Theaetetus: monoski: China White Tea: monoski: After asking Lohner if he's eighteen - the legal age in Colorado to bear a weapon - the officer asks Lohner for his ID to which Lohner refuses, asking if he's committed a crime.Yes, I, too, RTFA, but when I went looking for an actual statute, the only thing I found explicitly pertained to handguns.Interesting. I wonder if there is no requirement for him to be 18 to carry a shotgun.Y'know, after digging a bit, you may well be right there. I can't find anything relevant in the Aurora code, either.
AurizenDarkstar: jchuffyman: To be fair on that point. At least in Virginia, the state law is that the store can refuse an alcohol or tobacco sale for any reason, no matter how old the person actually is. How that works in the state-owned liquor store? I don't know, but for beer and wine and cigs, Kroger gets to make that call. So the state has nothing to do with itOh yeah, you have to produce ID if you are buying hard liquor, just as if you were buying beer or cigs.
Lenny_da_Hog: Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.
AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.You call me a dummy, yet you are arguing that they only used the 'age' and ID issue after exhausting all other avenues of abridging his rights? It couldn't be due to the fact that he was freaking people out, and the officers had a duty to find out what they could about WHY he was walking around with a loaded shotgun?Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time. That's all LEO's do anymore, right?
Lenny_da_Hog: They asked him his age. He said he was 18. The cop didn't say, "You don't look 18," he simply went on to tell him at least three times that he was making people nervous -- causing alarm, causing the public to freak out.
ZeroPly: Yes, and if you were a police officer, and had suspicion that an underage person was carrying a firearm, you could tell that person that you had suspicion of that particular crime, and request identification. If identification was not provided, you could legally arrest that person and take them in.
m00: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?Warning: this post does not take a black/white stance, so for any farkers reading this if your thinking is black/white ("guns are bad!" "guns are good!") you probably shouldn't read.But I just want to point out that when the 2nd was written...1) "Regulated" in common use was interchangeable with "Orderly" or "Working."2) "Militia" meant every male able to fight/carry a rifle.The intent of the 2nd was that instead of relying on government to protect you day-to-day, the citizens of towns and cities self-organized to create town watches and so forth. Any group of any size of random Joes could band together and form a militia, with the caveat being it needed to be orderly. Like you couldn't be a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting guns in the air for fun. Such people have always existed throughout history.In fact, local Law Enforcement was intended to be such groups of citizens, similar to volunteer fire fighters. If somebody stole a chicken or knifed a farmer, the group captures the individual and hands him over to a judge to decide if any crime had been committed, and whether there was evidence, and what to do about it. Judges were legal professionals, while militias were not.What the founders never realized was that not only would cities grow so large so as to require a professional class of militia (which is what cops are), but also there would be such a sheer number of laws that cops also needed to become legal professionals. We have all sorts of things like chain-of-evidence, reading your rights etc which are good things but you need a professional law enforcement to do that. And also, forensics is very technical.So I think the spirit of the 2nd is valid -- that people simply have a right to organize and carry arms for their self-defense, or common defense against criminals (as long as it's orderly). That people have a basic right to own a gun. ...
AurizenDarkstar: Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time. That's all LEO's do anymore, right?
scarbachi: Oh thank god some fat teenager in Aurora is attention whoring for his own safety, and those around him. That dude needs to touch some boobies and STFU.
Chummer45: I find it amusing that for all of the horrific police misconduct and overreach in this country, the thing that has (primarily young, middle class white men) up in arms is that the police would dare question some idiot teenager walking around town with a loaded shotgun.
Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.
Baz744: Going by his behavior, the first words out of his mouth were about his age. That was why he stopped him.
Dadoody: Maybe another person with a gun could have stopped these mass murders. Maybe they couldn't.But, we all KNOW exactly what happened because there was no one around to fight back.
China White Tea: airsupport: No, your hypocrisy comes from commenting on the pointlessness and futility of my post, a post you commented on while contributing nothing of your own. Also, drug references are cool! You must be a badass.You seem pretty mad about this. Given your long-winded (if inarticulate) tirade about the unimportance of Chubby McGunslinger, I would expect you to have long since come to grips with your own insignificance.
AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: They only thought of the age issue after he refused to provide his papers.Amazing. I didn't realize you could read the minds of law enforcement. How nice of you to know exactly why they did what they did. Maybe you should head out to defend this kid in court, and argue that you know the cops were abridging his rights, based on your ability to read the cops minds.
Thunderpipes: Liberals want to take away rights from anyone who does not support their cause. They will use every means at their disposal, including corruption, fear, intimidation.Really is as simple as that. Same way that liberal colleges punish kids for daring to be conservative, while encouraging liberalism. Liberals are cowards.
Theaetetus: So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.
room at the top: Lenny_da_Hog:Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.Submit, citizen. Those ...photography, no. Being a pain in the ass so you can get arrested specifically to sue, yes.
Baz744: Theaetetus: So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.It protects it only within a well regulated militia.
Baz744: It protects it only within a well regulated militia.
Brainsick: pendy575: . He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being askedLOL wut?Try that next time a cop asks for your ID, just, really be specific and tell them you DEMAND to know why they want to see your identification; that should go over well. Here in Seattle, looking at a cop for too long is an arrestable offense, let alone taking a picture of one, so I won't be trying that anytime soon...
Lenny_da_Hog: Baz744: Going by his behavior, the first words out of his mouth were about his age. That was why he stopped him.No, the first words were asking him what he was doing. He then asks his age, and he replies that he's 18. The officer repeats over and over again that his reason for asking for an ID is that he's causing alarm. The second officer arrives and asks him if he's trying to make a second amendment statement.The officer says he he wants the ID for a number of reasons. He says he wants it to prove he's not a felon. The first officer then says he wants the ID to show he has no outstanding warrants. THEN he says he wants it to prove his age.THEN he says he identifies people through names and dates of birth, and wants that identity.
CMYK and PMS: The real problem with gun possession is that the metric used is "every law abiding citizen". Well how do we determine this? By arrest record? I have no record and I can assure you that I have done things in my youth that would put me in jail. What about the mentally and emotionally ill. How do we determine if they can own guns? It is not a black and white issue and needs a better answer then what we have arrived at so far.
Itstoearly: serpent_sky: MisterTweak: Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identificationAccording to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.Mission Accomplished!/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'Nice work, asshat.People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.And then they'll find how much more difficult it is to get a concealed carry permit. And they wouldn't carry in violation of the laws, if they did change, would they? Because they're law-abiding, responsible gun owners.Again, I grew up around guns, I am not pants-wetting terrified of being shot at all times... but if I saw a guy walking down the street with a shotgun in his hand, I'm not about to feel more comfortable around him, guns in an of themselves, or my neighborhood for that matter. Not that I live in a state where that's legal - but you get the point. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to - or even should.I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.I live in Vermont, and during hunting season, you will often see people walking down the road with rifles and shotguns on th ...
AurizenDarkstar: I actually feel bad for most cops these days. Between the 'open carry' idiots, the 'gun rights/2nd Amendment' types and the increase of the Sovereign Citizen movement around the country, coupled with the fact that none of the groups mentioned think the law pertains to THEM, means that cop has a higher than average chance of either being wounded in the line of duty now, or not returning home at all.Makes one wonder why anyone would want to be a cop these days, knowing that you may get shot just for doing your job by an everyday citizen who sees you as the threat.
redmid17: Baz744: jshine: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.His fantasy was to stir people up and cause a confrontation where he was technically in the right, and it played out *exactly* as he intended.No, it didn't. Law enforcement couldn't determine his age. They had probable cause to suspect he was a minor criminally in possession of a firearm. He did not have a legal right to refuse to show his ID.He is not technically in the right.His opening sentence was "I just went to the gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes."
jchuffyman: Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.
Baz744: All of the officer's state dreasons for asking for ID were legit. All of them.
Baz744: jchuffyman: Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.The implicit argument, as in most discussions of this sort, is that the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. Much like when an ideological conservative says "abortion isn't a right," he most likely understands the current state of the case law guaranteeing access to abortion as a constitutional right. Likewise, I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."I just think they're wrong.
Shepherd: I believe that asshats like this are legally allowed to carry their weapons.However, if he ever points it at anyone, even as a joke, I believe that I am legally allowed to treat that as a threat with a deadly weapon. That means running, calling police, taking legal action, or even violence if I'm drunk enough to punch a guy with a shotgun.As long as these weapons are holstered or otherwise properly carried, it's fine. But I'm seeing video of these people swinging their assault weapons around the room past bystanders, and that's not okay.
Baz744: He tried to appeal to the suspect's reason, and senses of patriotism and civic responsibility by telling him he was frightening other people.
pla: serpent_sky : People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.MagSeven : show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifleYou can effectively hunt deer with a slug out to around 50 yards. No, not as accurate as a rifle, but then, you wouldn't use a rifle for self defense, either! And, I'll let you in on a little secret - That legendary "spread" of pellets doesn't become the size of an SUV within just a few feet - More like 12-18in at 25 yards. For comparison, you'd consider it a great day to pull off a 12in cluster at 25 yards from a carry-style (short barreled) pistol.
Baz744: I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."
Theaetetus: Not all...
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 26 2017 09:32:38
Runtime: 1.031 sec