who owns or drives a car is a criminal.
Is it a crime to possess a gasoline container and a lighter or matches? Then every smoker who keeps gasoline on hand for a lawn mower, weed whipper, or chain saw is a criminal.
OR NOT.
I would say that there was reasonable suspicion of him pulling a Santa Monica College or Aurora theater type shooting. You just don’t know when you see a guy with a ballistic vest and a long gun walking around a downtown area.
@uncommon Sense- That nuance will vary from state to state. Tennessee is not a traditional open carry state. While open carry is prohibited for anyone who doesn’t have a carry permit, having a permit enables persons to transport long guns — rifles or shotguns — in their vehicles. The firearms can be loaded, but cannot have a shell in the chamber.
According to the man’s comments on his actual YouTube video, his rifle was locked in a case and no part of the rifle was visible.
What if the guy was selling his rifle to someone and meeting the buyer in a public location? What if the man was carrying a cased rifle and walking to meet a friend who would drive them somewhere? There are several possible “legitimate” reasons that a person could have a rifle in a case in a “downtown” location. But why does he need a “legitimate” reason? What if the man wanted to hold up a sign that said, “Martians are going to kill us all.” Such a message nor the reason for displaying it is “legitimate”. But that doesn’t mean the man cannot hold up such a sign. So why the double standard when it comes to carrying a mechanical contraption made of wood, plastic, and steel?
As to his status regarding wearing a bulletproof vest, that is irrelevant.
Because the mechanical contraption made of wood, plastic, and steel (the firearm), is specifically designed, ultimately, to harm or kill a living creature, whereas, although the hypothetical sign might potentially be used to do so, that is not its express purpose.
Can we teach him how to mount the camera right side up? I’ve got a kink in my neck now…
Or use a video editing program lol!
Nothing like getting Taco neck while watching u-tube.
Taco neck, lol.
being an idiot or a “narcissist” is not a legitimate excuse for the militarized police to violate the law and the Constitution.
Perhaps following him around and laughing at him would have been a more appropriate response?
Can’t watch the video at work, but from what I have read on other firearms related sites and forums there are a few important details that are apparently missing from the video:
-The case was a form-fitting kydex “case”, clearly showing the profile of the rifle
-Part of that profile was the unmistakable outline of a suppressor
-Suppressors are by default illegal in TN. However, having and producing the Federal NFA paperwork (Form 3 or tax stamp) is an affirmative defense from prosecution. Kwikrnu, while being an FFL and eligible to own Form 3 suppressors, refused to produce the documentation and was therefore arrested for illegal possession of a suppressor.
-As mentioned before, this isn’t his first stunt. He cares nothing for gun rights (has said so himself in the past), just trying to the the police to screw up so he can get a payday at the taxpayer’s expense.
And yet imagine if a dozen people did the same thing in every city in the U.S. every year? Law enforcement personnel would finally learn the law.
I sincerely doubt it. What would happen is exactly what happened here in CA. Now, ALL forms of open carry are illegal, as a direct result of all the OC demonstrations. Add to that most of the large counties are “won’t issue” and you have effectively disarmed the law abiding citizens.
Kwik2sue is not out to help the cause and educate people on the benefits or legality of open carry. He is out simply to get arrested, get treated unfairly, and make a profit off of a lawsuit. That’s. it.
If you think anything else you are way too naive.
+100
This guys actions harms the gun rights movement. He disrespects legal carry.
We need to smack down the po-po for this type of activity. While the po-po were interrogating that guy, scores of people drove cars past them. Any one of those drivers could have immediately plowed through a crosswalk and killed a dozen people. And each of those cars had gallons of gasoline that the drivers could use to firebomb and kill hundreds of people. Why didn’t the police stop every car and interrogate every driver?
The man was wearing a ballistic vest and carried what looked like a rifle case on his back. Big deal. Having hardware on your person that a lunatic could use to kill people does not constitute probable cause to detain and interrogate people. If someone wears a helmet and fire retardant suit in a car, does that constitute probable cause to detain the driver and interrogate them? If a person carries a bowling ball in a bag as they walk across a road/highway overpass, does that constitute probable cause to detain and interrogate them? Neither does a person who has a ballistic vest and rifle case on their back.
Yah, a bowling ball and a firearm are exactly the same thing.
I would bet good money that bowling balls were used in more homicides than automatic rifles in the past ten years.
How much money you willing to lose?
Given that, in the US, automatic rifles have been used in damn near zero homicides? Not a lot.
Crunkleross,
Criminals have dropped bowling balls, heavy rocks, and/or large bricks from overpasses and killed motorists driving under the overpass and yet you are apparently okay with a person carrying such an object as they walk across an over pass. Is your position that people can possess objects in public as long as violent criminals have not used them to harm people very often? How many times does a criminal have to misuse an object before it becomes
forbiddenverbotten? Or is your standard dependent on their clothing? Is it okay if a person has a bowling ball in a bag on an overpass as long as they are dressed nice? What if the person who possesses a bowling ball in a bag on an overpass is wearing a black outfit and a ballistic vest? Is it illegal at that point?How come you didn’t respond to my parallels of deadly cars and drivers wearing a fire retardant suit and helmet? What is your response to a person who possess a gasoline container and a cigarette lighter? Why shouldn’t the police detain and interrogate all of those people?
Has anyone else noticed the contradiction between this sort of stunt and the sober prudence that should motivate gun ownership and carrying (whether concealed or open)? Legally, one can walk down the street in full tactical gear with a bunch of weapons strapped and slung on, but it’s not prudent, just as it would be extremely imprudent (but still legal) for me to wander through southeast DC at midnight while flashing wads of cash). Visibly flaunted an armed and armored state well beyond the norm for defensive carry should draw attention, because it proclaims a potential threat that is well beyond the norm.
Those of us who have guns for self-defense do so because we know that it can be a dangerous and unpredictable world, one in which we cannot trust all of our fellow men and women. And the guy who is flamboyantly kitted-out for a firefight is going to be at the top of my threat list, and if I see him walking down the street I’ll 1. check my own weapon(s) for readiness and 2. call to cops who can ask him some questions as to why he’s doing what he is.
I’d definitely do the same. I think you just articulated reasonable suspicion perfectly. The people open carrying to provoke police need to realize that because it’s out of the norm they are granting reasonable suspicion as a result of the unusual item they are carrying.
You miss the part that reasonable suspicion needs to pertain to a CRIME. What CRIME did the cop suspect the guy was committing?
I think the cop was thinking the crime he was going to commit would be murder. I don’t agree with the cop, but part of interacting with them is being respectful, and part is knowing what you’re talking about. He was neither. This is a very good video in relation of how to handle police during a stop solely because you have a weapon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=skpfzZ5vz14
This guy is a well known idiot in Tennessee. Search kwikrnu He does this a lot just to grandstand.
I certainly hope he missteps one day….
I watched the same video as all of you did. The cop stepped up with the safety of the public and himself in mind and just wanted to have a civil conversation. This guy acted like a douche from the get go. This cop did his job. Gold star for him. Bitch slap for the douche.
Granted, he is a dipstick, what did he do that was illegal? Contempt of cop?
Civility. He was belligerent. Contempt is not quite right but more like uncooperative. I live in Nashville and work a few blocks from this incident. This dipstick is more polemic than Ann Coulter.
I am thankful this cop did his job!!
Who initiated the “conversation”. If the guy then started to run away THEN the cop likely had probable cause. As he did no such thing there is none.
The cop is protecting public safety? Please. Even less so than if making a speeding stop. Cop is concerned for his own safety? BS from WHAT?
The LEO performed a classic Terry (Terry v Ohio) stop which the SCOTUS said is constitutional. It’s not an unwarranted NYC style stop and frisk. He was clad in body armor and carrying a rifle. I would consider it a dereliction of the cops duty if he didn’t atleast question him because its not normal behavior. The only issue I have is the other cops opening his case and then charging him with the contents. They should have gotten a warrant. Which wouldn’t have taken that long.
As previous poster said this is just another stunt (though more level headed IMO) than his previous ones.
Previous stunts involved:
1. Using an obscure law to walk around with a navy black powder pistol in hand
2. Paint a AK draco pistol tip orange and go walking around a city park in camoflauge with the gun.
I live in Tennessee, and am not a fan of this guy’s antics. But the Draco incident resulted in a memo to the Nashville area police saying that AK and AR “pistols” are legal to carry and you can’t arrest someone for doing so. Sounds like a win to me.
Some of his other stunts, and arguments, leave a lot to be desired. His loss of carry permit made sense.
Quikrnu needs to slow down and think more in his quest to improve gun laws – and he needs to leave his ego behind.
I prefer open carry in the vast majority of situations. But you help normalize guns by carrying a properly holstered handgun and going about your business. That said, this guy did nothing illegal and the cops need to be punished. Just because the sheeple might get scared doesn’t justify kidnapping this guy.
Thank God for people like this, gun rights supporters need people to ensure that our police (and everyone else for that matter) knows what exactly is legal and what is not. I cannot tell you how many inquisitive and disbelieving looks I get when I am in a conversation with someone (who is not in the know about guns) and I tell them that civilians can own armor and vests! This is educational material just as it is edgy narcissism. Why would you not stand up for this guy just as you did the shotgun loader in DC?! Don’t mince words or be so wishy-washy on freedom. It’s not a requirement to either be unarmed or appear unarmed; just as it’s not a requirement to be a soft target or appear to be a soft target.
As others have stated this guy does this kind of stuff all the time here in Nashville. He has been doing this stuff for the better part of five years now. It’s all about publicity. He also does this stuff to be confrontational. Several years ago a local gun board had links to a forum (dog breeding) where he had caused an outrage and got banned from. Just another tool looking for attention.
This was a response to a post above but also here as a general statement:
I have said before that profiling for an individual is actually just risk assessment and is legitimate.
To say every black person wearing a hoody, sustains reasonable cause to stop and question is profiling by police in the negative sense of the definition.
Upon seeing someone with an EBR and a Tac Vest, tell me what your risk assessment would be? I know damn well that I am going to code Orange with a tinge of Red.
My hand is resting on my M&P Shield after drawing it out of my Infidel IWB just enough to make sure the safety is off. And I cross the street and look for cover. Why? Because I’m now in the presence of stupid person doing a stupid thing.
The percentage of hoody wearers that are an actual threat is way lower than the number of Tac Vest AR carriers that have shot up theaters.
Lets go RF’s way for normalization first, well dressed, on the hip. And to soften it more, make it a black polymer that looks like a cops gun.
Hey, what is our goal here?
KCK,
Ever been to a range or a gun rights rally in a “free” state? Dozens of people dressed as you described with loaded long guns slung on their back (not in cases, either, as the subject of this article) and none of them are criminals or have any intention of going out to harm anyone.
The fact that a person has a firearm or certain clothing does not make them an immediate threat any more than anything else. You have to assess the entire situation. Is the person of interest relaxed and talking to people around them? Are they handing out literature? Are they with a family? Are they smiling? Are they out simply walking and enjoying fresh air?
Anti-gun people can use your own standard against you. In their mind anyone who has any kind of gun, in any setting, either openly or concealed, is a ticking time bomb just waiting for the slightest provocation to start shooting. And that is sufficient reason in their mind to tell you that you cannot have any guns, period.
There is a clear purpose of wearing body armor with a rifle sling over your shoulder at pro-2a rallies in states with open carry laws. I doubt this cop would stop any of them. What this cop saw was a guy in body armor walking with a rifle case when no pro-2a rallies going on. And if I was stopped with that get up on my way to a rally I would have told the cop. But this guy is an armed and armored douchbag just walking around downtown Nashville. The cops have a responsibility to investigate and he wasn’t having it. Now if this cop had tackled him, handcuffed him and kept him on the ground while other cops dogged piled on him for ignoring the cops first query, I think we all should be up on arms about it.
Mecha75,
While I stated one clear purpose, there are countless other possible purposes. More importantly, our rights do not depend on a “purpose” — which is totally and utterly subjective and wide-open to abuse.
Does our right to hold up a sign only apply to a rally? No. Neither does a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms only apply to hunting or rallies.
That is why it was wrong for the police to stop that man. The man never pointed his rifle at anyone. (In fact it was in a case.) The man had not verbally threatened anyone. The man had not indicated with his body language (e.g. rushing someone) that he was a threat to anyone. The man did not match the description of a criminal in the area.
Was the man unconventional? Yes. Did he break any laws? No. Therefore the police had no authority to detain nor interrogate him.
You are right that you don’t need a purpose or a sign to show your support for the 2A. You missed the gist of what I wrote. It’s obvious that the purpose of the getup is for a pro-2a rally. It isn’t clear when a lone man is just walking around downtown armed and armored. The LEOs acted correctly in investigating why he would be out like that. Even if it is legal. They see it as a potential threat to public safety. That is their job.
I live in TN, and this isn’t the first time Embody’s been in the news for firearms related fun. I think that his TN HCP revoked a few years ago. I’m not a lawyer (shock!) but I’ve looked over TCA 39-17 part 13 a few times. TCA 39-17-1307 prohibits carrying a rifle or shotgun with a round in the chamber if you have a HCP. If you don’t have a HCP, you cannot carry a rifle or shotgun with the ammunition in close proximity to the weapon and person. Now, I think the cops attitude should have been better, but pay attention around 1:47 when the cop asks Embody if he has a round in the chamber or if its loaded. He even says something like “I don’t mind if it’s not loaded, but I need to know..” Embody just likes stirring things up.
BTW
I have found when people shove, I shove back.
Try gently putting you arm on their shoulder and as you stroll and talk, you gently steer them in the right direction.
I cant watch the video right now. Did he have a loaded mag in and a round chambered? I only ask because although we can legally OC a rifle in TN, a round can not be chambered. In otherwords if he has a mag in the rifle then (even if I dont agree) I can see why he would be stopped.
^^^^This!
I only ask because although we can legally OC a rifle in TN, a round can not be chambered. In otherwords if he has a mag in the rifle then (even if I dont agree) I can see why he would be stopped.
Doesn’t this boil down to an excuse to roust anybody seen carrying a gun? You can’t see whether the thing is loaded, so you gotta stop them & check. Does gun ownership in TN play out like driving a car – by doing so you are consenting to being challenged on demand for evidence of compliance? With a car it’s driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance.
I’m curious if the TN law reads like that.
Im not talking about OCing any firearm, just rifles. You can OC a handgun condition one all day long. Im not certain but but I would say a magazine in the rifle in public MAY give the officers cause to check. But again Om not certain
Dont get me wrong, if someone is carrying a gun and not breaking the law or acting suspicious, they should be left alone. Im just saying that in TN, if its a rifle and theres a mag loaded with the bolt closed it may constitue as probable cause.
Good analogy with the car but being stopped to check insurance is a bit different from being able to seethat a firearm is likley loaded with one in the pipe. Especially if being openly dislayed.
I don’t think the challenge for insurance in TN unless there is an accident.
And he actually thinks he’s doing us a favor. Go home and get a job instead of wandering the streets.
Why didn’t the police carefully monitor the situation? They could have followed him with the SWAT team in case he broke the law. That may have been a more reasonable approach if they had a suspicion that he was planning a criminal activity.
While his behavior is not civil, polite, or well reasoned given the locale, it is not against the law. I think we must demand that our police forces concentrate on law enforcement instead of their paranoid tactics.
This just makes me shake my head and sigh.
The problem here is Tennessee law as TheDabbo explained above. Assuming he is correct, Tennessee law criminalizes a person who carries a long gun openly if a round is in the chamber. Even then, I don’t believe a person carrying a long gun openly which could have a round in the chamber in violation of Tennessee law is sufficient probable cause to detain and interrogate someone. And in this case the long gun was in a case. (I have no idea if Tennessee law criminalizes loaded guns in cases.) So I think that man will have a pretty good chance of prevailing in a lawsuit.
The rifle had a wire lock on it as well.
Even then, I don’t believe a person carrying a long gun openly which could have a round in the chamber in violation of Tennessee law is sufficient probable cause to detain and interrogate someone.
That’s the nub, right there. Is it sufficient probably cause? (Actually “reasonable suspicion”, which is the weaker standard required for a stop. You need probable cause for an arrest and / or charge.)
I’ve OC’d for three years in Albuquerque, NM, a Glock 21 as well as a 1911. Beyond two nervous nellies, I’ve never had an issue with the citizens or the police.
If I was a cop and saw a guy walking down the street wearing a bullet resistant vest and carrying a long gun I would follow the guy to see what his intent was until I could see by his actions if he was just a law abiding citizen or a terrorist intent on another Mumbia massacre.
But to act as if this guy was being reasonable even if he had a right to do what he did is to me, delusional. There has been to many stories of homicidal maniacs wearing B.R. vests as they get into position to commit another massacre for me just to stand by while “maybe” this guy is just making a “statement”.
The cops weren’t wrong in being concerned, they were wrong making contact before the guy actually broke a law.
Exactly
+1
I beg to differ. Cops have the right to stop you if you are doing something out of the ordinary and ask you a few questions about what you are doing. And while I don’t condone them searching his case, he was being a douchebag to them so they went fishing for a reason to make his life a bit more difficult.
Mecha,
Doing something out of the ordinary is NOT sufficient reason for police to detain and interrogate someone. Anyone — including police officers — can certainly approach a person and ask any questions they want. And that person has the option to answer the questions or decline to answer and go on about their business. If a person of interest declines to talk to a police officer’s questions, that is not sufficient cause to detain them and interrogate them.
Police officers must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person of interest has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime before they can detain and interrogate them. A person walking around with a ballistic vest and a cased rifle (or even an uncased rifle) over their back is not sufficient. Why? Because it is not illegal to have a ballistic vest. And it is not illegal to have a cased or even uncased rifle over your back in Tennessee (apparently if you have a concealed handgun permit).
Police officers must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person of interest has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime before they can detain and interrogate them.
Exactly so. The cops *do not* have the right simply because you are doing something “out of the ordinary.” (We’ve criminalized so much stuff that anything out of the ordinary, or indeed ordinary, can be tied to a possible crime, but that’s a different problem. Blowing bubbles in public – might be high, which is illegal.)
The cop actually had an articulable suspicion that Joe-Citizen might have been about to commit a crime. “Dude, you don’t see a long gun and body armor much. I’m concerned that you could be a copy-cat, after those unfortunate nutjobs got so much publicity.”
I think the cop’s particular suspicion was obvious, but he didn’t have the conviction, or feel the need, to articulate it.
That would have been interesting.
Someone wearing a ballistic vest with a rifle slung over their shoulder is not illegal in states that allow open carry. This is true, however to decide to walk around alone in a downtown area with that getup is unusual behavior and it is completely reasonable for the police to believe that a crime has been or may be committed. One could say “he looks like he is up to no good.” That is the purpose of the questioning. Which this d-bag refused to be a party of. Again, its his right to refuse.
I highly doubt you would have any issue with the cops stopping someone who is on a public sidewalk and staring intently into park cars as he meanders down the street? He isn’t doing anything illegal and has a right to be on the public sidewalks.
Its not like he had his EDC printing on his shirt and the cops overreacted.
Seems to me the cop was behaving in the same manner as George Zimmerman. Citizens have a right to follow or interrogate others on the street. Or that’s the gist of the argument made by the GZ fans on this site. This cop, a citizen, was doing the same thing.
There was no evidence that GZ was interrogating anyone. However, people can ask you a question. Of course you can also tell them to piss off. Straw Man.
Interrogating/asking a question? Point is a lot of GZ fanbois gave the nod of approval to this cops behaviour. Whether they realize or accept it or not.
Leonard Embody is an attention-whoring shitbag who does NOTHING positive for pro-gun advocacy. If anything, he’s the anti-gunners’ best friend, causing all sorts of fears among the uneducated and undecided on the issue of gun rights.
Frankly, the sooner he makes a misstep and loses his firearm rights, they better off we’ll all be.
John
The guy was very stupid, IMO. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean you should do it if it will create the following reaction from people (especially women):
“OH MY GOD! THAT is legal!?”
And then the move starts to outlaw open carry and who knows what else.
Also, to Robert Farago, I would not call the AR-15 a “modern sporting rifle.” Ownership of guns needs nothing to do with sport. RKBA is not about sport. The term “modern sporting rifle” inadvertently plays into the gun control movement’s hands.
High-order asshattery. If I had a business some dood walks in wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, he’s getting a face full of 9mm muzzle and he damn well better do what I tell him to do.
An you sir would be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. (Unless you have a “No Guns” sign posted at the entrance.)
This guy is a prick, and he pisses me off, as do all the others that make videos like this. They are purely attention getters. Maybe mommy ignored them, who knows.
I live in Chicago, illinois, aka “Chiraq”. What pisses me off is tools like this make the advancing and retaining of pro-gun laws that much harder. Dorks exactly like this one do nothing but fuel the fire for the antis. Every negative cliche the antis regurgitate, this guy does. What legitimate purpose does it serve, other than promote confrontation and draw attention to himself?
While everyone else is quietly carrying, following the laws, for their protection, this idiot has to parade around only to draw attention to make a statement, because he legally can.
Like 99.9% of people in an urban environment, If I seen this dork walking around with a rifle case and armor I would think the dude was messed in the head and about to shoot up the place. Why? Because that is usually what happens moments after someone like this is spotted.
The cop is out to protect the citizens and the preponderance of visual evidence suggest you seek to do harm to others. This is further increased by you refusing to show ID and answering a simple question or two.
The funny thing is, he is all Mr. Badass when he is in an area he knows he is safe and around cops who can’t and won’t harm him. I would love to see if this dork has the balls to walk and talk like this in the Englewood or Austin of Chicago on a hot weekend summer night. I bet this pussy would piss and shit his pants before he got down the first block.
If you’re not suspicious of a guy walking around with a rifle and wearing a vest, you’re a fool.
But yeah, let’s see this guy go down the road aways to Memphis. He’d have the shit kicked out of him and his kit stolen.
Or Memphis will be down a half dozen lowlifes.
“Every negative cliche the antis regurgitate, this guy does.” Oh, you mean anti cliches that armed citizens are trigger happy psychos that shoot anyone and everyone in sight … which this guy did not do?
Stop worrying about pleasing the antis because you will never please them until all firearm possession and onwership is forbidden.
Instead, share FACTS with people rather than personl judgements and emotions.
Society isn’t precise and clean. Spirit of the law is more important than letter because the law can’t be perfect in all circumstances. Therefore it requires common understanding, case by case judgement, and cooperation.
A*holes can weaponize the legal system to harass, cause harm, personally profit, and scam the rest of society. Then if you want to change the laws so that people can’t weaponize them, they will lose some of their broadness and therefore some of their defensive effects on the innocent .
Look at how the WBC has cleverly weaponized the defensive protection of the 1st amendment into an offensive form allowing them to safely harass people and personally profit.
I just don’t know how a cop or a person is supposed to react to this guy. It looks like they approached him and asked for more information, and were fairly knowledgeable about what is legal, and ultimately decided they’d rather personally suffer legal consequences than live with the possibility of letting the next spree killer do his spree killing. The guy probably could have walked around all day as is his right if he just was less of a combative jerk about it.
All this is going to do is cause the court rulings open carriers cherish to be decided differently next time and create pressure to change particular laws where pressure rarely comes up naturally.
Somebody tell that uppity gun guy to go sit in the back of the bus and just be thankful that he has a seat.
I just don’t understand white people these days. There was a time when they knew their place.
🙂
The guy is an idiot.
The gun carrier was being a jerk.
Answering a question does not remove your rights, especially if you are within your rights to begin with. The next time the Po Po will respond with overwhelming force and forget about the questions.
If this cop came across one of his buddies walking down the street with a vest and a rifle, would he have treated him the same? No, he would not have. The 2nd Amendment isn’t here to pick and choose who can and who can’t – it specifies a right for everyone.
This cop was out of line – pure and simple.
Sorry, but that is an asinine statement. If the cop came across one of his buddies with that get up his buddy would not have been an ahole. The cop is not out of line for stopping this guy and asking him questions. He was doing something out of the ordinary. The only thing if the line is the fishing expedition they did to “find” something wrong to get back at his douchbaggery.
“This cop was out of line – pure and simple.”
Wait a minute. Did you watch the video? Conversation starts off –
Police Officer “How are you doing?”
Dude “What’s up?”
Police Officer “Can you stop for second?”
Dude “I’d rather not.”
The cop is just trying to do his job!
One can only dream that Philly or NYC LEO’s might someday be this polite and patient. One minute the rifle-carrying fellow is blabbing about the law. And yet, seconds later, he can’t acknowledge the legal details of a Terry stop? He has a suppressor, but isn’t carrying a copy of the paperwork? The LEO asks him if the rifle is loaded, but he won’t answer? The time to read the relevant laws is BEFORE you pretend to rely on them, no?
I’ve seen some videos on here of rude cops, but this one was professional and attempted to reason with the guy. He at least knew a little about the law . We’ve seen worse and yes, another searched him anyway.
How much better would this have been if the locked, taped and zipped tied case had been full of copies of the Bill of Rights, Tennessee and Nashville gun laws instead of a rifle/suppressor? I think the point would have been better made.
It is his right to open carry a rifle, but some people here believe he was dumb for doing it at all and especially while wearing the vest. For these folks I ask:
Is there any rifle and any combination of circumstances that which this guy would be allowed to open carry said rifle? Are we all preordained to be closet legal rifle owners?
“locked, taped and zipped tied case had been full of copies of the Bill of Rights, Tennessee and Nashville gun laws”
That is a FANTASTIC idea!! Let the video submissions begin with lawsuits to follow!
+1
Not saying the guy was dumb for wearing armor and having a rifle slung over his shoulder. I am saying the guy is dumb for being a big douche to the cops. Especially when this one was reasonable in his dealings with this douchebag.
‘Citizen’ is acting like an a.s.s.h.o.l.e, he is NOT HELPING the cause, he is “yelling fire in a crowded theater”. End of story. Thanks for setting my gun rights backward.
4:30 into the video and he claims the police have had his rifle case for 5 minutes.
He stammers and repeats himself nervously.
Fail.
At 5:00 he asks the police if they know the law. This isn’t a game show!!
Smart? No. But ANYONE saying he deserved to get treated the way he did, with his rights violated the way they were, are just as bad as anti-gunners, period. And you, Robert Farago, are currently no better than an anti-gunner, saying someone doing something silly and ill-advised, but NOT illegal, deserved what he got.
TTAG just dropped a few notches in my book.
Wait a minute. Did you watch the video? Conversation starts off –
Police Officer “How are you doing?”
Dude “What’s up?”
Police Officer “Can you stop for second?”
Dude “I’d rather not.”
Where was the Dude’s civility? The police officer certainly did not deserve to be treated the way he was. The Dude was looking for trouble. The Dude is lucky he did not get a choke hold or some pepper spray. He is lucky the worst thing that happened to him was some pain in his wrist.
If you think TTAG dropped a notch then by all means never come back because you and The Dude are not helping the cause.
Yes, I did watch it.
Don’t get me wrong… I already said what the guy did was silly and ill-advised and borderline annoying, BUT, and this is what you keep missing, it is NOT illegal.
The police had no probable cause to search his sealed, locked and taped container, yet they did anyhow. You see nothing wrong with that? You see nothing that scares you about the total disregard for the law that the police did there?
“The Dude is lucky he did not get a choke hold or some pepper spray. He is lucky the worst thing that happened to him was some pain in his wrist.”
Oh, so just because he wasn’t the most courteous person ever, he’s lucky he didn’t have the snot beat out of him? For what? Not saying sir? Wow, that logic is anti-gunenr-eqsue.
Again, I don’t think he did anything “smartly” or in the fashion I would have, but I have the ability to go “But he still broke no law”. Why can’t you?
Are you so blind to ‘Reasonable Suspicion’? My Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines reasonable suspicion as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time. Also, Terry Stop is explained as ‘A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even thought the level of suspicion need not rise to that of a belief that is supported by probable cause.‘
The officer was doing his job! Yes, the Dude has a legal right to walk down the street, carrying a sealed case, and wear a ballistic vest but then he got belligerent. His rights, your rights, my rights all rely on a level of civility and the Dude was very uncivil.
A-rod… reasonable suspicion is required to detain. Terry stop is done to frisk an individual for weapons. NEITHER of which pertains to the opening of a locked and sealed contained, which requires either probable cause or a warrant.
They had neither.
“The police had no probable cause to search his sealed, locked and taped container, yet they did anyhow. You see nothing wrong with that? You see nothing that scares you about the total disregard for the law that the police did there?”
That is the only thing wrong that the cops did. They went on a fishing expedition to get back at the douche for his douchebaggery.
Steve, MW D of L states probable cause as a reasonable ground in fact and circumstance for a belief in the existence of certain circumstances (as that an offense has been or is being committed, that a person is guilty of an offense, that a particular search will uncover contraband, that an item to be seized is in a particular place, or that a specific fact or cause of actions exists) . While Dude was not in a vehicle clearly a warrantless search of his case was legal based on probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
We are just going to have to sit back, pop some popcorn and see how this one plays out if it goes to court but so far The Tennessean has not posted anything on this.
A-Rod do you have any real law education or do you just have a random copy of legal definitions (and not legal applications)?
I’m telling you, from experience and education, there was no articulatable probable cause that a law had been or was being broken to the point where they could forgo the warrant process and do a warrantless, unconsented search on a closed container.
If you can prove otherwise, and not just spit out word-for-word definitions from a book, please let me know.
BA is Sociology/Criminology and Masters in Criminal Justice Admin so yeah, I know a little. The Dictionary of Law is probably the only book I still own from my college days years ago.
This one is pretty simple. The Dude is walking in Downtown Nashville near the Double Tree Hotel. Within blocks of that location are several banks. The Police Officer sees a guy with a rifle case and wearing a ballistic vest. Now, stop me if the reasonable suspision alarm has been triggered yet. The Police Officer ask “Can you stop for a second?” and the Dude says “I’d rather not.” The Dude starts being uncivil. Reasonable suspision alarms should be going off. Conversation coutines and just maybe probable cause seems warranted?
Now you and I have watched the same video. You explain it to me that what the police did was wrong. Explain to me as if I was 12 yrs old how reasonable suspicion and probable cause do not apply.
Anyone with that level of knowledge in CJ will know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and the fact that walking with a plastic case in the shape of a firearm is not indicative that a crime has been committed. That’s first year law school material right there. Shoot, that’s PRE-law, freshman year of college material.
If you don’t think a crime has been committed by the mere possession of a firearm (since it’s not illegal), AND there have been no crimes reported of a man carrying a plastic case in the shape of a firearm, how can you possibly come up with probable cause that a crime has been committed?
And just for your information, here’s a picture of the case in question. Shape of a rifle, yes, but you cannot prove one is inside without opening it.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ar152-1024×241.jpg
Explain to you what the police did was wrong like you were a 12 year old? Simple. They did a warrantless, consentless, search of a locked, closed and encased container without probable cause that a crime was being committed and that the search could not have waited until a warrant was received from a judge.
Why are you so dismissive of reasonable suspision and probable cause as the basis for the actions of the police? Explain to me how there is no probable cause in this situation.
And what crime did they have probable cause to believe he was breaking at the time that required an instantaneous searched of a closed and locked container?
@Steve I, like others see both sides of the fence here. I’m replying to your post not to pick on you but it happens to be a post that made me question the incident from various angles. Actually I would welcome comments from others.What, in your opinion should the police have done in this incident. If an officer had confronted the Aurora shooter before he entered the theater (for argument sake suppose it happened in Nashville) while he was only walking down the street, should he have stopped him and asked any questions? At that point he hadn’t done anything wrong. But, by seeing something a little out of place and asking a few questions he may have picked up on a suspicion or fact that would have been an alert that he was about to do something bad. I don’t condone going full blown Gestapo, but I would rather something be prevented before it happens by asking the guy to come over and answer a few questions rather than picking up the pieces afterward. If the crazy from Nashville was on a public street in front of your home with your kids playing in the yard what would be the proper action in your opinion. If you answer call the police, you garner the wrath of all the anti-police crowd. It would also be foolish to do nothing. If you went out to ask him what he was doing, then you are doing exactly what the officer in this video was attempting to do in the first place to make sure nothing bad was about to happen. From the opposing posts concerning this incident, this seems to be a no win situation.Don’t mean to stir the pot just trying to clear this dilemma. Thanks
Sorry. I am 1000 % pro 2nd Amendment, a combat veteran, and have had a CWP for 17 years, but this guy is an asshole and was behaving like an asshole. He was looking for trouble and he found it. Any police officer in his right mind is going to, at the least, stop this individual and question him. And the police officer was NOT out of line with his questions. He didn’t tell this guy that couldn’t carry the weapon. He wanted to know if the weapon was loaded. And THAT is a legit question. All he had to do was answer the Officer and he could have been on his way. I have seen situations were the police handle a situation like this badly, but this wasn’t one of them.
“All he had to do was answer the Officer and he could have been on his way.”
Yeah, if you have nothing to hide, then just waive your rights and submit to government enforcers.
Yup. Just open your door and let them search your house whenever they want. I mean, you have nothing to hide and there’s no reason to make an officers job difficult, right?
Yeah, exactly. These cops are just following orders. Besides, they are there to protect us fragile petunias from dangerous plants and predators.
How dare he do completely legal things! That is past my personal views of personal decorum! I really wish I had a way to limit the things other people did which I think is stupid!
Robert Farago wishes he did, just like every other anti-gunner.
Stop Steve, you are being a troll.
How so? Is not an anti-gunner someone who wants guns banned because they don’t agree with them and don’t like what people do with them even though it’s legal? Did Robert Farago not say the videoagrapher DESERVED his harassment because he did not agree with what the guy was doing, even though it’s legal?
How are the two NOT the same?
calling RF an anti-gunner is a stretch of the imagination. Next you are going to try to tell me that the Dude had no right to video tape the police.
I suggest you go back through my responses, for I never once called Robert an anti-gunner… I DID, however, say his actions were essentially the same that anti-gunners use, condemning a 100% legal action whilst say they should be punished for doing it.
Suggesting RF an anti-gunner is a stretch of the imagination. There, text amended.
Again, never suggested he was, said his thought process was just like theirs.
He said the guy deserved to be harassed and arrested for doing nothing illegal. That’s the exact same position anti-gunners take.
How does that not bother you?
I agree. This is the very type of behavior that the person in the video (kwik) doles out when I have ranted back and forth with him over the past half-decade on TGO, TCS, etc.
Can you say ASSHOLE loud enough? Who does this guy think he is?
I’m sorry, but if you go out to intentionally provoke a confrontation,
which this guy obviously did, you should not be surprised at the kind
of response you get from Johnny Law. A bullet proof vest does not say
reasonable personal protection. It’s this kind of stupidity that makes
everyone who supports gun rights look like self-righteous whack-jobs.
The Terry vs Ohio was about a reasonable search and seizure. The 4th
amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure. If this guy was
just walking with his gun case, and was not wearing a bulletproof vest,
probably nothing would have been said or done by this LEO. After his
invoking his 5th amendment right to STFU, I wanted to bitch slap him.
Considering this douches attitude, the Leo was extraordinarily polite.
Waddayawanna bet this sphincter signs his comments with molon labe?
Well, if you act like this asshat did, the police will definitely molon labe.
It’s probably not against the law to walk around a city carrying a 2 foot
long machete, even if you’re not engaged in some kind of landscaping,
but if you do, don’t be surprised if a LEO stops to ask you what you’re
doing with it and where you’re going with it.
So should we ban all bullet proof vests? Should it be illegal to have both a bullet proof vest AND rifle in your possession at any one time?
They can ask me what they want, I am under no obligation to respond.
See thats the funny thing about rights, if you dont use em you loose em. So while this guy was perfectly within his rights legally, you say he shouldnt do it? That’s like saying Zimmerman shouldnt of shot Trademark because it was going to get him harassed by the cops.
Hell half of you are saying, excerise your rights as long as the excercise of those rights falls with in socially accepted norms, and doesnt offend the populous, law enforcement of the neighborhood preacher.
If you were one of the folks above that said this was foolish stop bitching about having your rights taken, because you are willingly surrendering them. That or you just happen to be a gun owning liberal.
I count at least 3 civil right violations by the LEO’s in the video, and they clearly dont understand the law.
For the record, dickless here was carrying an AR15 with a mag in it. Combine that with the fact it’s illegal to carry a loaded rifle in Tennessee and it very much appears that he’s breaking a law.
Tack on his past antics – carrying 2 loaded revolvers in his hands (not his holster) while walking around trying to intimidate people and following park police around the park while open carrying a loaded Draco that he had painted a blaze orange tip on…these are the acts of someone trying to cause a problem who is probably unstable, not the actions of someone who is just exercising his rights.
So we now have someone with a history of trying to cause trouble and intimidate people and who appears to be breaking the law (regarding carrying a loaded rifle) and now he’s wearing full tactical kit and carrying an apparently loaded rifle around a business district where people wear suits, not plate carriers…he definitely registers as a potential threat.
You need to check your facts. The rifle was inside a rifle shaped case, there was no way to ascertain whether or not the rifle was loaded, let alone had a magazine in it, without opening a locked and sealed case.
I count at least 3 civil right violations by the LEO’s in the video, and they clearly dont understand the law.
Okay, then list them.
Guys who do this are complete idiots. And guys on TTAG who get so excited they wet their pants when somebody does this are doubly idiots.
I live in Nashville. This guy’s a total bag of dicks. His other stunts include:
Walking around carrying a loaded black powder revolver in each hand and staring people down.
Following the park police around in a park area while carrying a loaded draco pistol with the tip painted blaze orange so that it looks like a toy.
Wearing full tactical kit and carrying a rifle with mag inserted in a kydex sheath in shady as fuck and a few thousand steps beyond simply having a rifle in trunk.
It’s also worth noting that carrying a LOADED rifle in TN is illegal, even with a carry permit. The officer asked if the rifle was loaded and dickless refused to answer, sparking the whole confrontation.
Frankly, carrying an AR15 with an inserted mag is grounds enough for police to ask if it loaded and want to see proof since the mag was inserted and everything else about him screamed “I’m unstable and walking around the business district with a mag in my rifle and full assault kit” I would be much, much more upset if the cop let him off without checking.
If you look like you’re breaking the law (he looked like he had a loaded rifle) and you look like a crazy some of a bit walking around in full tactical kit where suits are the norm…don’t fucking expect the police to ignore you.
You contradict yourself. First you call him a bag of dicks. Then you call him dickless.
. . . (j/k)
This type of action is absolutely ridiculous. This guy should be thumped in the head for acting like a dumbass. Why provoke a confrontation just for the sake of confrontation. What a jerk. He did this just to be confrontational and is either looking to make money from the arrest or a stupid point, period. This type of action is what causes gun owners to be made out to be villains.
Here is the dumbass in question –
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22963548/gun-advocate-arrested-on-weapons-charge
I should not have called him a dumbass so please let me apoligize. He is from Brentwood and is smarter than those of us from Franklin.
I’m late to the party on this post, and I’m reading through the comments, but I want to address that some people seem to be of the (uncorrected) impression that this guy was open carrying his rifle just slung over his back. That is incorrect (as others have pointed out). He was carrying it in a homemade vacu-formed clamshell Kydex “case” that exactly conformed to the shape of the rifle, including the magazine and suppressor. That case had a cable-type gun lock wrapped around it to prevent the halves from separating, as well as being taped shut at a half dozen locations around the perimeter. He had then taken some simple web material and tied it around the case at each end to fashion a sling. This was in no way “open carrying.” The rifle was in no way “accessible for immediate use,” being inside a case that was taped shut with straps tied around it and a lock fastened around it.
You can find a photo of the case here: http://www.kwikrnuarms.com/
That said, I’m not defending this guy, and I think he’s a colossal jackass, and whether he has a SOT3 or not, I don’t want to be remotely associated with someone who advertises a “Free Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail, and Skittles with every Assault Weapon Purchase.” He’s a douchebag. Period. Full stop.
Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that he was open carrying his rifle. That is incorrect. I wrote a longer comment that got filtered and will show up eventually.
Lots of misinformation in this thread, but I would say that is typical for TTAG.
video 1 First detention at about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRVgFQ4P1Sw
video 2 Second detention at about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE
audio 1 First detention and news channel 5 interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIPzMFH7To4
audio 2 both detentions, interview, additional questions, and commentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WicsyKmz6SQ
On 7-29-13 starting at about 3:00pm I passed out leaflets stating, ““… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” in downtown Nashville. I openly carried a molded kydex rifle case on my back while wearing a ballistic vest. I purchased the ballistic vest because Tennessee cops have repeatedly pointed guns at me. It would be foolish not to wear a ballistic vest. I was detained once for about 20 minutes and let go. The search included a pat down and the temporary seizure of my rifle case. Once I was released I proceeded to do an interview with news channel 5 who was taking pictures from across the street. I then continued to pass out leaflets and was walking back to my vehicle when I was stopped by a crazy cop. He detained me, while his henchmen removed my sealed locked rifle case and pried it open without permission. They saw a suppressor attached to an AR15 rifle inside the case. The rifle was unloaded and had no magazine. I was arrested for the silencer even though confidential ATF form 3 paperwork was inside the case. I am an FFL NFA dealer and pay the SOT. Information from the form 3 ATF document may only be disclosed to federal officials for violation of the NFA. The cops said that since the case appeared to maybe have a rifle in it they were justified in opening it. I was arrested for illegal possession of a silencer. I was strip searched as ordered by a sergeant to look for “keys”. I was the only one that I saw stripped searched in that manner. I was held without bond for several hours. I was finally given a chance to see the magistrate at about 9pm on video. He gave the cops permission to cut the cable lock on the rifle case. Inside the case they saw that the rifle was unloaded and they discovered the ATF form 3. That did not matter to the magistrate judge and I was charged and to be held on a $3000 bond. I thought I would have a real judge see the evidence the next morning so my intention was to hang out for the night, but they said court would not be held until Aug 2. I was not going to wait three days in jail so I bonded out at about 5am on 7-30-13.
I have broke no law and believe the DA has not dropped the charges for fear of a federal lawsuit. I have filed papers with the criminal court for a preliminary hearing, speedy trial, pro se defense, discovery, motion to change the court time to Aug 20 9am, motion to return my property, and jury demand trial.
The case was made from kydex. The kydex covered every part of the firearm and no part of the firearm was visible. The kydex was molded to be form fitting and was very tight. The case needed nothing to remain closed, but I made sure the case would not open by using additional means. A cable lock was placed on the kydex case so that the firearm could not be used. The cable lock was placed around the trigger housing. The sling was strapped in two places over the kydex case, prevent the case from being opened. As a final touch I placed tape around the case at six points to ensure cops did not attempt to open it. As added security there were no keys for the cable lock.
http://www.kwikrnuarms.com/vacuum_form_rifle_cases.htm
Form 3 Information
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-3.pdf
“The information from this application may only be disclosed to Federal authorities for purpose of prosecution for violation of the National Firearms Act.”
“Lots of misinformation in this thread, but I would say that is typical for TTAG.”
Spend a lot of time here do you? I ask because this is your first comment, at least under that name.
You and I went back and forth about this a little bit on another site, but what exactly is your endgame here? Is it to get the Tennessee laws changed?
You were stopped because (among other things) it appeared you had a silencer on your rifle. Silencers are illegal under TN law, unless they are legally registered NFA items. You refused to show him that it was legally registered, therefore in his mind, your possession of the silencer is illegal. So you were arrested, and you’ll get your day in court to prove your case. Good for you. But to what end? That’s what I don’t understand. You could easily have avoided the arrest by showing him the paperwork, but you didn’t, and I don’t understand what you gained by it. Please enlighten me.
However, they did not stop him for the silencer. In fact, they had to pry open a locked case to even see there was a rifle in it.
That is an epic post right there.
I filed two more motions with the court today:
1. Motion to dismiss for failure on the part of the magistrate to inform defendant of his rights under rule 5 of the criminal court.
2. Motion to suppress for violation of rights
So, in total there are 8 motions in front of the court right now.
Comments are closed.