Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   ( rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15236 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1160 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest

 
2014-08-04 12:56:28 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.  They demand the right to be armed at all times, for no reason at all, and expect everyone to be a-ok with that (including law enforcement).  Even if they have no idea WHY the person is walking around with a 'possibly' loaded weapon, and have no idea if they are a danger or not.

But I guess those of us who choose not to be armed at all times, will never get it.  Or we'll be gunned down by someone taking advantage of the fact that no one knows if you are a 'good guy with a gun' or someone who wants to gun people down.


Just because you choose to refrain from utilizing your rights doesn't mean that someone who is is demanding more rights. I've never walked down the street as a part of a protest. That doesn't mean I view those who do as "demanding more rights" because they're using their rights to petition the government.
 
2014-08-04 12:58:05 PM  

JPINFV: Just because you choose to refrain from utilizing your rights doesn't mean that someone who is is demanding more rights. I've never walked down the street as a part of a protest. That doesn't mean I view those who do as "demanding more rights" because they're using their rights to petition the government.


See my following comments to understand WHY I am arguing that a lot of these people feel that they deserve special treatment from the law for open carry.
 
2014-08-04 12:58:41 PM  

redmid17: CheatCommando: zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

It is illegal to open carry if you are under 18. From the pictures, it would be completely reasonable to assume he's not old enough and to request proof. According to Scalia and company  you cannot refuse to produce ID when a cop asks you for it.

So conservatives hoist on their own petard, if you will. They want cops to enforce ID laws when it isn't pasty white men getting harassed, but get the damn vapors when it is one of the anointed getting carded.

No, you can't refuse to identify yourself. You can identify yourself without identification. There's no law requiring people to walk around with a state-issued ID*. If there were, shirtless joggers everywhere would be an oppressed minority.

* stating the obvious, driving != walking


He looks under age. It's a damn  Terry stop and the only way he can prove he is not violating the open carry law is to produce ID.
 
2014-08-04 12:59:31 PM  
Does anybody else remember that attention whore in Boston who went around, leaving backpacks filled with rice cookers and confetti in them as an 'art performance'? I think everybody-our gun nut friends included- can agree that was an idiotic stunt, in poor tastes, a needless disruption of the peace, and there was absolutely no sympathy over him getting arrested.
 
2014-08-04 01:00:13 PM  

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.
 
2014-08-04 01:01:04 PM  

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.


He is until proven guilty. There is a very strong burden to prove by the state here. State has to show very clear evidence that the cop thought he was breaking the law, period. "he looked young" doesn't fly unless he truly looked like a child.
 
2014-08-04 01:01:24 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?

Why is that stupid?

Case in point, had a guy here in VA who went into a local Kroger armed with an AR-15.  The cops were called, he was questioned, and in the end, his argument was "Why did someone call the police?  I was doing something completely legal".  And in fact, that argument seems to be used more & more by guns rights people.  Hell, I remember reading an article a few weeks ago where a gun's rights person posited that they should have the right to bring civil action against someone who called the police on them if they were 'open carry' (even if the person who called law enforcement had NO idea if they were a criminal or not).

So, you have people that feel they have the right to go anywhere, armed, without anyone else knowing if they are there to cause mayhem or are just shopping.  But they are the ones who have the same rights as anyone else (especially the ones demanding the right to file civil actions against a person if law enforcement is called on their actions)?


I am fairly tolerant of 2nd Amendment rights, but a lot of the more conservative advocates of that position seem to forget one thing. While saying, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," sounds all superheroic and all, PEOPLE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHICH ONE YOU ARE UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE FOR IT TO MATTER. Jesus farking Christ, people, just because you have no intention of shooting up the place with your rifle, no one else can read your farking mind.
 
2014-08-04 01:02:45 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: JPINFV: Just because you choose to refrain from utilizing your rights doesn't mean that someone who is is demanding more rights. I've never walked down the street as a part of a protest. That doesn't mean I view those who do as "demanding more rights" because they're using their rights to petition the government.

See my following comments to understand WHY I am arguing that a lot of these people feel that they deserve special treatment from the law for open carry.


So it's special treatment from law enforcement to not be hassled when engaging in a legal activity? It's simple. Require a permit to open carry and the police can hassle people who open carry. As long as open carry is legal with essentially no restrictions (let's be honest, most videos of open carry participants aren't of people who are 18 and look like they're 16), then they should have the right to be free from being hassled by the police. If this was any other legal activity then you wouldn't be making this argument. The police should be a-ok with people engaging in legal activities. They enforce laws passed by the legislature, not their opinion of what the law should say.
 
2014-08-04 01:03:08 PM  

Thunderpipes: 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.

He is until proven guilty. There is a very strong burden to prove by the state here. State has to show very clear evidence that the cop thought he was breaking the law, period. "he looked young" doesn't fly unless he truly looked like a child.


he does, farkhead.
 
2014-08-04 01:03:33 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?

Why is that stupid?

Case in point, had a guy here in VA who went into a local Kroger armed with an AR-15.  The cops were called, he was questioned, and in the end, his argument was "Why did someone call the police?  I was doing something completely legal".  And in fact, that argument seems to be used more & more by guns rights people.  Hell, I remember reading an article a few weeks ago where a gun's rights person posited that they should have the right to bring civil action against someone who called the police on them if they were 'open carry' (even if the person who called law enforcement had NO idea if they were a criminal or not).

So, you have people that feel they have the right to go anywhere, armed, without anyone else knowing if they are there to cause mayhem or are just shopping.  But they are the ones who have the same rights as anyone else (especially the ones demanding the right to file civil actions against a person if law enforcement is called on their actions)?


You have exactly the same rights. It's stupid to say they have more rights than you do because you don't use some of yours.

Do you carry a camera? I usually do. It freaks people out. It makes the call the police, because they think I'm a terrorist doing surveillance to blow up bridges and buildings. If I'm arrested for it, I'll file a civil suit, and I'll very likely win if it isn't settled first.

Does that mean I have more rights than people who don't carry a camera?

People can't go *anyplace* with weapons. If you come onto private property with a weapon, I can tell you to leave. If you don't, I can have you arrested for trespassing. This young man was on public property.
 
2014-08-04 01:04:23 PM  

Thunderpipes: 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.

He is until proven guilty. There is a very strong burden to prove by the state here. State has to show very clear evidence that the cop thought he was breaking the law, period. "he looked young" doesn't fly unless he truly looked like a child.


Yes it does, and he does.
 
2014-08-04 01:04:34 PM  

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.


The problem is the laws that allow him to do this. Teenagers should not be able to carry around guns. It's not his fault...it's Aurora's fault.
 
2014-08-04 01:04:46 PM  

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.
 
2014-08-04 01:04:59 PM  

Jack Mackbell: Does anybody else remember that attention whore in Boston who went around, leaving backpacks filled with rice cookers and confetti in them as an 'art performance'? I think everybody-our gun nut friends included- can agree that was an idiotic stunt, in poor tastes, a needless disruption of the peace, and there was absolutely no sympathy over him getting arrested.


You forgot to add that it also has no bearing on this thread
 
2014-08-04 01:05:35 PM  

JPINFV: If this was any other legal activity then you wouldn't be making this argument.


Most other legal activities don't have the ability to become dangerous the way that a person with a gun can.  See jchuffyman's comments for WHY I'm making my argument.

Unless you can prove that the vast bulk of the world is somehow clairvoyant and should know whether a person armed with a gun (outside of a LEO) is just your everyday citizen, or someone who plans to commit mass murder.
 
2014-08-04 01:06:14 PM  
On the left and the right there are folks pushing the envelope by doing legal things that irritate others. Like the women strolling topless down the street in NYC because they can, this guy is simply exercising a right that most people don't. Similarly, it is society that is turning an otherwise non-issue into more than a momentary curiosity. Interestingly, for many of the same reasons, those being society's own hangups over funbags and firearms being in plain sight in public.

Lighten up people. A free society allows people to do things that you feel are ill-advised.

If Pudgy Mcshotgun open carries, it's not your problem unless he assaults you. If Ms pancake tits open carries her assault boobies, they are not your problem until she wraps them around your son's face.
 
2014-08-04 01:06:29 PM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


Yes, I know that you, as a conservative, would love to validate a principle permitting harassment of people based solely on race. But that's not the issue here. "Race" is a constitutionally suspect classification; when the government discriminates based on race, it is presumptively unconstitutional, and the government must show:

1) a compelling reason for the racial discrimination, and
2) that the racial discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve the purpose behind the racial discrimination.

Age, by contrast, is not a constitutionally suspect classification. When the government discriminates on the basis of age, any old reason for doing it is okay, so long as it is a legitimate reason. And any rational relationship between the age discrimination and the purpose sought to be achieved by the age discrimination will suffice to justify it.

Here, the state has a legitimate if not  compelling interest in preserving public safety by preventing the possession of firearms by minors. Asking young looking people to prove their age by presenting ID upon request by law enforcement rationally relates to that interest because it enables law enforcement to determine which young looking people lawfully possess their firearms, and which do not.

This analysis holds true even if it makes you feel butthurt.

The reason race, but not age, is constitutionally suspect is because racist conservatives like you have an enduring history of using the state to systemically persecute people based on race. No like history exists for discrimination based on age.

This fact is true even if it makes you feel butthurt.

The right's latest hero is just another scofflaw. Hopefully the judge imposes the maximum penalty the statute at hand allows. And with any luck, additional charges will be filed based on the videotaped evidence.
 
2014-08-04 01:06:42 PM  

deanis: Thunderpipes: 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.

He is until proven guilty. There is a very strong burden to prove by the state here. State has to show very clear evidence that the cop thought he was breaking the law, period. "he looked young" doesn't fly unless he truly looked like a child.

he does, farkhead.


Yeah, but that's not why they stopped him. They repeated over and over again that they stopped him because he might make other people nervous. They only thought of the age issue after he refused to provide his papers.
 
2014-08-04 01:06:44 PM  

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.


Pretty much.  It seems like he's not actually doing anything wrong.  He's not even walking around with a gun to show people how tough he is; he's doing it to re-acclimate them to the idea that some people have guns, and they're not all trying to murder you.

Sometimes, someone has to step into the crowd of nervous, shaking sheep and say, "Look, you didn't care about this shiat before, shiat like that happens once in a while, and nothing's different today except your immense fear of the next crazy person.  It's time to put the training wheels on and learn to get on with life."

Irrational fear is the ultimate tool of tyranny.
 
2014-08-04 01:06:54 PM  

I alone am best: rwdavis: Nutsac_Jim: rwdavis: If you see somebody with a hammer it is reasonable to assume that they are going to hit a nail into some wood, if you see somebody with a screwdriver it is reasonable to assume they are trying to get drunk. If you see somebody with a shotgun, it is reasonable to assume they're going to shoot something with it and there's not too many things in the middle of a peaceful city that are legal to shoot.

So police officers are just there to shoot people and we should all citizen's arrest them before the carnage starts?
Or do you mean, the police officer carry's one, just in case he needs it?

You're just being dense. There are reasons to carry a hammer or screwdriver outside of their primary purpose, just as you might carry a hammer from your car to your house because you just bought it, you might carry a gun because your job specifically involves you interacting with criminals. Aurora isn't a crime haven there's no reason for the general populous to go around carrying a weapon. An armed society is a violent lawless society.

Yeah, not like there wasn't a bunch of people killed there or anything


You're actually arguing that open-carry is an indicator that a violent crime is about to happen with that statement. Even with the shooting, Aurora isn't a place where you leave in the morning and worry about getting shot before you get home.
 
2014-08-04 01:08:28 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?

Why is that stupid?

Case in point, had a guy here in VA who went into a local Kroger armed with an AR-15.  The cops were called, he was questioned, and in the end, his argument was "Why did someone call the police?  I was doing something completely legal".  And in fact, that argument seems to be used more & more by guns rights people.  Hell, I remember reading an article a few weeks ago where a gun's rights person posited that they should have the right to bring civil action against someone who called the police on them if they were 'open carry' (even if the person who called law enforcement had NO idea if they were a criminal or not).

So, you have people that feel they have the right to go anywhere, armed, without anyone else knowing if they are there to cause mayhem or are just shopping.  But they are the ones who have the same rights as anyone else (especially the ones demanding the right to file civil actions against a person if law enforcement is called on their actions)?

You have exactly the same rights. It's stupid to say they have more rights than you do because you don't use some of yours.

Do you carry a camera? I usually do. It freaks people out. It makes the call the police, because they think I'm a terrorist doing surveillance to blow up bridges and buildings. If I'm arrested for it, I'll file a civil suit, and I'll very likely win if it isn't settled first.

Does that mean I have more rights than people who don't carry a camera?

People can't go *anyplace* with weapons. If you come onto private property with a weapon, I can tell you to leave. If you don't, I can have you arrested for trespassing. This young man was on public property.


attentionwhore.jpg  applies here...
 
2014-08-04 01:08:29 PM  

Thunderpipes: 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.

He is until proven guilty. There is a very strong burden to prove by the state here. State has to show very clear evidence that the cop thought he was breaking the law, period. "he looked young" doesn't fly unless he truly looked like a child.



It's a teenager walking around town toting a loaded shotgun for no apparent reason.  In a town where a horrific mass shooting by a lone gunman happened.  The police had plenty of reason to question him.

I know people like to compare this to civil disobedience/free speech things, where someone is holding up a sign on a street corner saying something offensive.  But there's a big difference - and that is that a person with a sign around can't use it to carry out a mass shooting (which happens far too frequently in this country).

I'm much more concerned about the weirdo standing quietly on the street corner holding a rifle or shotgun than I am about the weirdo standing on the corner yelling about sinners are going to hell. There's a very real difference between the two, and anyone defending this kind of shiat needs to stop pretending that there isn't.
 
2014-08-04 01:09:17 PM  

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.
 
2014-08-04 01:09:59 PM  

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."


Well f*ck me, now the police are obliged to believe every word out of a suspect's mouth! God damn, how many criminal convictions have to be overturned now based on that principle! Someone tell Mr. Justice Roberts, quick!

I can certainly understand your reasoning though. Because it certainly would never occur to a minor possessing  firearm to lie about his age, and cook up a story to make his lie sound credible.
 
2014-08-04 01:10:38 PM  

room at the top: Lenny_da_Hog: AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?

Why is that stupid?

Case in point, had a guy here in VA who went into a local Kroger armed with an AR-15.  The cops were called, he was questioned, and in the end, his argument was "Why did someone call the police?  I was doing something completely legal".  And in fact, that argument seems to be used more & more by guns rights people.  Hell, I remember reading an article a few weeks ago where a gun's rights person posited that they should have the right to bring civil action against someone who called the police on them if they were 'open carry' (even if the person who called law enforcement had NO idea if they were a criminal or not).

So, you have people that feel they have the right to go anywhere, armed, without anyone else knowing if they are there to cause mayhem or are just shopping.  But they are the ones who have the same rights as anyone else (especially the ones demanding the right to file civil actions against a person if law enforcement is called on their actions)?

You have exactly the same rights. It's stupid to say they have more rights than you do because you don't use some of yours.

Do you carry a camera? I usually do. It freaks people out. It makes the call the police, because they think I'm a terrorist doing surveillance to blow up bridges and buildings. If I'm arrested for it, I'll file a civil suit, and I'll very likely win if it isn't settled first.

Does that mean I have more rights than people who don't carry a camera?

People can't go *anyplace* with weapons. If you come onto private property with a weapon, I can tell you to leave. If you don't, I can have you arrested for trespassing. This young man was on public property.

attentionwhore.jpg  applies here...


Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.

Submit, citizen. Those macro pics of hoverflies are clearly attention-whoring.
 
m00
2014-08-04 01:10:52 PM  

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. But we should probably word it in such a way so as not to protect provocative yahoos.
 
2014-08-04 01:12:07 PM  

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.


That's the impression I am starting to get.  I have checked at least half a dozen sites, some neutral, some pro-gun rights, some anti-gun rights, and I've consistently read the same information at all of them:

-You have to be 18 to possess a handgun.
-There is no minimum age on simple possession of a long gun.
-You have to be 21 to carry concealed.
-Open carry is permitted at the state level, though forbidden in some municipalities (most notably Denver county).  The minimum age to open carry a handgun is 18, seemingly by virtue of that being the minimum age to possess a handgun.  I haven't actually seen a statute specifically detailing the rules and regulations of open carry in Colorado - it seems to be implicitly legal.


There is nothing I have seem that explicitly
 
2014-08-04 01:12:07 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.

Submit, citizen. Those macro pics of hoverflies are clearly attention-whoring.


No, some of us think you're full of shiat.

I take pictures all over DC, and have NEVER been stopped or questioned by anyone in law enforcement.  Hell, I've taken pictures in NYC and STILL haven't been questioned.

Maybe you should stop going to places and taking pictures of oil refineries and nuclear power plants?
 
2014-08-04 01:12:14 PM  

Baz744: 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."

Well f*ck me, now the police are obliged to believe every word out of a suspect's mouth! God damn, how many criminal convictions have to be overturned now based on that principle! Someone tell Mr. Justice Roberts, quick!

I can certainly understand your reasoning though. Because it certainly would never occur to a minor possessing  firearm to lie about his age, and cook up a story to make his lie sound credible.


And, if I were a police office, and I suspected a young looking person of being underage and the first thing they told me about was another age-restricted activity, I think I would be more suspicious. It's kind of like the "I've been drinking this stuff for years" line in Superbad
 
2014-08-04 01:13:07 PM  

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.


Unlike you, I'm going by their actual behavior.

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.

AFTER he refuses to provide his papers, the second officer says he has no idea how old he might be, that he looks young.
 
2014-08-04 01:15:25 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Unlike you, I'm going by their actual behavior.

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.

AFTER he refuses to provide his papers, the second officer says he has no idea how old he might be, that he looks young.


Except that you are arguing that the police should be able to take a person's personal assurance that they are the age they say they are, without legal proof?  Wow, maybe they shouldn't go after kids that buy booze that argue that they are 21 or older then (I mean, why ask them for ID if we can just argue that their own words are enough, right?)
 
2014-08-04 01:15:38 PM  

serial_crusher: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 625x431]
Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...


why do the idiots who pretend that their brandishing a gun in public amongst the people always handle guns like children with toys

Sure lets point the shotgun towards my face, lets point the rifle at my testicles while my finger is on the trigger, sure lets stick a loaded pistol in my pants so that it disarms me by accident
 
2014-08-04 01:16:18 PM  

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.
 
2014-08-04 01:16:39 PM  

jchuffyman: And, if I were a police office, and I suspected a young looking person of being underage and the first thing they told me about was another age-restricted activity, I think I would be more suspicious. It's kind of like the "I've been drinking this stuff for years" line in Superbad


And even pretending the police are obliged to believe everything a suspect says, the fact that he just bought cigarettes is no guarantee he was properly carded at the store.
 
2014-08-04 01:18:02 PM  
If only black people weren't so afraid of getting shot for this sort of display.  We'd have this problem fixed in no time.
 
2014-08-04 01:18:31 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Unlike you, I'm going by their actual behavior.

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.

AFTER he refuses to provide his papers, the second officer says he has no idea how old he might be, that he looks young.

Except that you are arguing that the police should be able to take a person's personal assurance that they are the age they say they are, without legal proof?  Wow, maybe they shouldn't go after kids that buy booze that argue that they are 21 or older then (I mean, why ask them for ID if we can just argue that their own words are enough, right?)


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 it
 
2014-08-04 01:18:37 PM  

China White Tea: There is nothing I have seem that explicitly


Whoops, derped before I herped:

There is nothing I have seen that explicitly deals with open carry of a long gun at the state level.
 
2014-08-04 01:19:01 PM  

jchuffyman: Baz744: 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."

Well f*ck me, now the police are obliged to believe every word out of a suspect's mouth! God damn, how many criminal convictions have to be overturned now based on that principle! Someone tell Mr. Justice Roberts, quick!

I can certainly understand your reasoning though. Because it certainly would never occur to a minor possessing  firearm to lie about his age, and cook up a story to make his lie sound credible.

And, if I were a police office, and I suspected a young looking person of being underage and the first thing they told me about was another age-restricted activity, I think I would be more suspicious. It's kind of like the "I've been drinking this stuff for years" line in Superbad


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.

Except THIS police officer tried an end run around having to answer to a judge, and got called on it. Luckily there are enough suckers out there who see this is a "ooga booga gun nuts" case, rather than law enforcement overreach.
 
2014-08-04 01:19:13 PM  
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.
 
2014-08-04 01:19:45 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.

Submit, citizen. Those macro pics of hoverflies are clearly attention-whoring.

No, some of us think you're full of shiat.

I take pictures all over DC, and have NEVER been stopped or questioned by anyone in law enforcement.  Hell, I've taken pictures in NYC and STILL haven't been questioned.

Maybe you should stop going to places and taking pictures of oil refineries and nuclear power plants?


I take pictures of wildlife and insects. The police have been called several times because I pointed a telephoto at the top of a tree from a public sidewalk. A local school freaked out when, on an EVENING in the SUMMER (no kids anywhere), I was taking pics of bee flies in their bushes and Pine Siskins in their tree-tops from the sidewalk.

The only time I've photographed government buildings was when Fark had a photo contest a few weeks ago for government buildings -- and guess what? I took a photo of a local police station, a brand new building with Cascadian architecture, and someone inside called for the cruisers. The cop asked me why I was doing it, I told him that I wanted to. He asked me for my ID, I told him I didn't have it with me. That was the end of it.

I'm fortunate the cops here are more reasonable than the citizens.
 
2014-08-04 01:20:17 PM  

jchuffyman: I am fairly tolerant of 2nd Amendment rights, but a lot of the more conservative advocates of that position seem to forget one thing. While saying, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," sounds all superheroic and all, PEOPLE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHICH ONE YOU ARE UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE FOR IT TO MATTER.


This also ignores that pitchforks, flying staplers, wooden chairs, unopened beer cans, beer bottles, fists, knives, baseball bats, and trucks variously also provide the ability to stop a bad guy with a gun; and that a bad guy brandishing a firearm usually has done so before anyone's recognized him as a threat and brandished their firearm, so has an advantage.

Given a close crowd of several people, a bad guy with a gun can get off about as many shots if someone armed pulls out and shoots him as he would if some unarmed person nearby dived on him and broke his neck.  It takes time to recognize the situation, unholster a firearm, aim, and fire--and please, don't skip the aiming part when you're in a crowd; it only takes a fraction of a second to check your shot.  It still takes time.

If you want to challenge me on the above, I'll even give you the experiment.  Line up some folks, record them.  Give them air soft pistols.  Have a party, sitting around talking, nibbling hors d'eurves, drinking sodas.  At random, when all tension seems to have left, someone in the crowd pulls out an air soft pistol and starts shooting people.  See how long before he gets shot.  To make shiat really interesting, race against someone flat-palming him in the back, or disarming him:  if you get a hit first, it's assumed you could have broke his neck or something (actually, a sharp palm up and in to the base of the skull, from behind, can unseat the skull and disconnect the brainstem, resulting in immediate fatal death).

You will quickly realize there is no heroic reflex of ultimate justice guiding your hand to draw and shoot before an armed man unloads several shots into the crowd.

That's not to say we should just ban guns; but I want people to have perspective.  The playing field is not as unlevel as people believe in these situations.
 
2014-08-04 01:20:36 PM  

dascott: If only black people weren't so afraid of getting shot for this sort of display.  We'd have this problem fixed in no time.



Seriously.  Unfortunately, the police would probably take a shoot first ask questions later, and all then the open carry patriots would find some excuse to defend the actions of the police (a la Zimmerman).

But don't you dare call them racists.
 
2014-08-04 01:20:56 PM  

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. ...


I too will make a non black and white post. Being one of the very, very few people on this forum who has actually shot someone and been shot at I think I may have a valid perspective. 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.
 
2014-08-04 01:21:01 PM  

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."


...which doesn't mean much, does it? As one of the cops noted, people bullshiat them all the time about what they're up to (or not up to). And as far as verbally identifying yourself as opposed to actually providing ID goes, telling them your first name only (as he made a point of doing) doesn't really count for a lot either.
 
2014-08-04 01:21:15 PM  

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 it


Oh yeah, you have to produce ID if you are buying hard liquor, just as if you were buying beer or cigs.
 
2014-08-04 01:21:34 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Unlike you, I'm going by their actual behavior.

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.

AFTER he refuses to provide his papers, the second officer says he has no idea how old he might be, that he looks young.


Going by his behavior, the first words out of his mouth were about his age. That was why he stopped him.

He tried to appeal to the suspect's reason, and senses of patriotism and civic responsibility by telling him he was frightening other people. But the suspect at hand is an ideological conservative. He has neither reason, nor any sense of patriotism or civic responsibility. And he therefore, for no reason other than to be a butt, refused to comply with a lawful directive from a police officer to produce identification.

People like you are the reason this young man needs to be made into an example.
 
2014-08-04 01:21:46 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Unlike you, I'm going by their actual behavior.

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.

AFTER he refuses to provide his papers, the second officer says he has no idea how old he might be, that he looks young.

Except that you are arguing that the police should be able to take a person's personal assurance that they are the age they say they are, without legal proof?  Wow, maybe they shouldn't go after kids that buy booze that argue that they are 21 or older then (I mean, why ask them for ID if we can just argue that their own words are enough, right?)


No, dummy, I'm saying that if the cops had an issue with his perceived age, they should have said that was the reason they were stopping him in the first place. Instead, they said over and over that they were stopping him because he made pants-wetters wet their pants.

Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.
 
2014-08-04 01:21:57 PM  

orange whip: Curious as to what the outside the US farkers view on this is....


At least as varied as our gun laws.
Speaking for myself, I think that talking too much about guns makes people resort to increasingly farfetched analogies and may actively lower their IQ. I have years worth of observational research that supports my theory.
 
2014-08-04 01:22:03 PM  

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 identification


According 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 their backs.  But guess what - no one cares.  Your problem is that you live a state that has a culture of gun fear.  You say you grew up around guns and don't fear them, but you have been accustomed to assume that someone with a gun, who isn't in a police uniform, is a bad guy... where does that assumption come from?  It comes from the culture you live in, which assumes that guns are only used by bad guys or the police.  So you can say you aren't afraid of guns, but you have been trained by your culture to think that way deep down.
 
2014-08-04 01:22:59 PM  

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.


Seems like an incredible oversight by the reporter, police and legislators if there is no such requirement. I am not a gun advocate or anti-gun person. I own a shotgun but I would be uncomfortable with minors having the legal right to walk down a street carrying a shotgun. I am okay with them hunting or target shooting with an adult present but kids don't need guns for self-defense.
 
Displayed 50 of 1160 comments


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report