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 349
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15052 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-08-04 06:22:09 AM
28 votes:
This kid is so goddamn lucky he's white.
2014-08-04 01:01:59 AM
25 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 07:18:27 AM
18 votes:
If you believe that:

* a black guy walking down the street minding his own business is fair game for stop and frisk because he "might" be packing heat, but
* a white guy openly toting a shotgun in public must be left alone,

then you might be a wingnut.
2014-08-03 11:42:08 PM
16 votes:
"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.
2014-08-04 06:56:22 AM
15 votes:
Needing to show ID when buying alcohol if you look under 21? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying cigarettes if you look under 18? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying R-rated movie tickets if you look under 17? A-OK.
Needing to show ID when voting if you...well, I don't know what? Patriotically combatting voter fraud.

Needing to show ID when carrying a shotgun if you look under 18? HITLER!
2014-08-04 06:24:10 AM
14 votes:
It's legal (and warm enough to be comfortable) for me to walk around naked where I live. I don't be I assume that the rest of the people around me don't want to see me naked. Walking around with a gun makes you an asshole, regardless of whether or not you have a legal right to.
2014-08-04 04:22:06 AM
14 votes:
You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag. He's doing it to get a rise out of people that are still upset about a mass shooting. Negative attention is better than no attention.
2014-08-04 01:24:49 AM
13 votes:

zamboni: feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.

This.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.


Nothing wrong with making fun of him though, it is our right. I strongly support gun rights, but attention whores out and about with the longer guns in populated, developed areas deserve a wordy jab.
2014-08-04 06:28:58 AM
12 votes:
if you need to be 18 to do something legaly then you should be prepared to show your ID to prove you are, especially if you look younger than that.

The clerk at the grocery store or liquor store won't just take your word for it that you're 18/21 you have to prove it.
2014-08-04 04:35:24 AM
12 votes:

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.


And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.
2014-08-04 02:20:31 AM
12 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech


Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.
2014-08-03 10:18:52 PM
12 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 12:29:16 AM
11 votes:
I love the part of the video at about 1:00 where he's pointing the thing directly at his own face for like 10 seconds.

Fat, ugly, no-doubt-virgin white trash high schooler looking for a sense of empowerment through guns.  Hopefully he can work through enough of his bitterness and self-hate by being a public asshat that he won't end up shooting up his school.
2014-08-03 11:43:08 PM
11 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 06:09:01 AM
10 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 06:49:22 AM
9 votes:
These open carry guys are doing more to support new gun restrictions than any politician ever could.

And they don't even realize it.
2014-08-04 01:33:40 AM
9 votes:

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


When used simply as a means to see if someone is old enough to exercise such a right I don't have an issue with it.  There's no age limit on freedom of speech, there is on voting and bearing arms in public.

For voting you have to be 18 to even become registered to vote, so there's no need to show ID there.  Someone of any age could pick up a gun and carry it around though, so, no, I have no issue with the police asking for proof of age when someone may or may not be legally carrying.
2014-08-04 06:14:54 AM
8 votes:

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

/ Gun is always loaded...


"If enough people were to lawfully open carry in those areas and do it in a safe and lawful manner then these people would end up feeling comfortable around it," he explained.

Why is it that the people who are the loudest proponents of how safe open carry is, are actually the people who do so in the least safe manner?
Seriously, I've never seen an article on open carry protesters where they weren't hanging a rifle off their shoulder while flagging a few aisle at Target, or walking around with their fingers on the trigger, or this case, holding the weapon in such a way that dropping it could blow the front of his face off.

www.liveforfilms.com
2014-08-04 07:11:36 AM
7 votes:
He has the right to do this, yes, but if your primary motivation for doing something is "I have a right to do this," you're probably an asshole.
2014-08-04 07:01:53 AM
7 votes:

Bonzo_1116: Could they have got the kid on "brandishing"? Not sure if that delightfully vague charge is an option in Colorado....


The easiest way to do it would be a disorderly conduct charge. The gun is merely tangential to the fact that the defendant was trying to cause a public disturbance and incite civil unrest. While his carrying a gun was not in and of itself unlawful, his behavior in attempting cause a disturbance was. Same deal as you have a right to free speech, but if cops find you screaming in an apartment complex late at night, they're gonna haul your ass to jail.
2014-08-04 06:42:24 AM
7 votes:

balisane: That kid would be a lot better served by a couple if hours in the gym every week than by trotting a shiatgun around. Not that he's overweight- he just has that "I never move an inch further than necessary to survive" look, aka cardiac face.


The fark he isn't overweight. That kid's at least 30 pounds overweight; borderline obese. Man, Americans really have no idea what normal is supposed to look like any more.
2014-08-04 06:21:14 AM
7 votes:

serpent_sky: 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.


On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things
2014-08-04 02:19:41 AM
7 votes:
We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.
2014-08-03 10:37:24 PM
7 votes:
Nuts Ruining America.
2014-08-04 08:57:54 AM
6 votes:

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.



What in the right hell is wrong with you? This is not Mad Max. If you think guns should be carried around and whipped out like smartphones, you have a serious problem. People like *you* are the very reason I'm gonna grab my family and duck the hell out of the Waffle House on Sunday morning when you trip in with your shotgun for eggs and a short stack. Why? Because the above quote tells me you think the only solution to any argument is gunfire or the threat of gunfire.

And hunting season is restricted within every city limits, so you're not gonna bag a deer in Pennys.

I'm gonna get my family the hell away from unstable muthafarkers like yourself. I'm gonna vote against politicians who pander to such whackadoodle behavior. I'm gonna throw your ass out of my place of business if you behave like that, and I will tell the business owner that lets you in packing like that I'm leaving and never coming back *because* he lets people like you in.

Every last stick of which is perfectly legal for *me* to do.

\hope a troll, but too pessimistic to believe so
2014-08-04 07:10:32 AM
6 votes:

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

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

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.


As the jerk looked under 18, the police did have a reasonable suspicion that he was breaking the law by carrying a firearm while underage.  Given that reasonable suspicion, the law allows them to ask for identification so they can determine if a law is being broken.

The law applies to everyone, even attention whoring dickless gun-nuts, and if you don't want to be asked to show your ID, don't walk around town waving a shotgun.  Also, don't try to buy booze, porn, cigarettes, or lottery tickets.
2014-08-04 06:44:05 AM
6 votes:

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


Competent firearm instructors will tell you the 4 rules of gun safety, and then point out something very important:

Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.
2014-08-04 12:58:08 AM
6 votes:

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.


This.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.
2014-08-04 10:05:16 AM
5 votes:

I alone am best: He  She looks over 18 to me


Famous last words...

Seriously, that kid still has baby fat. They card people buying beer until they look 30 but we're supposed to believe that the kid that shaves once a week is old enough to publicly carry firearms.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns. What I have a problem with is the shiat stupid culture that has grown up around them here in the US.
2014-08-04 08:13:20 AM
5 votes:

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

Scary


Or like being brown and living in Arizona, or being black and living in NYC. If you don't want to suffer from these draconian "white people problems", you can choose to leave the gun at home.

Some liberal group should start an outreach program where they facilitate black and latino youths with transportation and large firearms so they can LEGALLY wander the streets of nice white neighborhoods. Then you can watch the NRA lobby themselves into a knot.
2014-08-04 08:05:30 AM
5 votes:
Douchebag looks to be about 14.  The cops have several complaints, in a town that's had a mass shooting incident.  That's enough reasonable suspicion for a ped stop and an ID check.  It's the totality of the circumstances that matters.  Could you imagine the out-RAGE had the police done nothing to this dopey plumper and he decided to blast off a few rounds?  I think the argument could be made that the cops had a duty to stop and ID him.

The open carry thing is starting to get out of hand with the farktards carrying long guns into Taco Bell and Target.  I'm a proponent of open carry, but every right comes with responsibilities.  Acting rational in public, being a polite member of society, etc.  Fatty crosses that line when you look at the big picture.  I see a person walking down the street open carrying a holstered handgun?  No worries.  Someone who looks WAY underage walking about with a shotgun, again, given the totality of the circumstances in that particular community?  Just dumb.


It's losers like this that are eventually going to make it so I have to keep my shotgun cased until I make it to the stand or the blind.  Shiet, I don't even have a case long enough for my Mosin.  When I take that to the range, I pop the bolt out and walk in with the chamber facing front so the range master can see I'm no threat to anyone, intentional or unintentional.

It's called brains.  IMHO this kid has none.
2014-08-04 07:38:52 AM
5 votes:

pla: We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again.


You're nostalgic for a time that never existed.
2014-08-04 07:26:55 AM
5 votes:

KIA: serpent_sky: Yes, it probably would be good to put some sort of reasonable limitations on open carry laws.

Well, how about we don't call it "limitations" since that runs smack into that whole "infringed" argument.  Counter-proposal: eliminate prohibitions against concealed carry and let Americans exercise their right to carry quietly and without terrorizing a bunch of soccer moms.


Concealed carry is, in and of itself, a limitation, if you want to be technical, but it is at least a logical one, since odds are, a law-abiding citizen who is carrying a concealed weapon is unlikely to use it, and we're unlikely to ever see it or know it is there.  I see nothing wrong with that, but I am of the mind that so long as someone isn't actually doing anything that affects me, I really don't care what they are doing.

I'm far, far, FAR from a soccer mom, but if someone walked into the grocery store with a rifle, I am getting the fark out of there as quickly as possible, and I am pretty sure we just found the bottom limit for me calling the police (who I also don't trust) once I am a safe distance away from it.  Again, I've lived in NY or CT my whole life. Nobody would walk into a store with a gun in their hands or on their back unless they were intending to (a) rob the place, (b) kill someone in there, or (c) they were a total lunatic trying to scare the hell out of people - which they would.

I'm not entirely sure why we, as a culture, should be desensitized to potentially dangerous weapons as to be comfortable with people walking everywhere openly showing them. This isn't Game of Thrones; we don't all need our weapons at hand at all times.  (I am actually a fan of swords and knives; can I just put a sword on my belt and wander these towns? Have a few knives clipped on the outside of my bag?)
2014-08-04 07:13:25 AM
5 votes:
These douchenozzles would do their cause much better service by inviting a friend who never held a gun to the range. Parading around visibly armed while claiming it's so he could defend himself and others from some vaporous "enemy" smacks of dumbass comic book heroics.

Was he walking around some dodgy neighborhood escorting fair maidens home from a kegger?
2014-08-04 06:05:13 AM
5 votes:
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...
2014-08-04 02:44:34 AM
5 votes:

dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.


See also:

www.law.louisville.edu

Morse v. Frederick
2014-08-04 01:41:45 PM
4 votes:

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.


Well f*ck me, the fact that the police wanted to know he wasn't a convicted felon, fleeing fugitive, or minor in possession of a firearm proves the ONLY REASON they stopped him was to persecute him for being a conservative!!!

All of the officer's state dreasons for asking for ID were legit. All of them. Your little treason monkey is just a miscreant. Nothing more.
2014-08-04 11:39:44 AM
4 votes:

trappedspirit: monoski: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

C.R.S. 16-3-103 (2013)

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

There has to be suspicion of criminal activity.


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.
2014-08-04 11:30:42 AM
4 votes:

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.


Except that you're wrong. The supreme court "held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the    if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court _o f_Nevada

If the cops suspected he might not be 18, which is a completely reasonable assumption, then not showing them ID is obstruction, hence the citation.

Of course your "huge lawsuit against the city" fantasy probably has some merit too I bet. How about you post a link to a legal precedent?
2014-08-04 09:55:42 AM
4 votes:

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: 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.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.


To detain someone, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed - and reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause. As you note, they believed that Babyface there was underage, so they detained him. At that point, they can ask for ID, and if the person refuses to provide it, then in many states, they have committed a crime.
Your post would be correct, if the guy was a retiree. But here, where he's 18 and looks 15, then, no - it's the same as if he were walking down the street pushing a keg of beer on a cart and they stopped him to check ID.
2014-08-04 09:35:09 AM
4 votes:

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.


img.fark.net

it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.
2014-08-04 09:06:27 AM
4 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I noticed that one of the local restaraunts had posted a "no firearms" notice on their door as well as one of the local movie theaters which is, I think, a great response. If these idiots want to walk into a business I'm patronizing like a high plains drifter then I'll take my business elsewhere.


Let's be honest here. Aside from the real nutjobs kike this kid, everyone realizes the intent of open carry laws were not "wander down a busy street with a rifle in your hand" or "sit at Taco Bell and eat a burrito with a couple of long guns strapped to your back."  They're doing things like that because they technically can - and there are many things we can all legally - and within our rights - do that are not without repercussions. Any one of us, go spend the day sitting in a public playground watching the kids and see how long until the cops come ask who you are and what you're doing, as it is deemed suspicious, even though you have a right to sit in a public park. And that's far less threatening than wandering around as if you're in the Wild West... but would not go without notice, nonetheless. 
Some things that are legal still become potential public safety issues, or actual public safety issues.
2014-08-04 08:33:02 AM
4 votes:

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

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

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.



In this case it does not, however. Open carry in Colorado is limited to those 18 and over with a valid license. The boy in this question was 18 and looked it, so IMO the police were totally within their rights to ask him for his ID to prove he was 18. If he was driving a car the same thing would apply; he's performing a public act that requires government approval so he'd better have the proper documentation (in this case, his ID) on himself to prove it. Or do you think it's ok to drive around without your driver's license, because it's the same situation.
2014-08-04 08:14:33 AM
4 votes:

GDubDub: I mean, they can't *really* be what they say they are. They can't *really* think that they are helping.


You have to have someone on the low end of the bell curve to have a bell curve.

I'm not scared of guns.  I grew up in rural Rhode Island.  There were always clay pigeon fragments at the beach.  My sweetie has a concealed carry permit and a revolver (fark those new-fangled semis).

But these guys need to be slapped down hard.  They are doing everything wrong that I was taught about handling guns.  I saw the snapshot of the kid with the butt of his ass-blaster on the floor pointed up at his face and I was saying "oh please oh please let Uncle Chuck make a visit."

Someone is going to die doing this, and it's going to be his own damn fault.  It's the only way these idiots are going to wake the fark up to how douchey they are.  The sooner the better.
2014-08-04 07:38:48 AM
4 votes:

Gunther: Even lots of pro-gun folks think Open Carry assholes are assholes because they're bright enough to realize it's hurting their own cause. NOBODY is coming away with a more positive view of guns after interacting with that pasty sack of asshole-flavored walrus blubber.

As someone who is in favor of more firearms regulation, this shiat is great. If you're an asshole gun owner who's gonna turn the public towards gun regulation, by all means; parade up and down sites where shooting sprees occurred while holding a shotgun, loudly braying about how what you're doing is legal. Please; try your best to upset and terrify as many people as possible.


Exactly my point; these people are not making people comfortable with firearms; they're not say, setting up a public display that shows people how guns work, how to safely handle them, so on and so forth. A true activist would do something like that; they'd be interested in educating people about the right to bear arms, educating people as to the proper way to carry, store, clean, and handle a gun. Instead, these specific flavors of wingnuts wander the streets yelling "MAH RIGHTS!" while appearing menacing and frightening to the average person because they're not actually interested in defending their rights, nor are they interested in educating anyone about firearms. They want to look like badasses and scream about guns.

I also can't help but find an 18-year-old who is terribly concerned about his Constitutional right to bear arms a wee bit disingenuous. Try to remember being 18.... what did you care about more than really, dating, partying, going off on your own (college, whatever) and developing your identity?  I can't help but think this kid is a bit touched, and really wouldn't be surprised if he ended up shooting some people sooner than later - either by accident (MAH RIGHTS, again) or because he's just one of those special ones we end up with from time to time.  And if my impression of him is incorrect, well, he only has himself to blame for that, no?
2014-08-04 07:30:16 AM
4 votes:
If you feel threatened by this semi-retarded little fatso and his shotgun, are you allowed to shoot him?
If no, why not?

/feeling a bit cranky today
2014-08-04 07:20:37 AM
4 votes:

Rhaab: Christ, what an asshole.


Even lots of pro-gun folks think Open Carry assholes are assholes because they're bright enough to realize it's hurting their own cause. NOBODY is coming away with a more positive view of guns after interacting with that pasty sack of asshole-flavored walrus blubber.

As someone who is in favor of more firearms regulation, this shiat is great. If you're an asshole gun owner who's gonna turn the public towards gun regulation, by all means; parade up and down sites where shooting sprees occurred while holding a shotgun, loudly braying about how what you're doing is legal. Please; try your best to upset and terrify as many people as possible.
2014-08-04 07:16:33 AM
4 votes:

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

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

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.


If you are under the age of 18 you are not allowed to open carry a firearm, and if the police believe that this person is under the age of 18 then they believe he is breaking the law, therefore they have the right to stop and ask for his ID.
2014-08-04 07:13:56 AM
4 votes:

FightDirector: Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.


So, educate me a little here:  Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign?  We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

Or is the constant cleaning and tinkering and fondling part of the attraction in the first place?
2014-08-04 06:47:14 AM
4 votes:

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


You unload it and you sure as fark don't point it at anything you don't want to put a hole through.

/and the moment a gun is out of sight, assume it walked itself across the room and re-loaded.
//Fark Gun Safety 101
2014-08-04 06:35:37 AM
4 votes:
zamboni:

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

Scary


So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

cdn.gunaxin.com
2014-08-04 06:32:19 AM
4 votes:

dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.


That's not based on age; that's based on the fact that the school (not the kids) publishes the paper. Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns the press, not the hirelings who write for them. College newspapers are operated under the same principle. You weren't censored; you were edited.
2014-08-04 06:27:57 AM
4 votes:

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.


I was with you until "3" (and 1 and 2 were the same thing). After that, you got pretty much everything wrong. As usual.
2014-08-04 06:08:45 AM
4 votes:

fusillade762: dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:

[www.law.louisville.edu image 364x273]

Morse v. Frederick


That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue.  If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.
2014-08-04 12:38:47 AM
4 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
2014-08-05 09:32:56 AM
3 votes:

I alone am best: mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?

Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.


The fact that a teenager strutting around in public with a deadly weapon is legal, and that people like yourself approve of the situation, demonstrates wonderfully just how insane our society has become. Instead of Aurora with a shotgun, suppose this kid was wandering around the Boston Marathon with a bomb? You okay with that, too? Just protecting himself against non-White people and NRA-hating liberals, right? The crew of Founders who formulated the Second Amendment would be facepalming themselves.
2014-08-04 03:24:36 PM
3 votes:
Own eight guns, have had concealed carry permits in multiple states, have carried a pistol openly in Virginia (legal there).

That being said, if I see some idiot walking around a city with a long rifle, I'm either going to call the police or shoot him.  There's no god damn reason to be doing that other than to deliberately alarm people.  I know people who do this, they will openly admit they get off on "pissing off the liberals and gun grabbers and cops."

Morons like this will be responsible for outlawing open carry and restricting concealed carry more.
2014-08-04 02:57:53 PM
3 votes:

Halli:

Somehow these guys always look like that. Just needs a fedora to be extra douchy.

semiotix: .

Let's all tip our fedoras in respect to a game well played.


I don't wear either, but at least get the damn name of the hat right...

static.fjcdn.com

... for Dr. Jones' sake, if nothing else.

www.thegreenhead.com
2014-08-04 01:29:55 PM
3 votes:

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.


Exactly.
Kill a brown guy who is selling untaxed cigarettes, meh.
Ask an attention whoring teenager for some ID. TYRANNY!!!
2014-08-04 01:21:34 PM
3 votes:

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 01:08:29 PM
3 votes:

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.
MFK
2014-08-04 11:58:23 AM
3 votes:

trappedspirit: monoski: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

C.R.S. 16-3-103 (2013)

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

There has to be suspicion of criminal activity.


Here's the thing that I think is getting lost here: carrying a shotgun down the street for no reason is not normal. It's odd and most assuredly anti-social behavior. We have reached the point in our civilization where it's reasonable to expect to walk down to the 7-11 and not have the need to defend yourself. The people who do carry openly in situations like this are typically on their way to shoot something or someone therefore it's reasonable for a cop to be suspicious of criminal activity - or they are just attention whoring with a lethal weapon for no reason other than to make a point - also abnormal behavior in our society.

Now you can say "oh, he's technically allowed to do this because it's legal" and you would be right, but that doesn't mean it's not completely farked up. It's not a tennis racket it's a device that can kill someone very easily.
2014-08-04 11:52:01 AM
3 votes:

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: ScaryBottles: kim jong-un: fusillade762:
................

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
[www.memelets.com image 769x595]

So let me see if I understand you correctly.
Person #1 says something about how a gun works.
Person #2 says "No, the gun doesn't work that way, it works this way.  You don't know what you're talking about."\

That makes Person #2 a wannabe bad ass?  That's like posting Neil for a grammar nazi.


This is a common tactic by the NRA crowd -- for a while their favorite was to slam anybody who said 'clip' instead of 'magazine'.  It was their way of claiming high ground and winning unrelated arguments for themselves, when gun users have been using the word clip for years (with copious documentation).

They believe that comprehensive and detailed knowledge of gun variations is the same as understanding what the 2nd Amendment is, or what civil discourse or civil behavior are.  Again, this crowd is heavily into fetishizing objects instead of actual freedom or liberty.  They literally believe that guns are freedom and if you don't love guns as much as they do, you don't love freedom, or understand it.
2014-08-04 11:51:01 AM
3 votes:

bgilmore5: More than anything Hitler loved white guys blindly listening to fear mongers broadcasting nationalistic messages across the country.


He's also wrong.  Hitler loved gun control ONLY if you were not a 'pure' German citizen.  That means, gays, Communists, Jews, and any other people that  would have been rounded up and sent off to the camps as time went on.  Otherwise, gun ownership was lauded for the common German citizen.
2014-08-04 11:16:45 AM
3 votes:
Trolls are funny in these kind of threads:

"So what it's legal"
"Yeah, we know.. he's still a twat"
"But it's legal nngg!"
"Uuh, yeah.. Anyway, look at the stupid fat virgin haha"
"fhhhssssgggg 2nd Amendment!"
"Dude, we know .. Check it out, he's even called Loner! hahaha"
"PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!"

/and scene
2014-08-04 11:00:49 AM
3 votes:

sycraft: Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun. Yes, lots of people have guns in the US. It is what it is. Lots of them carry them too, you just don't know it. Shut up, put on your big boy pants, and stop wasting emergency services' time with this shiat. You are NOT helping prevent a crime.

Also the police are being jackasses here. They were looking for a reason to arrest the guy, though they knew they didn't have one. The "Oh he wouldn't give us his ID," it bogus as they know you needn't carry ID when you are walking around. They didn't like what he was doing so they were going to find some reason to arrest him.

Everyone involved needs to go, settle the fark down, and stop being an asshat.

I really am getting tired of the "open carry" asshats though. Just stop it retards. It doesn't make you look tough, it makes you look stupid.


A pasty teenager toting a shotgun through town is most definitely something alarming to normal people, given how many mass shootings we've seen over the past few years. And the cops have no reason to believe he's of legal age with a face like that, so asking for ID is most definitely acceptable.
2014-08-04 10:51:24 AM
3 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.

/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.


Suspicion is a legal right to request ID.  It happens all the time with drunk drivers.  Just because this kid is white doesn't confer upon him extrajudicial rights.  If the cops feel he is breaking the law (i.e. carrying while underage), they are free to take him in.
2014-08-04 10:50:51 AM
3 votes:

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


Your analogy is totally off. If you are drinking alcohol, prove your age. If you are buying cigarettes, prove your age. If you are driving, prove your age. I find it scary to see a kid walking around with a shotgun. If you looked out of your door and saw someone just walking with a gun, are your thoughts: "Well there goes someone exercising their constitutional rights" or do you ask" What the hell is going on?" If it happened in my little quiet neighborhood, I would go grab my gun and watch him like a hawk. If he stepped into my yard, there would be a bead on his forehead. An 18 yr old walking around with a loaded weapon works against my right to carry a weapon because it shows that even idiot can own a gun, no intelligence test.
2014-08-04 10:45:11 AM
3 votes:
Open carry asshats are this generation's anti-flag-burning zealots.  They don't understand abstractions like liberty and citizenship but goddamn do they understand how to fetishize objects instead.

It's too bad that, unlike the flag-wavers, who just got steamed in the face and did no harm, these chubby losers are running interference for the next mass shooting to occur, currently on the clock.
2014-08-04 10:24:28 AM
3 votes:

Jurodan: I can easily imagine a scene where this guy walks into a public venue there like a super market or, for sheer idiocy, the movie theater and gets shot by some startled concealed carry gun owner trying to prevent another massacre.


Or...Dumbass McGinty is walking around with his gun strapped to his back where children are present, curious toddler walks up behind him, reaches up, and pulls the trigger (and you know that these open-carry nuts more than likely do not have the safety on their guns, so that they may "defend themselves and others" at a moment's notice).  Depending on which way the barrel's facing, instant tragedy for Dumbass or the toddler.  And yes, a toddler can get behind you and do things without you noticing.  I have a backpack that's decorated with my WDW pin collection, and a little one managed to pull one of them off when I was standing in line (I was holding the backpack by a strap by my side, so it was low to the ground).  I didn't even know it happened until his mom tapped me on the shoulder and handed it back to me.

I think that it's fine for people to own guns, as long as they do so responsibly.  Blatant open carry of long firearms (unless you're going hunting, taking your gun to and from the firing range, etc.) is irresponsible because A) people don't know your intent when you come into a public venue with a firearm, so they're afraid that you're there to shoot up the place and B) there are too many scenarios, like the ones described above, where something could go wrong.

Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
2014-08-04 09:47:20 AM
3 votes:
I was raised around guns. I've owned guns. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I also think the only reason this kid is wandering around town with a shotgun is that he's an attention-whoring little shiatbag who bears watching. Normal people don't walk around town carrying shotguns. If he doesn't accidentally blow his own head off first because he obviously does not know how to properly handle a gun, he'll probably end up in jail.

It's not about being a liberal or a conservative. It's just about not being a farking idiot.
MFK
2014-08-04 09:02:36 AM
3 votes:
seems to me that a lot of these problems could be solved with "rude carry" or "brandishing" laws. You want to carry your gun in public like a responsible adult? Fine. Here are the definitions of acceptable open carry that won't make everyone else "uncomfortable" to the point where they're all calling 911 in a panic.

You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing. You want to bring your AR-15 to Cracker Barrel to protect your deep-fried dinner? Sorry - that's rude carry. Leave it in the rack like a normal person.

The fact of the matter is while these guys may be the "good guys" in their own heads, nobody else knows if they are a good guy or someone who's on his way to shoot up a mall. We shouldn't have to wait to find out the hard way.

Guns are not something we "need to be comfortable around". They are not toys and we need to stop pretending like they are. That's when accidents happen. Unfortunately, gun accidents can be serious and deadly and it simply amazes me that people are actually in denial about this.
2014-08-04 08:33:19 AM
3 votes:

italie: 1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?


Frazzled or not: nobodycan tell another person's intentions, which is why people have pointed out this kid could easily be shot by someone else while showing off his rights - for whatever reason he is inclined to do so.

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.

More than anything, considering it's an open-carry state and he's not the only person in the state, or even that town, to open carry, it's apparent the reason he is inclined to defend his right to carry has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with intimidating and frightening people and the ensuing attention.  And that is problematic. What happens when the high isn't enough? When people don't react enough, or quickly enough? Or the cops asking for ID gets boring?

Let's be honest: rights or no rights, this kid is no more exhibiting normal behavior than I would be if I walked to the corner and spent the entire day walking back and forth across the crosswalk every time the light turned green, while standing still at the corner when it turned red. Legal, but extremely strange and probably disturbing to anyone who noticed me doing it in front of their house.
2014-08-04 07:45:22 AM
3 votes:

Avery614: /oh wait he's white nevermind


Ehhhh... that argument falls apart when you look at the photos of all the mass shooters in recent years. As a bonus, add in the average serial killer's profile, and it's almost always a white male. If you were going to place a bet on either, "white male" would always be the safest.
2014-08-04 07:36:21 AM
3 votes:

PreMortem: 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.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


I'm quite sure that he, and all the other stalwarts who think they are defending the second amendment here, wouldn't be in the least pertrurbed if these fellows were exercising their rights out in front of their kid's school.
i18.photobucket.com
2014-08-04 07:29:36 AM
3 votes:
Insecure fatty masks insecurities with a gun and a phony cause. A tale as old as time.
2014-08-04 07:20:32 AM
3 votes:

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: WHITE.


Which is the only reason that he wasn't either detained, or some other "honest citizen" didn't "stand their ground" against him.
2014-08-04 07:18:22 AM
3 votes:
Am I supposed to be able to mind-read the intention of anyone open-carrying a weapon?

Someone walks into a restaurant with a shotgun or a rifle, am I to assume he poses no danger to me? If I freeze up and don't react while analyzing all what-ifs, I could be injured if I make the wrong choice and turns out it's actually a bad guy trying to rob the place.
2014-08-04 07:18:15 AM
3 votes:
Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun. Yes, lots of people have guns in the US. It is what it is. Lots of them carry them too, you just don't know it. Shut up, put on your big boy pants, and stop wasting emergency services' time with this shiat. You are NOT helping prevent a crime.

Also the police are being jackasses here. They were looking for a reason to arrest the guy, though they knew they didn't have one. The "Oh he wouldn't give us his ID," it bogus as they know you needn't carry ID when you are walking around. They didn't like what he was doing so they were going to find some reason to arrest him.

Everyone involved needs to go, settle the fark down, and stop being an asshat.

I really am getting tired of the "open carry" asshats though. Just stop it retards. It doesn't make you look tough, it makes you look stupid.
2014-08-04 07:18:10 AM
3 votes:

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.


Police officer:  "Your honor, the defendant looked like he was 16 years old."

Case closed.
2014-08-04 06:51:41 AM
3 votes:
Realistically, the kid is merely showing the stupidity of the law.  Although I'm happy I don't live there with the little nutjob, he technically has broken no laws.

Of course, getting "accidentally" shot by his own weapon is the justice we are all looking for here.  Not enough to kill him, of course, but maybe taking a foot or hand off.
2014-08-04 06:39:47 AM
3 votes:

FightDirector: On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high). In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status. I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


Yes, it probably would be good to put some sort of reasonable limitations on open carry laws. There is entirely a different thing between your example of the responsible person who has their shirt ride up, or a hunter, and these guys who wander the streets with large guns - intentionally drawing attention to themselves and their guns - enough so to make the news where open carry laws are the norm.

It seems to me that they are doing something wrong when they end up getting media attention for doing something that is legal. Let's see... while it's entirely legal for a single, grown man to sit on a bench at the playground all day - he's going to attract unwanted attention because it will make people uncomfortable.  Depending on his intentions, he may also go to the media and talk about his rights to creep out parents by staring at their kids while doing nothing technically wrong.  I could legally cross the street back and forth all day on the green light, but I suspect the people in the houses by that corner would be a little freaked out by the person crossing the street, back and forth, all day long and again, unwanted attention.  It's kind of the best thing I can come up with that goes along with these open carry fanatics who walk around with rifles, making sure people see them, the media is called, so on and so forth.

Also, I think part of the reason these things get national attention is just how different the laws are in every state. Any one of those guys came trotting down the street around here, and there would be just short of, if not, a SWAT team on them in minutes.  But seeing guns is not normal around here and it would absolutely panic everyone. I'd think in a state where seeing guns is normal, yet these people end up upsetting/frightening people, there has to be some sort of clause in the law that yes, they can carry, but perhaps... setting up conditions and perimeters of some sort? A gun on someone's belt in a coffee shop is really different from someone walking into the same shop with a rifle in their hands, moving it around, I guess, flaunting it? Making sure everyone is more than aware they have a large gun on them as opposed to simply exercising their right to carry a gun?  (And even I am somewhat uncomfortable with my own words here because I'm not sure how you flaunt doing something you have a legal right to do, but.... maybe it's more that these people have the intent of stirring the pot and upsetting people so they'll get this sort of attention as opposed to the person who bought a gun for personal protection and just has it on them, in compliance with the law? Though again, you can't legislate intent.)

Damn... it's just an all around hairy issue. Like I said, I see these people, more than anything, ultimately leading to the repeal or restriction of open carry laws because they're just too much trouble to deal with under the current laws.  A lot of fanatics/extremists in this country forget that laws and regulations can be changed, and their own behavior can be used against them when/if that happens.
2014-08-04 06:36:20 AM
3 votes:

Czechzican: You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag. He's doing it to get a rise out of people that are still upset about a mass shooting. Negative attention is better than no attention.


Looks like he doesn't exercise at all.

/Listen fattie, drop the gun, drop 40 pounds, and pick up a guitar if you want to get laid.
2014-08-04 06:30:13 AM
3 votes:

kim jong-un: 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.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.
2014-08-04 06:25:56 AM
3 votes:

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.


Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
2014-08-04 06:25:29 AM
3 votes:
Kid needs to find a girlfriend.
2014-08-04 06:14:11 AM
3 votes:
beta.img.cbsnews.com
2014-08-04 01:17:15 AM
3 votes:

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
2014-08-04 12:13:40 AM
3 votes:

Cewley: Nuts Ruining America.


Nutty Raving Assholes.

Why are they always so white and pasty??
2014-08-03 11:57:38 PM
3 votes:
Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.
2014-08-05 10:48:43 AM
2 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Xcott: Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.

Then repeal the second amendment. If you do that, you can make all the laws you want.


Really?  Let's go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment because you don't want to let go of a dumb argument?

No, let's not repeal the 2nd amendment.  Let's ditch the dumb argument, and face actual facts.  The fact is, firearms are much, much better at killing people, and much more dangerous, than random objects like screwdrivers or cars.  That's why people want the right to bear arms---because a screwdriver won't do.  And everyone knows this, so it comes across as patently insincere and dishonest when people bust out the canard that "oh you can kill people just as easily with insulin or a fork."

Everyone knows that guns are lethal---they are made to be lethal, that's the whole point of wanting them for defense and having a 2nd amendment.  Everyone knows that a knife or a baseball bat is not an acceptable substitute for a firearm---and certainly neither is a rock or a sharp stick or some bleach.  So when you argue that some other random object can kill people just as easily, you're actually contradicting all other arguments for the necessity of firearms, and undermining the whole cause of gun rights.   It doesn't just make someone look dumb at statistics:  it comes across as cynical and dissembling.
2014-08-05 09:59:50 AM
2 votes:

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

 
Republicans are all in favor of people being required to show papers in order to vote, and also in favor of cops harassing up people who congregate in public places for causes they don't like, so I'm sure they would be OK with this.
2014-08-04 07:48:04 PM
2 votes:
Disturbing the peace. You have a constitutional right to speech, too, but if you play your music(speech) super-loud all night, you'll get busted for that too. That you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a maximal right to do that anywhere and anyway you like. This can go further though. The right to keep and bear arms is not, specifically, the right to carry them wherever and whenever you like, but the right to own them and use them for self-defense in battle. If a person is not under threat, then their presentation of those arms in public can be made illegal in the same way that loitering(gathering without a purpose), illegal parking(placing your legal property where it doesn't belong), and illegal dumping(disposing of your property outside proper channels) are illegal. Just as your Constitutional right to civil redress is moderated by standing, your Constitutional right to possess arms can be moderated by whether you are doing so properly and with cause. So, walking around his town openly armed with no direct, specific reason to be so -such as undergoing training as part of an organized and state-regulated militia, or when motivated by a clear and specific need to defend himself, his property, or the State, can, in fact, be illegal, and in more ways than one.
2014-08-04 03:46:17 PM
2 votes:

mike_d85: There are a number of logical fallacies in that test.


Egoy3k: Passing some arbitrary bullshiat under tight time constraints is not the same thing is passing a practical exam on how to handle a firearm safely.


Guys, that was a literacy test used to keep black people from voting, tests like that were why the voting rights act was passed. It's a historical example of what can happen if you have people making a test who want the people who take the test to fail the test.
2014-08-04 03:06:16 PM
2 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: jchuffyman: Lenny_da_Hog: jchuffyman: Just like I have no idea which fat teenager with a gun wants to kill me. So thank you for making that argument for me.

You don't know which old woman with a shopping basket wants to kill you either.

The difference is that you're hired by the public to perform a job within the parameters of the criminal justice system.

I'm not going to break any laws while interacting with bad cops. Cops shouldn't break any laws interacting with people they think are bad by "gut feeling."

So, your argument is that because you don't know which police officers are abusive asshole that you treat all of them like they could be, yet, you say it isn't valid for people  totreat all people in possession of firearms who have no clear reason to be possessing them (hunting, job related, blah blah blah) as possibly having the intent of doing something bad with them?

Because I don't know which cops are abusive assholes, I'm going to cooperate only to the extent that I am required by law. If they try to force me to do something they have no authority to do, I'm going to refuse.

That's not treating them as assholes. That's treating them professionally. I expect the same professionalism from them.


So the scenario is this. Enough people called about this kid to warrant them checking him out. So they did, and asked him for ID. When he needed a reason, they went through several (all valid). When he still refused because he might be retarded, they said fark it, and charged him with obstruction. Sounds like they were pretty professional to me.
2014-08-04 02:35:07 PM
2 votes:
I stopped skimming when I saw the herpa-derp in this thread. To quote Lewis Black "NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS."  The kid looks like Eric Cartman age 15.  The cops wanted to see an ID to confirm he was 18.  He refused.  Whether you are pro gun or anti gun, wouldn't the sensible assumption be that maybe he's trying to hide his underage?  This would have been avoided if he just proved he was 18.  Then this would be a non-issue, nothing to see here.  This whole thing is just to stir up the gun debate and make this kid look like a complete douche.

So yes, asshole if you were under 18 you would have been committing a crime, and thats why they asked.  I'm pretty sure that they are required by law to ask if the person looks underage. Be happy you look so damn young.  You will probably get carded for alcohol and cigarettes until you're forty.  I don't want to be anywhere near a gun, but I have enough sense to understand that there are plenty of responsible gun owners out there who hunt for sport, etc who should not have their rights taken away and do not need pricks like you making them look bad.
2014-08-04 01:43:36 PM
2 votes:

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 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 th ...


You have apparently not considered that there are times and places for things.  In rural areas or during hunting season, guns are to be expected and no big deal.  In a VERY urban area(Aurora) and not during hunting season, then a shotgun carried around is going to cause concern.  If nothing else, there's concern because there is absolutely no reason for the carrying of said shotgun other than 1) you're up to no good or 2) you're a attention whore and therefore slightly mentally unstable.  In either of those cases, I'd move my children away from them in a calm manner.

I grew up in a rural area and I grew up with guns.  Shooting is one of my favorite things to do.  I'm also not a moron and I'm responsible.
2014-08-04 01:27:53 PM
2 votes:

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.


The first thing he did was ask for identification. Your position, then, is that where a suspect like the one in question is functionally retarded, the police are obliged to spell out logical connections obvious to any person with an IQ above that of your typical ideological conservative. That fact that he's a young looking person toting around a gun in a community relatively recently victimized by a mass shooting just wasn't enough for your beloved little treason monkey here to figure out why he was being carded.
2014-08-04 01:27:49 PM
2 votes:

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.


A friend of mine was carrying his shotgun down the street to loan it to a friend, because his wife had taken the car to to work. This was in Montana, in a little town where things like bears still might come into town. But he wasn't looking for bears--he was just carrying his gun. The cops stopped him, told him that someone had called them, he was making people nervous.

You know what he did? He laughed, explained what he was doing, and took the gun to his friend's house. Now, what is the difference between this guy and Mr. 2nd Amendment worshipper? Could it be ATTENTION WHORING?

It's not illegal for me to stand on the street corner in a string bikini and scream Bible verses at the passersby either. But I bet someone would call the cops on me. You can do whatever you want in public. But if you don't want the public to pay attention to it, maybe you should just do it in your back yard. Or not at all.
2014-08-04 01:27:17 PM
2 votes:

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?


This also totally ignores that public panic is in fact a reason that you lose your rights in almost every case.
2014-08-04 01:26:35 PM
2 votes:
Remember when John Kerry was carrying his hunting rifle in the proper manner and republicans lost their collective shiat about how he doesn't know how to carry a rifle? Then less than a year later, Dick Cheney was carrying his hunting rifle in an improper manner and nearly blew his friend's head off, and the friend had to apologize?

/good times... good times...
2014-08-04 01:19:13 PM
2 votes:
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 01:09:59 PM
2 votes:

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 01:03:08 PM
2 votes:

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 12:52:10 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 12:43:01 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 12:40:21 PM
2 votes:
Ever have a d-bag older sibling that would wave his finger a hair's width away from your face while loudly shouting "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?  This kid is that douchebag.  In 20 years he'll be the d-bag who works for cash under the table so his psycho-biatch ex-wife can't steal his money for her bratty kids and shoe collection.  Doesn't make him a criminal, but he's still and insufferable d-bag.
2014-08-04 12:12:46 PM
2 votes:

Headso: AurizenDarkstar: Umm, what civil right does one have to walk down the street armed?  And don't give me the 2nd Amendment, since nowhere does it state that you have the right to carry a weapon on your person at all times.

the shall not be infringed part isn't floating yer boat?


How about the whole "regulated militia" part?  How come that part always seems to get lopped off?
2014-08-04 12:05:39 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus: Actually, the rate of cops getting wounded or killed has been steadily decreasing since the 1970s. But if they're really so worried about not returning home that they need to abuse people's civil rights, then maybe they should switch to a less dangerous profession.


Umm, what civil right does one have to walk down the street armed?  And don't give me the 2nd Amendment, since nowhere does it state that you have the right to carry a weapon on your person at all times.

GameSprocket: Please explain the difference between an armed officer asking for your identification and an armed officer asking for your identification. This should be interesting. Oh I get it, ICE is only interested in you if you are brown.


So, you're argument is that a LEO should never have the right to question you, even if it's to verify that you might be of the proper age to do what this dipshiat kid did?  He can SAY he's 18, but unless the officers could verify that information, he's in the wrong.  But I'm sure in your world, all LEO's are considered suspect, even if they are just doing their job.
2014-08-04 11:56:29 AM
2 votes:

China White Tea: monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.


You are required to be 18 to carry a gun, this kid barely looks 15, it is completely reasonable for an officer to ask for his ID to validate his age. This was not a random stop (they only do that to black people in major cities)
2014-08-04 11:32:16 AM
2 votes:
The same thing happens every day just for carrying a camera.

"Your camera is making some pants-wetter nervous."

"That's their problem"

"YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING OUR INVESTIGATION!"
2014-08-04 11:08:55 AM
2 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.


((11 caller) Hey, it's me again. That guy, walking down the street in Aurora with a big scary shotgun for no apparent reason?  Yeah, he just shot up the movie theater.  Could you maybe send an officer with a mop.  Thanks, bye-bye.
2014-08-04 11:00:54 AM
2 votes:

FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.

I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.

We can start with a pilot program in Philly.


Go for it.  Unless, of course, you think it's better to have kids accidentally killing people WHEN - not if - they find a gun.  Since the guns aren't going anywhere and all.


Also, I forgot to mention, as well during the last post, how artfully you dodged the question:

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

Care to take another swing?


"education" isn't "Education".  Unfortunately we don't seem to have access to the former here when it comes to political topics.

Kids aren't shooting each other accidentally.  It really doesn't happen much.  What DOES happen is that mentally unstable people with access to firearms have a trigger event.

Only some 8% of homicides from 2007-2010 in Philly involved juveniles.  The data don't reveal how many perpetrators of each age bracket there were, so I suppose it's possible that all 27 over that 4 year period were killed because of a lack of education, but I doubt it.  You're chasing a problem that doesn't exist.  Whether that's because it's what the NRA says would work, or because you somehow came up with this idea on your own, I've no idea.

Make sure we have the means to teach Science, Math, English, social science and sex ed, because they are all specifically important to the future academic and professional careers of ALL children.  Then we can talk about prioritizing pet-educational projects.
2014-08-04 10:50:33 AM
2 votes:
"he is doing it to make the public feel more "comfortable" around guns"

I feel comfortable around guns just not when they are in the hands of people with piss-poor judgement like this kid.
2014-08-04 10:43:41 AM
2 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.

/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.


The legal barrier for police to request ID is almost non-existent.  And failure to do so can and will result in standard Contempt of Cop charges.  Is it fair?  No.  Is it constitutional?  No.  Does anyone care when it has nothing to do with gun totin white folks?  Also no.

You wanna be a freedom fighter?  Fine.  Don't biatch when the establishment does what you functionally BEGGED the establishment to do.  And when it comes down on your head, maybe have the presence of mind to realize it's not because of the specific thing you did, but because of the structure of the establishment you thought you could take on by waggling a shotgun around some skiddish people with PTSD.

The charge will stick, he will settle and pay a fine and we will all move on with our lives.  He will have accomplished nothing except gain support in the "always pro-gun" crowd, hatred in the "always anti-gun" crowd, and plain old revulsion from the rest of us.
2014-08-04 10:39:08 AM
2 votes:
Hey there, Chubby, you're only 18, so right now, you still think your voice matters.  Mommy and daddy made you feel that way, that you were special, that you were important, that you had valid opinions on things.

But this is the real world.  You've gone from being 1/3 of a household to 1/500,000,000th of a population.  Your opinions and preferences have gone from High Priority to Completely Irrelevant.

Life will beat this truth into you.  You can fight it as long as you want, maybe clench those doughy fists into balls and cry about it, but you will lose.

You are nothing special.  You are not a crusader.  You are a dumb kid with a latent sense of parentally-granted importance and an idealist's rainbow goggles.

I can't wait to watch you fall.
2014-08-04 10:09:30 AM
2 votes:

cptrios: Needing to show ID when buying alcohol if you look under 21? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying cigarettes if you look under 18? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying R-rated movie tickets if you look under 17? A-OK.
Needing to show ID when voting if you...well, I don't know what? Patriotically combatting voter fraud.

Needing to show ID when carrying a shotgun if you look under 18? HITLER!


One of these is not like the others.
2014-08-04 10:06:10 AM
2 votes:

ZeroPly: I don't know if it's that black and white. I'm no expert on this, but the ruling seems to indicate that the police have to be investigating a suspected crime to request ID. In that case, do they have to inform you of what crime that is? Otherwise they have carte blanche to request identification from whoever they want to, since they are always investigating SOME crime.


I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911, because if something happens, the public (rightfully) loses it that there was no response to a call/calls that could have prevented, or limited the harm of, a mass shooting or other major crime. That alone is reason enough for them to ask questions - they have to be able to show they followed up and used due diligence regarding a potential incident involving the public they are accountable to.

Again, this kid was questioned by the police after people called the police, specifically, regarding him and his actions. That alone is impetus enough in pretty much enough for the police to stop, identify, and question a person in any state, even states without a stop and ID law. They're investigating reports of a suspicious person.
2014-08-04 10:01:15 AM
2 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.

For the lazy:

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

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

I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.


You'd be wrong (in states where open carry is legal).
The difference here is that the kid looked underage, and carrying a weapon while appearing to be a kid creates reasonable suspicion that can warrant checking an ID. It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.
2014-08-04 09:56:54 AM
2 votes:

I alone am best: None of which apply in this situation.


I love this. Authoritarians will support "had bloodshot eyes" as probable cause for a search but carrying around firearms for no particular reason is kosher. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored.
2014-08-04 09:51:04 AM
2 votes:

pla: 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.


But this is completely not true.  If this kid were heading to the firing range or out hunting, no one would bat an eye, and THAT is the intent of the open carry long gun laws.  And open carrying long guns is not a right, it is allowable under the law.  Either way, it is certainly not a privilege that one cannot exercise.

Walking around with a long gun for no reason makes one look more like the psychos who shoot up schools, movie theaters and post offices or rob stores.

I live in Texas,the land of ubiquitous gun ownership and rabid republicans (if what I read on Fark is true).  You pretty much get a CCL with your voter ID card.  Yet, inexplicably, I never see folks walking down 6th Street with a rifle, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that responsible gun owners aren't out to scare people with their guns unless there is a reason to do so.  You don't pull your gun out unless you are going to use it (either for protection, or to go to the range, or to go hunting).  Doing so otherwise is a good way to get yourself killed by some other responsible citizen who has a CCL (pretty much everyone in the south if what I read on Fark is true) who is standing their ground.
2014-08-04 09:44:21 AM
2 votes:

I alone am best: including not showing ID


Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.
2014-08-04 09:42:41 AM
2 votes:
Has nobody else noted the resemblance

i.chzbgr.com
2014-08-04 09:32:49 AM
2 votes:
This kid is why alcohol purchases are limited to those 21 and over. It's scientific fact that a teenager's brains aren't fully developed yet, especially the frontal lobe - the part of the brain where we figure out "what happens next?" and "what if?". It's why teens do the dumb sh*t they would not even think of doing ten years later.

All you people out there who take the time to handle your guns safely - not just according to the law but with common f*cking sense - should want to beat this moron's ass to fine powder.
MFK
2014-08-04 09:31:57 AM
2 votes:

Headso: MFK: You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing.

In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.


Easiest thing in the WORLD. If you're hunting you are probably wearing some sort of hunter's camo plus the ALREADY required bright orange pieces that would easily identify the carrier as either hunting or on his way to go hunting. No one gets upset and no cops get called because everyone says "oh, that guy's hunting" and zero farks are given.
2014-08-04 09:30:17 AM
2 votes:

FightDirector: serpent_sky: 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.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


One needs to look to history as to what started the limits on open carry in this country before they start making suggestions.

img.fark.net
2014-08-04 08:57:01 AM
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


Pity you didn't live in a civilized place where you didn't have to live in fear of your life.
2014-08-04 08:37:28 AM
2 votes:
Punchable face?
www.rawstory.com

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.
2014-08-04 08:35:26 AM
2 votes:
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole!"
2014-08-04 08:24:55 AM
2 votes:

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.


You know what ~is~ a crime? Inciting a riot, interfering with a police investigation,  and disturbing the peace.

If the kid is going to play his little game, at least he can show some ID when asked. Why?

1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.


I'm all for carry laws. What I'm not for is being a dick, which this kid clearly is.


//Sorry officer,didn't mean to yell "Gun" in the theater. Just practicing my freedom of speech.
2014-08-04 08:17:22 AM
2 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 08:16:58 AM
2 votes:

jso2897: keylock71: Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?

They failed somewhere about ten years back.


No shiat... I can't imagine letting an 18 year old kid wonder around the neighborhood with a shot gun, especially if they were living under my roof. No farking way.

What are the parents thinking letting him do this? Yeah, he's legally an adult, but he's obviously a naive child without the mental maturity and commonsense needed to own a firearm.

If I had tried pulling this shiat when I was 18, I would have got the, "Oh, you're a man now, are you? Well, time to get a job and a place of your own to live and you can do what you want. We'll give you until Saturday to move out." speech. : )
2014-08-04 08:12:28 AM
2 votes:
img.fark.net

www.slantmagazine.com
2014-08-04 07:58:55 AM
2 votes:
Brown people show ID to vote: Perfectly reasonable, and prudent.
White teenaager show ID to tote firearm around populated areas: 1984! 2nd Amendment!! Hitler! Waaaaaaah!!
2014-08-04 07:44:40 AM
2 votes:

drjekel_mrhyde: 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.

I bet that shiat would go out the window as soon as a black, Arab , or Latino decided to do the exact thing.


It was ok in this situation to shoot and kill a 13 year old walking down the street with a pellet gun
2014-08-04 07:40:52 AM
2 votes:

Evil Twin Skippy: LazyMedia: MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!

Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.

Dicks about guns, or dicks about being liberal?


Both.

When I carry, people don't know I am carrying.  I am not scared of the government or guns, but I am wary around those who get "big man syndrome" like Mr. Fat Cheeks in this article.  I question their view of what guns are "for" and feel that they are the type that use guns to settle a dispute they are on the losing end of, and stuff like that.
2014-08-04 07:21:40 AM
2 votes:
I don't need you to defend me, fat boy.
2014-08-04 07:06:14 AM
2 votes:
Christ, what an asshole.
2014-08-04 06:40:06 AM
2 votes:

FightDirector: serpent_sky: 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.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


Georgia law already does that. You can't wander around with a shotgun, unless you're hunting (and you can get a ticket for doing it without a hunting license). Thank goodness, because suburban Atlanta is Ground Zero for some of your more virulent wingnuts; they'd be stomping around Wal-Mart and Chipotle with ARs on their backs in a heartbeat if they could.
2014-08-04 06:37:54 AM
2 votes:
That kid would be a lot better served by a couple if hours in the gym every week than by trotting a shiatgun around. Not that he's overweight- he just has that "I never move an inch further than necessary to survive" look, aka cardiac face.
2014-08-04 06:37:11 AM
2 votes:
i.ytimg.com
Gimme a case of shells and a case of them Little Debbie snack cakes,
2014-08-04 06:34:09 AM
2 votes:

MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!


Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.
2014-08-04 06:32:03 AM
2 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 06:22:26 AM
2 votes:
I now believe that these protests are started with:
"Betcha I can make tha news."
2014-08-04 03:07:02 AM
2 votes:
Sorry kid but the gun doesn't make you look cooler.
You still look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
2014-08-04 12:09:33 AM
2 votes:

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.



i253.photobucket.com

2014-08-05 04:53:26 AM
1 votes:
I hope we, as a society, are NEVER comfortable with people carrying weapons around everywhere.

I certainly don't trust my life to the idea that all the morons walking down the street aren't going to make a mistake.  You don't even have to be stupid or inexperienced to make a mistake, you just have to be human -- and mistakes with guns are often lethal to either the user or someone else.  Beyond that, it simply increases the potential deadliness of the fits of emotion that people have.  Having lethal weaponry within easy reach all the time is simply a very, very, very bad idea.
2014-08-05 04:45:00 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: You know what else is suspicious?

Illegal investigations into things that 100% legal.


You know what isn't legal?  Being under 18 and carrying a gun around.
You can't possibly argue that he is unquestionably 18 or over by visual inspection.
That means there is HIGHLY reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, which makes the investigation neither suspicious or illegal.
2014-08-05 02:25:08 AM
1 votes:
So nice to live in a nation where you don't have to put up with yokels wielding firearms while standing around their flag.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I'm talking about some Middle Eastern hellhole or 'MURICA.

Ah, what the hell, both of course.

Savages, the lot of you.
2014-08-05 01:35:39 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: It's pretty damned easy to kill someone with insulin.

We should stake out the drugstores for diabetics.


Hey, if it's so easy to kill people with all these other everyday things, then why do we care whether they take our guns? 

Couldn't you just use some insulin or your car or a spoon?

Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.
m00
2014-08-05 01:12:26 AM
1 votes:

JuggleGeek: waving a gun around


[citation needed]

The article uses the words "carrying" "toting" and "walking with." So where do you get "waving"?
2014-08-05 01:00:52 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: He told them exactly what he was doing.


He refused to tell them who he was.  When you're waving a gun around and refusing to tell the cops who you are, you're very suspicious.  Rational people don't do that.
2014-08-05 12:46:46 AM
1 votes:

JuggleGeek: Lenny_da_Hog: Illegal investigations into things that 100% legal.

Asking someone who is walking down the street with a gun "who are you and what's going on" isn't illegal.  The cops are supposed to be watching out for bad guys, and he damn sure looks like one.

I agree that as the law is written, he shouldn't be arrested.  But that doesn't mean they can't keep an eye on him, and that doesn't mean they can't check him out.


That wasn't illegal. Like I said, they can have a conversation with him, and they did. He told them exactly what he was doing.

When they detained him as part of an investigation they weren't authorized to perform because they lacked reasonable suspicion, then threatened him with arrest because he didn't voluntarily submit to background checks, it went beyond keeping an eye on him or asking questions. When they arrested him for obstructing an investigation that they had no authority to perform, it went well beyond that. 

You can't be arrested for obstructing a conversation. You can just, as this guy did, ask if you're free to go. If they say "no," they have to have the legal authority to hold you. They didn't have that.
2014-08-05 12:36:05 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Illegal investigations into things that 100% legal.


Asking someone who is walking down the street with a gun "who are you and what's going on" isn't illegal.  The cops are supposed to be watching out for bad guys, and he damn sure looks like one.

I agree that as the law is written, he shouldn't be arrested.  But that doesn't mean they can't keep an eye on him, and that doesn't mean they can't check him out.

m00: I bet you are a hoot at witch trials.


You're pissed off about cops investigating suspicious behavior.  Blaming me just makes you an asshole.
2014-08-04 11:59:26 PM
1 votes:
What a snotty little shiat.
2014-08-04 10:02:38 PM
1 votes:
When a cop asks for ID, you don't get to say no.
2014-08-04 09:46:48 PM
1 votes:

JuggleGeek: If the cops see someone walking around with a shotgun, it makes sense to ask them who they are and what they are doing.

If you aren't up to no good, then telling them who you are shouldn't be an issue.

If you *are* up to no good, then you'll do exactly what this dick did.  And when you get arrested, I won't cry for you.

I'm pro gun, but walking around waving shotguns and rifles at people is farking stupid.  It's not a useful method of self defense, and the only reason to do it is because you're a loser who wants attention.

If anything, you're making yourself more of a target.  Some thug is likely to decide he wants your shotgun/rifle.  In the meantime, some honest citizen is likely to see you walking into his business and shoot you dead because he assumes you're a no good thug, else why would you be waving a shotgun around.


Despite everything in this thread I still wonder, why? Why would you openly carry a weapon? I know you have the right to, just like I have the right to videotape myself smearing my body with shiat and selling it on the Internet, but why? The general public has no way of knowing if you are one of the fabled "good guys with guns." It just seems like it causes more harm than good, or more harm than concealed carry, really. No panic, and you only pull it out when you need to.
2014-08-04 08:58:57 PM
1 votes:

Brainsick: China White Tea: Brainsick: You don't have a city, state, or country listed in your profile, CWT; how are we supposed to know where to open carry on the nearest public land to your home?

Chicago, West Loop.  Go for it.

Chiraq! OMFG, how many times did you die this year!? Please accept all apologies, you are clearly a badass. Seriously though, because now I'm curious how much of your talk is ITG; do you, personally, make a habit to Open Carry in your neighborhood? Why or why not?


Open carry is illegal in the state of IL unless you're hunting, in your store, or on private property. Even carrying a gun case around Chicago will get you funny looks from the cops.
2014-08-04 08:33:33 PM
1 votes:

m00: jchuffyman: Nothing about guns, nothing about stripping of rights, just the simple being a huge douche. Which normally you can't be arrested for, but if you are a huge douche to a cop, apparently you can be.

So again, you are advocating for a legal landscape where the important factor in being arrested isn't whether you committed a crime, it's whether you are a "huge douche to a cop" whatever that means.


Alright, the cops asked for his ID under Colorado reasonable suspicion law. Rather than explaining himself as any rational, mature person would, he decided to not do that 5 second action and he was arrested for it. The question of whether or not the cops actually had reasonable suspicion? That is different. But no, from the cops' perspective, his "being a douche" caused him to break a law by not showing ID. And once again, the cops could very well be wrong in this.  But that is a question for the civil suit should he want to file one.
2014-08-04 08:30:11 PM
1 votes:

China White Tea: jchuffyman: ...until he refused to show his ID to a cop, which under Colorado law, he must do when asked.

This is wrong.  That's only applicable when they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, which was not the case here.

(And, for the umpteenth time, before you say it,  there was no possibility of his violating an age-restriction law because no such law exists.)


You don't have a city, state, or country listed in your profile, CWT; how are we supposed to know where to open carry on the nearest public land to your home? You'd be Ok with me and 'my boys' open-carrying while walking around, right? I mean, Snake, well, he don't always have the best trigger discipline and Terry likes to get drunk. Fingers has a few issues with personal boundaries and myself, I've been known to let my emotions get the better of me...but hey, none of us were ever CONVICTED, so, we're cool, right? Just post your street address in the thread, we're all responsible gun owners, and those that think differently are pussified liberals, right?


/Sometimes police overstep their bounds; this does not appear to be one of those times
//I'd rather the weirdos with shotguns have to (gasp) produce ID when asked, personally
2014-08-04 08:17:21 PM
1 votes:

jchuffyman: ...until he refused to show his ID to a cop, which under Colorado law, he must do when asked.


This is wrong.  That's only applicable when they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, which was not the case here.

(And, for the umpteenth time, before you say it,  there was no possibility of his violating an age-restriction law because no such law exists.)
2014-08-04 07:39:13 PM
1 votes:

China White Tea: CMYK and PMS: No Len wrong again. It is about the person carrying the gun. Anyone doing what this boy did shows a distinct lack of maturity and emotional stability. He should not be allowed to have a gun within 50 feet of him.

Ah, the good old, "Anyone who disagrees with me is objectively insane."

So your position is that exercising a right in a completely legal fashion (which you happen to dislike) should, all by itself, be considered adequate cause to nullify that right?


Just him having the gun isn't what shows that. The fact that he did it solely to point out that he is carrying a gun in a place where people are sensitive about it and the fact that he did pretty much nothing to make the cops like him when they asked him about it show that. Doesn't matter if he has the right to do it. Why and how he did it is the problem. As someone else pointed out much earlier in the thread, there are many better ways to raise awareness about gun ownership and rights. He wanted to make a scene, and surprise, he did.
2014-08-04 07:26:51 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: CMYK and PMS: Lenny_da_Hog: CMYK and PMS: Yes Len you are correct guns and insulin are the same thing. You alone have figured it out and solved the mystery. Bravo Len, Bravo

Not precisely.

One you wet your pants over, despite it being legal, and the other you don't. Either can be used to kill someone in an instant. Yet you're petrified of the one that's completely legal, and dismissive of the one that you need permission of the state and a doctor to obtain.

You immediately assume someone in possession of a firearm is a criminal. Worse yet, you assume they're going to commit random acts of violence.

You should see a therapist for this irrational fear. Millions of people transport and discharge firearms every day without incident, but because they're sometimes used by criminals, and you watch too much TV and violent movies, that anyone with a firearm must surrender to authorities and prove they aren't before continuing down the street.

If this had been a shotgun in a window rack of a pick-up truck, you wouldn't have batted an eye. It's the fact that you can see it going down the street with a pedestrian. You're like the homophobes who know there are gays out there, but you don't want to see them holding hands in public.

I hope you are using the collective you here because if you are not and you are referring to me personally you are way of. You see Len unlike you I have pointed 38 cal Colt Trooper in someones face. I have shot 2 people (with one bullet). I carried a gun on my hip in my store for over 3 years. And guess what Len, I still don't think people should be carrying them in public.

So you're an advocate of staying in the closet. I understand. I don't really think people need to carry them in public, either. But as long as it's legal, I *do* believe in the LEO having reasonable suspicion before they stop *anyone* and detain them.

It's not about the guns. It's about the legality. That's why I keep making the photography comparison. Cops shouldn't take au ...


No Len wrong again. It is about the person carrying the gun. Anyone doing what this boy did shows a distinct lack of maturity and emotional stability. He should not be allowed to have a gun within 50 feet of him.
2014-08-04 07:15:19 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: CMYK and PMS: Yes Len you are correct guns and insulin are the same thing. You alone have figured it out and solved the mystery. Bravo Len, Bravo

Not precisely.

One you wet your pants over, despite it being legal, and the other you don't. Either can be used to kill someone in an instant. Yet you're petrified of the one that's completely legal, and dismissive of the one that you need permission of the state and a doctor to obtain.

You immediately assume someone in possession of a firearm is a criminal. Worse yet, you assume they're going to commit random acts of violence.

You should see a therapist for this irrational fear. Millions of people transport and discharge firearms every day without incident, but because they're sometimes used by criminals, and you watch too much TV and violent movies, that anyone with a firearm must surrender to authorities and prove they aren't before continuing down the street.

If this had been a shotgun in a window rack of a pick-up truck, you wouldn't have batted an eye. It's the fact that you can see it going down the street with a pedestrian. You're like the homophobes who know there are gays out there, but you don't want to see them holding hands in public.


I hope you are using the collective you here because if you are not and you are referring to me personally you are way of. You see Len unlike you I have pointed 38 cal Colt Trooper in someones face. I have shot 2 people (with one bullet). I carried a gun on my hip in my store for over 3 years. And guess what Len, I still don't think people should be carrying them in public.
2014-08-04 07:03:50 PM
1 votes:

kortex: jchuffyman: kortex: CMYK and PMS: kortex: 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.

Thanks for posting this.

/also, the sheep of America, aka libs, need to quit being afraid of guns

Libs aren't afraid of guns, they are afraid of people with guns. Remember your mantra? Guns don't kill people, people do.

I disagree. Libs are afraid of guns. Libs are afraid of protecting themselves. Libs are afraid (hence sheep).

Conservatives are afraid of everything which is why they are such pussies that they think they need weapons at all times. See? I can stereotype too.

That's pretty good, you're highly intelligent.  I carry a gun everywhere I go.  Go ahead, little sheep and attribute it to fear.  Wait for the police to respond to your break-in.  Wait for them to help you if you get mugged.  Wait for them to help you if you are getting raped.  All a gun is to me is a means of protecting myself and my family.


Internettoughguy.jpg
2014-08-04 07:02:27 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: What got him in trouble was interfering with an "investigation" -- when there was nothing to investigate, since nobody had a reasonable suspicion of any crime pending or past. The guy gave reasonable answers to the friendly questions.


That's b.s. He reeled off a bunch of talking points about what he was up to and then refused to verbally give his name when asked. You can repeat that he wasn't breaking the law as many times as you want, but given the context of some kid strolling through suburbia with a shotgun -- and face it, that is not a typical scenario, whether legal or otherwise -- it was reasonable for them to make inquiries. It would have irresponsible not to have done so.

By the way, your attempted "buying beer" parallel was a pretty ridiculous reach and you should feel bad, though I know you will insist that it was perfectly cromulent.

kortex: Complaining about a person carrying a shotgun in suburbia = fearful sheep --> Yes. He wasn't hurting anyone. When are libs going to be more afraid of criminals obtaining / using guns illegally than law abiding citizens exercising their rights? I'll say it again, he wasn't hurting anyone.


Yeah, we get it. You're totally a bad-ass and we sheeple are accordingly in awe. If you can take a moment from condescending on the rest of us for a moment though, might I ask how we know he's not a criminal or has no criminal intent? Are police to have no interaction with anyone unless or until there is certainty that a crime has already been committed? I'm pretty sure that's not how things work.

Funny thing, but I've managed to get by for quite some time unarmed, and can't really recall any instances of cowering under my desk in fear of being assaulted at any instant -- is there a particular strain of sheep that covers that? I thought I had lived in some fairly dicey neighborhoods at times, too, but I guess it must be worse where you live. That's a shame.
2014-08-04 06:48:56 PM
1 votes:

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 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 th ...


Or perhaps he knows that the only hunting to be done in or around Aurora is of humans. Which isn't really allowed in polite society. If I were in bumfark Vermont like you are, I wouldn't worry about people carrying a shotgun around. In a major metropolitan area, it's a different story, and rightfully so.
2014-08-04 05:55:53 PM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.


911 Dispatcher Fired After Dismissing Concerns Prior to Shooting Rampage
2014-08-04 05:51:44 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: It's not unusual for the police to get calls about some guy stumbling around drunk in public. The can and will investigate if they find the guy. Likewise if someone is wandering around with a shotgun they'll probably do the same thing.

Not the same scenario.

I said I saw you with alcohol.  I didn't say I saw you stumbling around exhibiting signs of drunkenness.

The latter is reasonable suspicion. It's an actual behavior you're engaging in that makes it *reasonable* to suspect you're breaking a law.

The former is just you possessing something which sometimes leads to a crime, but most often doesn't, just because I don't like alcohol based on my experience with people who use it.

If they had seen the guy with the shotgun creeping around behind buildings, stalking someone, threatening someone, that would a reason to suspect he was up to no good. He was just walking down the street with a possession.

It's not illegal to be stumbling around either. You don't have to be drunk; maybe you just didn't see the curb or injured your leg. Cops will still question you. Is it unusual even in an open-carry state to have some kid wandering around with a shotgun in suburbia? I'm gonna say yes which is why he was questioned. He's welcome to file a lawsuit but since he was only inconvenienced while being a chronic attention whore good luck with that.

It's not illegal to stumble around with alcohol, but it is *reasonable* to suspect this behavior might be something to do with criminal activity. That *reasonable* suspicion is enough to detain and question you. It's a behavior that you were seen engaged in, not just possession of something you can legally possess.

It's reasonable to see someone with alcohol, exhibiting symptoms of alcohol abuse, and suspect they might be engaged in alcohol abuse.

It is not reasonable to see someone otherwise minding their own business, walking down the street while possessing a 6-pack, to suspect them of public drunkenness.


Except it was his behavior that got him in trouble not just possessing the shotgun.
2014-08-04 05:27:27 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Brainsick: Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: It's not unusual for the police to get calls about some guy stumbling around drunk in public. The can and will investigate if they find the guy. Likewise if someone is wandering around with a shotgun they'll probably do the same thing.

Not the same scenario.

I said I saw you with alcohol.  I didn't say I saw you stumbling around exhibiting signs of drunkenness.

The latter is reasonable suspicion. It's an actual behavior you're engaging in that makes it *reasonable* to suspect you're breaking a law.

The former is just you possessing something which sometimes leads to a crime, but most often doesn't, just because I don't like alcohol based on my experience with people who use it.

If they had seen the guy with the shotgun creeping around behind buildings, stalking someone, threatening someone, that would a reason to suspect he was up to no good. He was just walking down the street with a possession.

So if I'm 'just walking down the street' with, say, a chainsaw in hand (not running, of course, but fueled up and ready), two machetes in my belt, a hunting knife in a shoulder holster, a loaded 30-06 slung on my back, and a propeller beanie on my head, you wouldn't see any reason to alert someone?


/good to know

If I saw you walking out of a head shop with legally purchased items, should I be able to stop you for doing what is of course inevitable -- smoking crack and meth?

Obviously possession of a glass flower vase should be reasonable suspicion, since flower vases are sometimes easily converted to glass pipes or bongs.

Shouldn't you have to prove you smoke tobacco if I see you with papers? Shouldn't those papers be enough cause to stop you and demand to run warrant checks and criminal background checks on you?


Len baby, I say this with love. You're losing it. Go have a beer and sit on your porch for awhile
2014-08-04 05:19:03 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: It's not unusual for the police to get calls about some guy stumbling around drunk in public. The can and will investigate if they find the guy. Likewise if someone is wandering around with a shotgun they'll probably do the same thing.

Not the same scenario.

I said I saw you with alcohol.  I didn't say I saw you stumbling around exhibiting signs of drunkenness.

The latter is reasonable suspicion. It's an actual behavior you're engaging in that makes it *reasonable* to suspect you're breaking a law.

The former is just you possessing something which sometimes leads to a crime, but most often doesn't, just because I don't like alcohol based on my experience with people who use it.

If they had seen the guy with the shotgun creeping around behind buildings, stalking someone, threatening someone, that would a reason to suspect he was up to no good. He was just walking down the street with a possession.


So if I'm 'just walking down the street' with, say, a chainsaw in hand (not running, of course, but fueled up and ready), two machetes in my belt, a hunting knife in a shoulder holster, a loaded 30-06 slung on my back, and a propeller beanie on my head, you wouldn't see any reason to alert someone?


/good to know
2014-08-04 05:17:17 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: R.A.Danny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.

Then I suggest he put the barrel between his baby-fat red lips and yank on the trigger.  It would make me much more comfortable about his gun.

You are a violent person and should seek professional help.

How am I a violent person?  The only person I want this douche to hurt is himself.  White knight for him all you want, I don't give a shiat.

You're wishing a violent end on someone. You're sick.


He's not the one swaggering thru town with a gun, now is he?
2014-08-04 05:04:49 PM
1 votes:

kortex: CMYK and PMS: kortex: 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.

Thanks for posting this.

/also, the sheep of America, aka libs, need to quit being afraid of guns

Libs aren't afraid of guns, they are afraid of people with guns. Remember your mantra? Guns don't kill people, people do.

I disagree. Libs are afraid of guns. Libs are afraid of protecting themselves. Libs are afraid (hence sheep).


So, just to make sure I understand.

Complaining about an idiot carrying around a shotgun in suburbia = fearful sheep.

Building your own armory and open carrying because you're afraid of brown people and the guvment = constitutional patriot?
2014-08-04 05:01:56 PM
1 votes:

kortex: CMYK and PMS: kortex: 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.

Thanks for posting this.

/also, the sheep of America, aka libs, need to quit being afraid of guns

Libs aren't afraid of guns, they are afraid of people with guns. Remember your mantra? Guns don't kill people, people do.

I disagree. Libs are afraid of guns. Libs are afraid of protecting themselves. Libs are afraid (hence sheep).


Conservatives are afraid of everything which is why they are such pussies that they think they need weapons at all times. See? I can stereotype too.
2014-08-04 04:56:13 PM
1 votes:

CMYK and PMS: kortex: 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.

Thanks for posting this.

/also, the sheep of America, aka libs, need to quit being afraid of guns

Libs aren't afraid of guns, they are afraid of people with guns. Remember your mantra? Guns don't kill people, people do.


I disagree. Libs are afraid of guns. Libs are afraid of protecting themselves. Libs are afraid (hence sheep).
2014-08-04 04:49:23 PM
1 votes:

GodComplex: ciberido: GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

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

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am.

I'm tempted to think you're lying, but there's always the chance you are the genuine pants-on-head insane anarchist you posture as.  Or at least genuinely believe that you are.  Either way, we're not impressed with how "tough" you are.

Why should I fear someone who has no reason to harm me? Do you honestly believe someone is going to shoot you in broad day light for just being in their presence? Sure it happens, but I don't believe in wetting my pants in fear of psychopaths, who a group that constitutes less than 1% of the population.

But go ahead, keep living in fear of minorities.


So people who are concerned about seeing someone with a gun in an urban setting are wetting their pants but people who must carry a gun because they fear crime are not wetting their pants? Is that your assertion?
2014-08-04 04:42:13 PM
1 votes:

jchuffyman: So the scenario is this. Enough people called about this kid to warrant them checking him out. So they did, and asked him for ID. When he needed a reason, they went through several (all valid). When he still refused because he might be retarded, they said fark it, and charged him with obstruction. Sounds like they were pretty professional to me.


The correct response would have been, as they told the guy himself, to tell any callers that despite their misgivings, they observed him and guy wasn't breaking any laws, and that it is legal to carry a shotgun.

They charged him with obstructing an investigation into something for which they had no reasonable suspicion of a crime.
2014-08-04 04:13:23 PM
1 votes:

This text is now purple: italie: The kid is playing with spirit vs letter of the law. He is no different than a patent troll, or a corporation pretending to be a person.

Not true.

Patent trolls are predicated on the difference between the theory and the practice of patent review. Most trolled patents should never have been granted, but patent clerks are lazy and permissive.
Corporate personhood is based on statute law, not constitutional law. They receive constitutional protections because the law says they are people, but that's only a majority vote away from changing.
Exercising your rights is both the spirit and the letter.


I'd concede most of your points, even if they are just obfucation of the overall point I was making. I cant however, due to that last line.

I lived in CO for a while, both in Aurora and Littlenton. I've sat in the very theater that got shot-up. I know the communities, and people in them. What he was doing was in absolute spite of the spirit. Carry for protection is one thing. You dont carry a shotgun or a rifle for that purpose. Carrying those in public, if not for trouble, is done for attention.
2014-08-04 04:13:20 PM
1 votes:

redmid17: Following the incredibly simple logic laid out in the last sentence, no he's not brandishing. He's not threatening anyone with it and he's not pointing it at anyone. IANAL but if he walked up to you and said "I'm going to shoot you in the face for your Fark handle" you would likely be able to claim stand your ground. If he picks his weapon up and points it at you, you would be able to claim stand your ground. If he is moving it from one shoulder to the other and the muzzle points at you, you wouldn't be able to claim SYG. At best, it's a grey area that would likely get him a nice visit from the cops. That's more or less apparently what happened to the Arizona doctor who was arrested at the airport with an AR-15 (according to his lawyer anyway).


So he's just one movement (raise his right arm) away from being 'respectable open-carry guy' to a legitimate threat that can be shot?  And you wonder why the public freaks out when they see these folks 'practicing their constitutional rights'?

The Westboro Baptist Church also practices their constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean most people think they're a bunch of d-bags.
2014-08-04 04:08:31 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: CMYK and PMS: R.A.Danny: CMYK and PMS: R.A.Danny: CMYK and PMS: R.A.Danny: CMYK and PMS: Headline the day after "Witness say they saw shooter arriving at the theater and police on hand did nothing to prevent it"

What now?

As opposed to "Man arrested for surly look". You have to commit a crime to be arrested. Plain and simple.

I don't think the word arrested has been used by me yet. What about just questioning him?

Man questioned for surly look... Man questioned for driving normally... Man questioned for walking his dog.

Nope, doesn't pass muster.

And they all seem the same to you as man with gun is that correct?

In the eyes of the law, yes. 100%.

Which law would that be?

The law that didn't arrest him for open carry. He has no gun charges against him despite being arrested while openly carrying a firearm, so logically it must be that he broke zero gun laws. Why was he questioned when he broke zero laws?


I'm afraid you are circling around a bit we are not discussing arrest. I know it can be hard to keep posts straight when there are many and they move fast.

I live in one of the most liberal of states but where I am seeing people with guns is not uncommon. In fact as I am writing this one of my neighbors is target practicing in his yard with what sounds to be a semi automatic rifle. It doesn't concern me a bit. If however I drive the 15 miles into town and I saw someone carrying a gun it would concern me. Can you see the difference? There is one. There is no practical reason for someone to be carrying a gun in town so I am quite correct in being leary of them and I would appreciate the police finding out what is going on. You must realize that not all gun owners are rational sensible people or am I wrong about that?
2014-08-04 03:48:05 PM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 1. kidd was a trolling asshole
2. People freaked out because someone was carrying a weapon.
3. Police were called.
4. Police engage in a voluntary conversation with the small peckered tot wielding the shotgun.
5.Tot tells police to STFU, because he's not breaking the law, and he's right.
6. Police tell him he is required to present ID
7. Tot tells them to STFU...he has broken no laws, and this isn't nazi germany where he has to produce papers for no legal reason.
8. cops lie, telling him he has to
9. Cops get pissed due to his lack of respect and not buying their bullshiat, and write him a obstruction charge that wont hold up. due to no law being broken.
10. kid posts vid on youtube. and masturbates wildly, one hand on his sub standard virgin pecker, the other lovingly stroking his shotgun while he imagines its his boyfriends cock.
11. Gets posted to fark, where everyone makes fun of his little chubby cheeks and obvious penis envy issues.
12. profit?


Dude whats with the sexual bullshiat? Using homosexuality is a pejorative really isn't cool. The kid seems like an asshole, just call him an asshole.
2014-08-04 03:19:00 PM
1 votes:

redmid17: room at the top: Nutsac_Jim: room at the top: Nutsac_Jim: cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?

isn't any armed robbery in an open carry state committed while open carrying?

No.  'Open carry' does not mean 'Gun in hand'

Open carry
The act of publicly carrying a firearm on one's person in plain sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

Gun in hand = open carry

Unless you're hunting or legally defending yourself, a gun in hand most likely means you're brandishing or guilty of disorderly conduct. They make holsters for a reason. You don't see police walking around with a gun in their hand.


So, pretty much what this d-bag was doing waving his shotgun around suburbia...
2014-08-04 03:09:10 PM
1 votes:

Nutsac_Jim: room at the top: Nutsac_Jim: cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?

isn't any armed robbery in an open carry state committed while open carrying?

No.  'Open carry' does not mean 'Gun in hand'


Open carry
The act of publicly carrying a firearm on one's person in plain sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

Gun in hand = open carry
2014-08-04 03:02:24 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.

Then I suggest he put the barrel between his baby-fat red lips and yank on the trigger.  It would make me much more comfortable about his gun.

You are a violent person and should seek professional help.


How am I a violent person?  The only person I want this douche to hurt is himself.  White knight for him all you want, I don't give a shiat.
2014-08-04 02:55:57 PM
1 votes:

pendy575: This text is now purple: pendy575: Ahh but to be orderly or working one must be proficient in the use of the firearm and the firearm must be in working order. Simply give the police the ability to measure these two things. Require the owners of firearms be proficient in their use and allow police to inspect said firearm to determine if it is in good working order. Constitutional and solves this issue

We should have poll-watchers, too, to make sure we vote intelligently and for the correct people.

We do.  Have you ever voted?  They have this whole ballot thingy and people that both hand out AND collect them.


Here's a proficiency test the police can use to prove you should be allowed to own a gun.
www.slate.com
2014-08-04 02:53:10 PM
1 votes:
The cops played by the rules and then this happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

It's not surprising that they're taking a stronger look a attention whores flashing guns in public, even if it's legal.
2014-08-04 02:41:32 PM
1 votes:

This text is now purple: Which one seems more like its modern version?


I don't really know what your point is. The same problem applies and there are constantly struggles over how to apply free speech and association rights to a worldwide, connected population that they could not possibly have foreseen. The current hot topic is cyber-bullying.

Headso: That's not even the argument though, they are arguing that you somehow have to form a militia that is deemed "well regulated" by the officially recognized militia rating agency before you as a member of that militia can own a gun. It makes no sense. The argument that the founders couldn't foresee cruise missiles is a different argument.


It's the same problem, though. It was one thing when the mayor got 20 guys together from a town of 500 and they were your militia and had a charter and roles and all that good stuff. It seems like most people would reasonably interpret that to be a militia and to be well-regulated.

Now, though, you've got people who are only very loosely associated because they happen to live in the same town of 19,000 yelling about it even though nobody collected them together and they have no binding cause or specific duties or roles.

Technology, population and even just social attitudes have far outpaced the document and it hasn't changed to adapt. In some ways, that set-in-stone nature is a good thing because it can't just be arbitrarily fiddled with to fit the whims of the time, but, at the same time, after more than 200 years everything in this country is so wildly different from what it was then that it's very difficult to find applicability in a lot of it.

You're not going to come to an agreement on the militia bit because what it meant then and what it means now are just wildly different things in practice. There's no way, even if the two of you could come to agreement on your own definitions, that you're going to come to agreement on their application in modern times based on rules set at the end of colonial America.
MFK
2014-08-04 02:30:35 PM
1 votes:

Headso: Brainsick: Itstoearly: I live in Vermont, and during hunting season, you will often see people walking down the road with rifles and shotguns on their backs
bosco123
OK. How about you are in town and you see someone carrying a deer rifle with a mounted scope on their back, not wearing hunting gear? Oh, also, it's March. No warning bells?

/not every reaction is 'pearl clutching' no matter how much you want it to be

 you might think that person has come from a friend's land where they were shooting guns, if you live in a rural area it's simply not that big of a deal to see people with a rifle.


Just stop right there. Being in a rural area does not mean that guns are magically everywhere and in your face 24/7. Outside of a hunting context, it's really rare to see firearms out in public. If someone has a gun you keep your eye on them much as you would if there was an unleashed pit bull pacing around the room. Sure he's calm right now, but who knows what the fark could happen.

No matter how far you get into the sticks (with the obvious exception of Alaska), it's not the wild west anymore. There's probably a hot topic just up the road.
2014-08-04 02:29:08 PM
1 votes:

jchuffyman: Just like I have no idea which fat teenager with a gun wants to kill me. So thank you for making that argument for me.


You don't know which old woman with a shopping basket wants to kill you either.

The difference is that you're hired by the public to perform a job within the parameters of the criminal justice system.

I'm not going to break any laws while interacting with bad cops. Cops shouldn't break any laws interacting with people they think are bad by "gut feeling."
2014-08-04 02:22:01 PM
1 votes:

BeesNuts: Theaetetus: If he was an old man, they wouldn't have had reasonable suspicion.

They'd have figured something out.  I think we both agree this is a problem.  But I don't get the argument that this specific request by police wasn't lawful or whatever.  It's not a violation of his constitutional rights any more than anything else police do.


The argument is this:

Colorado has no minimum age for open-carry of a long gun.
Stopping him to ask his age is not a reasonable question designed to elicit legally useful information -- his age is irrelevant, per point #1.
Stopping him simply to harass him is illegal.
2014-08-04 02:21:54 PM
1 votes:

Petit_Merdeux: GameSprocket: That kid doesn't look like he would put up much of a fight.

As long as you go for the gun and not his Snickers bar.


Imagine he had a hoodie and some dark skin...
2014-08-04 02:20:32 PM
1 votes:

Headso: skozlaw: Headso: 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."

how do you form a well regulated militia without guns?  ..that would be a poorly regulated militia...

[farm6.static.flickr.com image 240x161]

Come at us, bro.

"ok everyone, we've been practicing with sticks and pool cues for the past 17 months now we've finally reached the arbitrary title of "well regulated" now when we hand out the guns, what are you going to do with them?"
[becausemerica.com image 500x329]

"fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.... ok everyone get a pool cue"


Meanwhile, in China.

www.military-today.com

"They have werr-regurated miritias! ror!"
Anyway, racist jokes aside...

You know why arguments over the 2nd amendment inevitably devolve into complete absurdity? Because it was written over 200 years ago by people who had absolutely no context for what a "gun" would be in our time.

The Constitution is supposed to be a living document, but half of the damn thing is so old at this point as to be practically useless when it comes to modern problems. It's hamstrung by our ponderous system that more or less ensured that as the country grew larger and larger our legal adaptability became less and less. There's a reason that countries have followed are lead by adapting rather than adopting our systems.

You're never going to come to a conclusion because you're arguing over text that was written by people who were talking about smoothbore muskets and 12 pounder cannons. If you could hit a horse at 3000 feet you were a sharpshooter and if you could notch ten dead bodies on your stock in the middle of a pitched battle you were a killing machine. Now any idiot with an Internet connection and a few hundred bucks can buy a gun in his own town that can kill a whole room full of people in under five minutes. Not quite the same things anymore.

You might as well argue over what Hammurabi would have made of all this, at this point, because our laws have not adapted to the technology you're fighting about.
2014-08-04 02:20:21 PM
1 votes:

ZeroPly: Brainsick: pendy575: . He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked

LOL 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...

You're not getting it.

The reason your cops walk all over you is because you don't call them on it. They want you to believe that if you assert your rights, they will arrest you. The only way to show them who is boss is to assert your rights. It's sad that an idiot loner teenager has the cojones, and you don't. Pick a side already.


You sound brave. Try my example, IRL, just once. You'll see. The reason 'our' cops walk all over us is the increased militarization of police in America since the 1960's coincident with the war on drugs. There was a brief lull in the 70's as Congress woke up from Nixon's spell, but then the Reagans swooped in with Just Say No and it picked up steam. Now, most police, even in small towns have military weapons and hardware which supports an an Us Vs Them mentality and every encounter with a 'civilian' has the potential to turn into them calling for 'backup' in the form of APC's or SWAT. It's just not worth it to score political points in your own head that amount to a hill of beans IRL

/YMMV
//I only talk to cops if I have to, now
///Used to be friends with the beat cops in Oakland when I was a kid; that was the late 70's...
MFK
2014-08-04 02:16:48 PM
1 votes:

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 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 th ...


Also from Vermont and know that during hunting season, people are decked out from head to toe in orange and camo. The reason people don't freak out is because they are clearly and easily identified as hunters and so people know what the guns are for. Much in the same way people don't freak out when they see police with guns. However, pasty fat teenager walking down the street clutching a big shotgun like that isn't remotely in the same ball park and even in rural Vermont, odds are that someone would call the cops. And frankly, rightly so. I've said it before but most people aren't going to be able to distinguish between a guy on his way to a mass shooting versus an open carry attention whore. It's not fair to the people who live in these communities to have to even attempt to make that distinction when they're trying to buy groceries.
2014-08-04 02:09:52 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: jchuffyman: My counter-argument to that is, once again, public panic is greater than all. So the question with guns becomes this: At what level of panic is it ok to tell the person with a gun to knock it off? Do they have to actually be in the process of shooting someone to arrest them? I'm sure you will agree that there is a line somewhere. We just have to establish where it is.

The same line as any other interaction -- *reasonable* suspicion.

Was the guy lurking or loitering around an area? No. Was he following and harassing someone? Was he deliberately causing a public disruption -- i.e., Disorderly Conduct? No. Was he pointing the gun anywhere? No.

Did the cops admit that it's an open carry state and people have the ability to carry firearms there? Yes.

Public panic is manipulable. Again, it's why I've been harassed for carrying a camera -- Idiots in the government told everyone to be on the lookout for photographers because (unreasonably) we're likely to be terrorists casing a joint. It freaks people out to see a DSLR (even though everyone in the world is carrying a camera in their pockets these days), but what's the line? Is your being paranoid truly a reason to bring down the weight of the justice system on law-abiding citizens?


And what is a better way to see if someone is reasonably suspicious than talking to them?
2014-08-04 02:07:12 PM
1 votes:

Itstoearly: I live in Vermont, and during hunting season, you will often see people walking down the road with rifles and shotguns on their backs


OK. How about you are in town and you see someone carrying a deer rifle with a mounted scope on their back, not wearing hunting gear? Oh, also, it's March. No warning bells?

/not every reaction is 'pearl clutching' no matter how much you want it to be
2014-08-04 02:06:40 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: 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.

Yes, and I'm asking why you think they're wrong. Not what you think a well regulated militia is, but why you think the 2nd amendment requires membership in one to carry arms as opposed to protecting an individual right to stockpile arms. In particular, what do you disagree with in my reference to the Intolerable Acts and my comparison of the 2nd and 3rd amendments to those Acts?


I begin with the proposition, long accepted as a general principle of constitutional construction, that every word of the Constitution was intended to have a legal effect. Mr. Justice Scalia's opinion incorrectly construing the 2nd Amendment in DC. v. Heller spends several pages discussing why the words "a well regulated militia" should have no legal effect. So his view of the 2nd Amendment is immediately suspect, departing as it does from an enduring constitutional principle he himself has repeatedly cited over the decades.

After that, I can actually agree wholly with your historical assessment. I just don't think their intent was to equate "a well regulated militia" with every lone wolf backwoods right-wing crackpot with an AK and a grudge against the federal government predicated on some grossly misunderstood reading of the Constitution spoonfed them by Sean Hannity on a plate of Cliven Bundy's fat ass. They wanted to guarantee the right for responsible citizens to keep and bear arms, where their responsibility is evidenced by their association with a well regulated militia.
2014-08-04 01:58:41 PM
1 votes:
For all that are defending this nut job, would you also defend this guy if he stood more than a 100 feet from a polling place on election day in a predominately black community or a Jewish community?

img.fark.net


Or these guys in a predominately white community on election day?

img.fark.net
2014-08-04 01:55:37 PM
1 votes:
The kid is playing with spirit vs letter of the law. He is no different than a patent troll, or a corporation pretending to be a person.
2014-08-04 01:53:18 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Not all...


So he stated three reasons, one of them sufficient to justify the detention and demand for identification. The other two perfectly legitimate law enforcement questions. Especially as the refusal to cooperate with a lawful request for identification can constitute probable cause to believe a young looking suspect toting a firearm is otherwise unlawfully in possession of the firearm.

Or are you asserting officers are somehow obliged to state their reasons for a detention in order of constitutional preference as dictated by the NRA?
2014-08-04 01:50:38 PM
1 votes:

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 rifle

You 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.


A lot less than 50% of the country lives in rural areas.  And this has been true for nearly a century. The Industrial Revolution was a fantastical thing.
2014-08-04 01:44:47 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 01:39:24 PM
1 votes:
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. `Whatever definition you use, the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners are members of no militia whatsoever, much less one that is in any sense of the phrase "well regulated."

To qualify was a "well regulated militia," its members should be able to at least state things like:

1) who their commanding officer is,S2) how often they report for drills,
3) where they report for drills,
4) how they will know they've been called up for service,
5) where they report if called to service,
6) who is responsible for provision of supplies while they are in service.

A "militia" who's members can't report at least those facts is in no way "well regulated," most likely not even a "militia" in any meaningful sense of the word.

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.
2014-08-04 01:35:47 PM
1 votes:

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.


Actually, I work in a field where discerning people's thoughts is a primary skill.  Picking apart their words, body language, inflection, and the pattern of information (i.e. how the things they say reveal the things they don't say) is incredibly important.  I've reconstructed personal details of people's lives that they never told anyone just by noticing the way they move through a conversation, dropping and emphasizing details, taking personal interest in a supposedly impersonal topic, and so on.

Sometimes it really is what they say; other times, it's the way they say it.  It's when the conversation is completely banal, and they don't flinch, but, at one tiny detail, they say, "That's horrifying for a person," when everything else before and after it is "that must be..." and "you would think...".  You watch, and that full confidence in fact consistently comes around that exact point.  This person is covering some relevant experience.  Keep listening, and you'll be able to work out exactly what it is.

Macrobehavior is easier.  If you see cops not questioning adults carrying shotguns, but they question 20 year olds carrying shotguns, you can quickly hypothesize an age discrimination.  If you watch, you'll see fear, disgust, curiosity--you can tell if they're unsettled, if they have some moral issue, or if they're uncertain but unshaken by the situation and are engaging in routine or novel inquiry.  You can, quite readily, analyze their motivations from their behavior.

Humans aren't unreadable black boxes.  Not even African humans.
2014-08-04 01:33:18 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 01:28:37 PM
1 votes:

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. ...


Respectfully, while I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with how you got there. For example, you suggest that "the founders never realized... that not only would cities grow so large so as to require a professional class of militia (which is what cops are)". At the time of the Constitution, New York City had a population of 33 thousand, and had both day and night police watches, who were later merged to be the NYPD. On the contrary, there were plenty of cops during the colonial era.

Furthermore, the second amendment wouldn't flow logically from your justification - if the founders wanted to encourage the existence of militias for local law enforcement, then why would the federal constitution include a prohibition on the government from seizing arms? Like, they thought that some future Congress might say "gosh, local policing is good, but they should do it all naked, so we'll seize all arms"? That makes no sense.

The second amendment makes sense in context of the Intolerable Acts in the run-up to the Revolution - to preemptively prevent the rebellion, the British would (a) seize weapons from the citizens, and (b) quarter troops in the private houses of potential rebels - i.e. the very things that the 2nd and 3rd amendments prevent the government from doing. Following the maxim of power corrupts, the founders were afraid that a future government would turn tyrannical and preemptively move to prevent the citizens from overthrowing the government through preemptively seizing weapons and quartering troops in private homes.

So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.
2014-08-04 01:20:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:18 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:25 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:54 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:35 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:31 PM
1 votes:
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 12:54:49 PM
1 votes:

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)?
2014-08-04 12:39:00 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Ow! That was my feelings!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 272x186]
That boy is one successful attention whore.

So are people with tattoos. We should arrest them.


Someone should dress up like Bin Laden and visit ground zero with some toy airplanes. Then, just stand their playing with that airplanes pretending like they are colliding with the surrounding buildings. Hey, nothing illegal about playing with toys.

/can != should
2014-08-04 12:37:22 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-08-04 12:34:00 PM
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
That boy is one successful attention whore.
2014-08-04 12:32:21 PM
1 votes:

imfallen_angel: gotta love the dickless 'muricans with their guns.

I think it would be ironic and hilarious if because he had a shotgun, someone else feels threatened and blow his head off.  I know that personally, seeing a dumbass walking around with a firearm doesn't make anyone safe.

Maybe if he stopped eating and worked out and learn some defensive skills he wouldn't fell some afriad, but then again, it's the whole 'murican penis compensation thing, truly one of the most pathetic part of 'murica and those that are gun happy are too stupid to understand that.


Amazing how many people are wishing death and dismemberment on someone who, as far as I can tell, has shown no violent tendencies.

Be careful what you wish for guys, if we start killing people for being D-Bags you will all be dead.
2014-08-04 12:27:03 PM
1 votes:

monoski: Are you saying that despite the requirement to be 18 to open-carry he is not required to produce an ID to prove he is 18 and could tell the police to fark off?


No, what I'm saying is that your generic assertion that it is illegal to refuse to show the police ID was objectively incorrect.  While your attempts to revise what you actually said ex post facto are laudable, the internet is kind of a motherfarker in this regard.  Here's what you actually said:

monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.


In short: Backpedal faster.

Furthermore, I've actually asked a few times in the thread for someone to produce the statute showing an open carry age of 18 for a long gun in Colorado. 

So far all I've found is a statute pertaining to hand guns, which also have a minimum possession age of 18.  opencarry.org is opposed to long-gun open carry, so doesn't maintain information on legality and restrictions.

AFAICT there is no explicit open carry statute in CO - it's simply not forbidden, which suggests that the minimum age to open carry a handgun is simply a function of the minimum age to possess a handgun, which doesn't exist for a long gun.
2014-08-04 12:26:46 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 12:18:27 PM
1 votes:

China White Tea: GameSprocket: No, I was claiming that there are a lot of times when people are required to produce papers for the authorities. Turns out that in the example I picked, you can just tell them to fark off.

That's the thing:  Most of the situations where people are told they're "required" to produce papers for the authorities, you can just tell them to fark off.  There really aren't a lot of times when you can be REQUIRED to produce papers for the authorities.  What there are, are a lot of times when they can claim you're required to produce papers.


Are you saying that despite the requirement to be 18 to open-carry he is not required to produce an ID to prove he is 18 and could tell the police to fark off?
2014-08-04 12:12:49 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: I alone am best: GameSprocket: China White Tea: monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

Internal immigration checkpoints would like to argue with you as soon as they are done checking your papers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

Here is a link so you know youre wrong.

OK, I actually didn't think you could just do that. I will do something unusual of Fark and just concede the point.


90% of the people in this thread didnt know you could do that so I will let you slide. You can do the same thing to the police unless you are detained or arrested. The issue in this case is the kid looks young so if he did go to court the judge will be the deciding factor on whether or not the police acted in a reasonable manner.

Once you are detained or arrested a request for your ID is no longer a request and is considered a lawful command. Not complying with lawful command can carry repercussions.
2014-08-04 12:09:35 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: No, I was claiming that there are a lot of times when people are required to produce papers for the authorities. Turns out that in the example I picked, you can just tell them to fark off.


Ok, that's understandable.  But in this kid's case, the officers were trying to verify that he was of legal age, and he refused to produce ID.  In his case, he was completely wrong, which was why he was cited with a misdemeanor.
2014-08-04 12:09:33 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: China White Tea: GameSprocket: China White Tea: monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

Internal immigration checkpoints would like to argue with you as soon as they are done checking your papers.

I guess, if you want to pretend that ICE and police are the exact same thing, you might have a point, somewhere, in some alternate universe where that's the case.

Please explain the difference between an armed officer asking for your identification and an armed officer asking for your identification. This should be interesting. Oh I get it, ICE is only interested in you if you are brown.


Well for starters, their effective legal authority to demand ID is limited in scope to border crossings.  They can ask in other areas, and you can refuse (as demonstrated in the video someone else posted), and they can gnash their teeth, but they don't really have any enforcement authority.
2014-08-04 12:06:03 PM
1 votes:

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?


Do police officers regularly wander around with their shotguns?  Normally they're carried in a locked rack inside the vehicle unless there's trouble.
2014-08-04 12:03:41 PM
1 votes:
Looks more like a picked on, bitter, tubby POS on his way to shoot up a high school than someone flaunting an open carry right.  If police didn't stop and question him, they'd be derelict in their duty to prevent picked on, bitter, tubby POSs from shooting up schools.  Of course a responsible gun owner is responsible until the very second they take out their first cheerleader, so gotta let him kill someone before you ask him any questions at all.
2014-08-04 12:00:32 PM
1 votes:

China White Tea: GameSprocket: China White Tea: monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

Internal immigration checkpoints would like to argue with you as soon as they are done checking your papers.

I guess, if you want to pretend that ICE and police are the exact same thing, you might have a point, somewhere, in some alternate universe where that's the case.


Please explain the difference between an armed officer asking for your identification and an armed officer asking for your identification. This should be interesting. Oh I get it, ICE is only interested in you if you are brown.
2014-08-04 11:57:19 AM
1 votes:

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.


Actually, the rate of cops getting wounded or killed has been steadily decreasing since the 1970s. But if they're really so worried about not returning home that they need to abuse people's civil rights, then maybe they should switch to a less dangerous profession.
2014-08-04 11:56:02 AM
1 votes:

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.


While I think that people who open carry are generally douche bags, I do agree that they should not be hassled unless authorized by statute (i.e. California's now defunct unloaded open carry law allowed a limited inspection to insure that the firearm was unloaded) or there is an actual reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If no suspicion that a crime has been committed, then I do agree that he shouldn't be hassled. In this case, the encounter should have gone something like this.

"Good evening, I see that you're open carrying. It's against the law for someone under 18 to open carry a firearm, and you do appear to be right around the age of 17. Thus, I have a reasonable articulate suspicion that you are under the age of 18. May I please see your drivers license?"

Verify age. Continue encounter as a voluntary encounter. Any blow back after that, end encounter, go ahead with his day.
2014-08-04 11:54:07 AM
1 votes:

Nutsac_Jim: cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?


I'm going to go ahead and guess... all of them?  The ones involving guns?
2014-08-04 11:52:01 AM
1 votes:

skozlaw: Lenny_da_Hog: The same thing happens every day just for carrying a camera.

"Your camera is making some pants-wetter nervous."

"That's their problem"

"YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING OUR INVESTIGATION!"

As far as stupid analogies go, that was pretty stupid, but this a gun thread and competition for stupidest post is historically very stiff. You're going to have to work a lot harder to top "slip and fall shower deaths" for sheer idiocy.


You're apparently pretty ignorant.

It's exactly the same thing, and it's happening all over the country, even after lawsuits.

There's nothing suspicious about possessing a camera. There's nothing suspicious about taking pictures of public areas from public areas. It's all protected by the Constitution, yet police in areas all over the country stop people with cameras because "it makes them nervous" about what you're doing.

If you refuse to stop recording, you'll often be arrested for interfering with the investigation that they have no reason to be part of, because they had no *reasonable* suspicion of anything in the first place. Idle curiosity and paranoia aren't reasonable suspicion.

It's exactly the same. Simply possessing a legal firearm isn't a suspicious behavior. He's been arrested for obstructing an investigation based on idle curiosity and pants-wetting.
2014-08-04 11:48:48 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-08-04 11:46:52 AM
1 votes:
Well I know that I, for one, feel a lot safer knowing that some teenage asshat with hero delusions is wandering around town with a loaded shotgun.
2014-08-04 11:45:43 AM
1 votes:

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


Until you realize he had to show his "papers" to buy the cigarettes he went to the store for. When you're argument is that it's OK for the flunky at the gas and sip to require your "papers", but that police aren't allowed to ask for them, that's where you lose most rational sane people. We'll that's were you would lose them, if you hadn't already lost them by suggesting that ID is "papers".

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on minorities having to show their "papers" in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote?
2014-08-04 11:45:24 AM
1 votes:

BeesNuts: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing. And certainly, firing a gun, particularly in public, is a crime. In many jurisdictions, concealing your face while carrying a gun may be a crime, too. And that's all fine. My complaint is solely with the police stopping people who have done nothing but legal activities, even if there's a possibility that they may, at some point in the future, do something illegal.

Reasonable suspicion's a hell of a standard.


Sure, but simply having the gun in an open carry state is not enough to meet that standard. In this case, what met the standard was the fact that he looks like a kid, so they had reasonable suspicion that he was underage. If he was an old man, they wouldn't have had reasonable suspicion.
2014-08-04 11:43:26 AM
1 votes:
For you Christian gun enthusiasts struggling with the concept of "should," here's a little something from the book you claim to revere.

"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)
2014-08-04 11:42:12 AM
1 votes:

Jackpot777: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.

For anyone that actually thinks this: you sweet innocent thing, you.
[ohioccw.org image 474x634]


That sign has nothing to do with the portion of my post you quoted. It has to do with the portion of my post you clipped, which I reproduce here:
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing.

Helpful tip- when quoting someone's post to disagree with them, make sure that the rest of their post doesn't actually agree with you. Then you just look like a troll.
2014-08-04 11:40:14 AM
1 votes:

room at the top: 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

In order to vote today I had to provide my state issued ID.


:Crickets:
2014-08-04 11:36:56 AM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.

You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?

/Drunk driving is against the law.  Walking down the street in this city / state with a firearm is not.  Your argument is moot.

You have never called 911, been involved in a crime, or threatened with a firearm or weapon of any sort, have you?

/I was a police officer for years, retired now, so yes, i have had some experience in that area.  You?


Plenty.  Now explain to me how a person driving behind me, claiming I'm driving drunk, has any more information to support his claim as someone claiming this kid is about to rob someone.
2014-08-04 11:32:20 AM
1 votes:
All the people saying Second Amendment ...so he's carrying this in case the Gubmint tries to take him down, he's part of a well-regulated militia, so he's carrying a shotgun? A shotgun, in case the powers-that-be want to take his rosy-cheeked corpulent ass down and he can fight back...?

www.libertyroundtable.com

i.imgur.com
2014-08-04 11:27:00 AM
1 votes:
s2.quickmeme.com
2014-08-04 11:20:56 AM
1 votes:

ShadowkahnCRX: Seems to me that if the gun rights advocates really want to get people on their side, they'll stop pulling dumbass stunts like this. Seeing some moron marching down the street brandishing a shotgun is not going to convince anyone who is against guns to change their viewpoint. If anything, this idiot and idiots like him who do stupid crap like carry AK-47's into fast food joints are going to get MORE people to jump to the ban-guns side of the fence.


I don't know what you're talking about. It's obviously an isolated incident like all the other times things like this have happened.

Also, nobody's defending him, but 2nd amendment and legal and liberals and pants-shiatting so therefore reasons.
2014-08-04 11:18:14 AM
1 votes:

FightDirector: Theaetetus: Hey, now, I asked the question honestly. Unlike you, I do perceive a person with a gun in a hip holster going about their business the same as someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder: potentially dangerous nutbag, and a good time for me to leave.

Difficulty: plainclothes cop.  At least around Cincinnati, we've got a ton of them, and they all wear their badges on neck-holders under their shirts, which they can pull out of they need to.  Which means, in effect, that you've got guys walking around in khakis and polo shirts, with a hip holster with a Sig, Glock, or M&P in there who are exactly the people whom people profess to want to have guns available.

How do you tell them from the civilians by sight?


Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?

Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 200x184]


You can walk to the bank.  You can walk with a gun.  You can walk into a bank WITH a gun.  All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying.  You're being very obtuse today Thae.
2014-08-04 11:17:42 AM
1 votes:

monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.


...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.
2014-08-04 11:08:47 AM
1 votes:
img.fark.net

assets.nydailynews.com

cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com

images.dailystar-uk.co.uk
2014-08-04 11:05:30 AM
1 votes:
While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.
2014-08-04 11:05:03 AM
1 votes:

xria: Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.


That would never have worked, because half of the "toys" would have shot each other while he was gone. Would have wrecked the story line.

LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.
total number of farks given by everyone else: 0


I bet it was in a case. Did you ever ask her that? Because most sensible people would put a gun in a case if they're taking it on public transportation somewhere.

How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

I guess it's because their point isn't really that they just want to be allowed to open carry--their point is more that they just like to be huge dicks and try to intimidate people.
2014-08-04 11:04:16 AM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 1. the cop tells him he HAS to produce ID, even though he really doesn't. (the cop asks, doesn't demand)


That kid looks barely old enough to grow facial hair.

cryinoutloud: You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.


The police in Aurora, Colorado are notoriously liberal which is why they're so edgy about people carrying firearms around town. If anything, the theater shooting a couple years ago has only made them more liberal than they already were. /s

Time for me to bow out of this thread and get some work done but here's a good response to all the open carry idiots:

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop -d efending-my-rights/
2014-08-04 10:55:32 AM
1 votes:

IlGreven: Bit'O'Gristle: /I would have said, "first of all, I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you. I have committed no crime, and exercising my state and constitutional rights is not a crime the last i heard. Do you often harass citizens who are just walking down the street doing nothing and ask them for their papers? The public's ignorance of the laws and unfounded panic does not vitiate my rights. Why do YOU carry a gun?

And again, if you were black, you'd've been shot right after "first of all"...


As was touched on upthread, it would be hilarious to see what the same people who support their "second-amendment rights" would think of groups of men named things like DeShawn and LeQuan walking the streets of their neighborhoods, all toting massive guns out in the open. Would they consider them patriots defending themselves against tyrannical government, too?
2014-08-04 10:53:25 AM
1 votes:
I love in the video how ....

1. the cop tells him he HAS to produce ID, even though he really doesn't. (the cop asks, doesn't demand)
2. They tell him he has committed no crime, but the public is panicking so they have to get his ID. ( does that make my constitutional rights invalid? i think not) they are telling him he HAS to give up his right to privacy due to the public's panic, which is bullshiat.)
3. What he doesn't understand, is that the whole conversation is "voluntary". He can just tell them he's done talking to them, and walk away. He is not under arrest, there has been no crime, (as far as the cops can tell) and "need to see your ID to see if you are a felon" is a violation of his right to privacy and self incrimination. If he had broken a law, they would have just cuffed him, and took his ID. Therefore, this whole thing is bullshiat. The cops will lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself, give up your rights, and arrest you. yes, the kid was a dick for carrying a shotgun around town, but no law was broken. Don't ever, ever, say anything to cops. They are not your "friends" who are "trying to help you". They will lie, obfuscate, and say whatever they want to you, to get you in cuffs. Don't believe me? I was a cop, and if that is not enough, watch this.

Link
2014-08-04 10:48:15 AM
1 votes:

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: 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.
And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.
It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.

You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.


Most police unions are, and most cops do not want citizens to have guns. Sounds liberal to me. See MA for an example.

Just shows how scaredy pants liberals are, really. Oh NOES, someone has a rifle, we have to ban all weapons!!! Run!!!
2014-08-04 10:44:58 AM
1 votes:

RedT: pla: 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.

But this is completely not true.  If this kid were heading to the firing range or out hunting, no one would bat an eye, and THAT is the intent of the open carry long gun laws.  And open carrying long guns is not a right, it is allowable under the law.  Either way, it is certainly not a privilege that one cannot exercise.

Walking around with a long gun for no reason makes one look more like the psychos who shoot up schools, movie theaters and post offices or rob stores.

I live in Texas,the land of ubiquitous gun ownership and rabid republicans (if what I read on Fark is true).  You pretty much get a CCL with your voter ID card.  Yet, inexplicably, I never see folks walking down 6th Street with a rifle, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that responsible gun owners aren't out to scare people with their guns unless there is a reason to do so.  You don't pull your gun out unless you are going to use it (either for protection, or to go to the range, or to go hunting).  Doing so otherwise is a good way to get yourself killed by some other responsible citizen who has a CCL (pretty much everyone in the south if what I read on Fark is true) who is standing their ground.


And how many examples of said scenario can you cite? I can't think of a single one. Legal weapon owners, especially CCL are extremely responsible, and don't start blasting people for no reason. Kid is more likely to get popped by the cops.

And Fark still does not have a clue what stand your ground is.
2014-08-04 10:43:55 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Both of these complaints apply to pistols too - people don't know your intent with a handgun strapped to your hip, and "something could go wrong" - so why is your post only limited to "long firearms"?


Because people who want to draw attention to themselves and cause a ruckus tend to carry them because they are more obvious and obtrusive and completely out of place at the mall or a restaurant?  They've sort of become the calling card of the extreme "open carry" community who, not content with having the right to bear arms, need to scream at all times LOOK AT ME! I HAVE A LARGE GUN! THE LARGEST GUN I COULD FIND! AND I CAN CARRY IT HERE! AND HERE! AND STAND RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU WITH MY HAND ON THE TRIGGER OF THIS LOADED LARGE GUN BECAUSE I HAVE RIGHTS AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO AND DON'T DARE SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE... LIBERALS... JESUS... GOD... RIGHTS... SECONDFOURTHFIFHTSEVENHUNDREDTH AMENEDMENT!!!!

A gun in a hip holster, while the person goes about their business, isn't perceived the same way as a large, long rifle is, should someone walk into a store with one in their hand or slung over their shoulder.  Odds are, a guy walking down the street with a hip or ankle holster will not garner the attention of the same guy with a rifle or a shotgun. The latter is larger, more visible, and far more out of place in non-hunting, non-range scenarios. But of course, you and especially these "activists" know that.
2014-08-04 10:40:58 AM
1 votes:

PreMortem: 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.
And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.
It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.
2014-08-04 10:36:52 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: But we're not talking about walking into a bank - we're talking about walking down the sidewalk. And open carry on the sidewalk is legal in Colorado (provided that you're over 18).


So en route to the bank with your crew is cool so long as you keep the clown mask in your back pocket. Good to know.
2014-08-04 10:35:46 AM
1 votes:
How many wolf t-shirts does this kid own?
A) 2 to 3
B) 4 to 5
C) 6 or more
2014-08-04 10:34:21 AM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.


You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?
2014-08-04 10:32:37 AM
1 votes:

This text is now purple: serpent_sky: I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911

Nope.


Okay, but again, be honest: the police DO follow up and respond to emergency calls... but they managed to make it so they don't have to so they don't get sued into oblivion if some major emergency falls through the cracks or some lazy cops didn't bother.  But the fact is, people call 911, and 9999/10000 times, the cops are showing up and asking questions.
2014-08-04 10:25:36 AM
1 votes:

BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.


I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.
2014-08-04 10:22:29 AM
1 votes:

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


Because people often attempt to compensate for poor self image, lack of personal power, or feelings of inadequacy by presenting an intimidating front to others. It's like a cat that puffs out its fur when it feels threatened; there are people in our society who feel consistently intimidated by others and so puff out their fur, metaphorically speaking. Whether it's pudgy white guys carrying firearms, dentists on Harleys, or old guys in flashy sports cars, we recognize it for what it is.
2014-08-04 10:21:39 AM
1 votes:
I just found out a guy I grew up with lost his life trying to be a good guy with a gun a few years ago. He managed to kill one of the perps but not before taking a lethal gut shot.

My brother, a veteran cop and fellow gun nut commented that being a good shot isn't the same as having tactical experience. He even said sometimes you're not in a position to fight back and a wallet isn't worth your life.

Too many people in this country will learn this lesson the hard way.

People like this tub of santorum
2014-08-04 10:21:23 AM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?


Ah the 3-year-old's rationalization.  Lots of things are legal.
2014-08-04 10:20:48 AM
1 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.


And, again, considering the police were called by people who were concerned about what the kid was doing, they were obligated to follow up on said calls regarding a suspicious person with a gun. The cops don't follow the kid around town, harassing him, they don't sit outside his house, and they didn't single him out because they had nothing better to do. They were following up on calls, which involves questions. Generally, if nothing is going on, the cops (as much as I dislike cops) have better things to do than stand around asking endless questions. But they have to follow up when they're called. If they don't, and something happens, things end far worse than some kid being asked who he is and why he's walking around with a gun.

This really, really comes down to the police's obligation to respond to, and follow up on calls.
2014-08-04 10:20:41 AM
1 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.


The restrictions on a cop demanding ID are only  slightly looser than the probable cause required for a citation or arrest.

This is a huge, major point in the history of US civil rights laws, so you should probably be aware of it.  It's on the list of central issues that sparked the reform movement in the '70s right next to segregation and shenanigans with poll taxes and grandfathering.
2014-08-04 10:17:58 AM
1 votes:

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


i180.photobucket.com

What do you mean "these threads"?

/Pretty much any Fark thread involves pants pissing and penises. Even the food threads
2014-08-04 10:15:39 AM
1 votes:

Ker_Thwap: Required in school?


Yes.  You learn about the way the other amendments function, so why not the 2nd?  More specifically, I'm tired of idiots shooting themselves or other people because they find a gun and don't know how to do something simple like "check if it's loaded". 

Barring a massive sea change in public opinion (ie, getting rid of the 2nd) guns are here to stay.  Guns are a part of US society.  Guns can kill you or others if they're mishandled.  Since gun safety clearly isn't being taught at home, it's a public service and in the best interests of EVERYONE to ensure that US society is instructed on gun safety.  Best way to do that is through the schools.

Let me reiterate.  This is not about firearm proficiency.  This is not teaching you how to accurately and precisely hit a target, nor how to perform quick reloads, and so forth.  This is stuff like "this is a magazine, bullets go in it", "this is the muzzle, bullets come out of it so don't point the thing at other people", and "here's how to check if a revolver, a semi-auto, or a bolt-action weapon is loaded".  That level of stuff.

/I work with adult actors, teaching stage combat - which includes guns - on a theatrical stage or set
//I'm tired of 30-year olds putting the muzzle of a gun up to their eye to "see if it's loaded".
2014-08-04 10:13:57 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.


I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.

How do you tell the difference between someone walking into a bank with an AR-15 who intends to open a checking account vs a plan to rob the place? Are we back to colored hats?

I seriously hope that the hardest, scariest, pipe hitting nubians start walking around exercising their open carry rights.
2014-08-04 10:08:37 AM
1 votes:

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.

I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about something that had actually happened or was going to actually happen.
Of course, it's cool to fantasize any future that entertains you.

Because everything happens in 20 seconds after you're arrested? He has a while to do it and he is going to have to in order to have the obstruction charge removed.


Look - eveidently, you have a lot invested in this - and if it makes you feel good to think this guy is going to sue somebody for something and win, then by all means, think it. But I wouldn't bet anything on it i couldn't afford to lose.
2014-08-04 10:04:30 AM
1 votes:
I live in a stand-your-ground state (not Florida thank Zeus). It's also an open-carry state, so I'm somewhat accustomed to (and even fairly comfortable with) people walking around with holsters on their belts. But if I were a store owner and someone walked in carrying a shotgun (or "assault-type-weapon" of any kind) where there was no legitimate purpose for carrying such a weapon, I wouldn't wait to see what he plans on doing with the goddamned thing. I'd shoot the motherfarker.

/every business owner has the duty and the right to protect their customers from ANY threat.
2014-08-04 10:00:37 AM
1 votes:
Gain inches to your penis with this one weird trick....

....walk around in public scaring people with a gun.
2014-08-04 09:57:41 AM
1 votes:

serpent_sky: The part where you confused me is "this appears to be a protest." Of what, exactly?  Open carry is already legal in that state, and the only reason he was stopped was people who saw him felt concerned/threatened (whatever... I can't say specifically what they were feeling) enough to call the police. So what was he protesting? People's fears of guns? If so, as I suggested above, why not educate people - set up a table, show them gun safety, explain how to handle, store, clean, and properly carry a gun. Show what a responsible gun owner looks like rather than simply wandering around, carrying a gun with you. That would be productive, proactive, and would help people understand guns in and of themselves are not something to be terrified of at all times. In his situation, 1) there wasn't anything to protest; 2) His behavior was abnormal/attention drawing enough that people called the police; 3) He nonetheless wasn't charged with any crimes.  So I'm sort of lost there, specifically regarding the point or so-called protest.  He may not like that the police were called, , but the police do have to respond to all calls they receive and ask pertinent questions.


He's protesting based on his perception of the world where the libs are going to take his guns away. Had he set up some table it wouldn't have made the news, your idea isn't provocative. He was charged with a crime, when the cop said "papers please" he said no and got charged with obstructing.
2014-08-04 09:50:03 AM
1 votes:

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


For the lazy:

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

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


I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.
2014-08-04 09:41:27 AM
1 votes:
One more stupid point:  A shotgun is worth how much to a criminal?  Would such a criminal be inclined to relieve this teen of his weapon thus THUS putting another untraceable stolen weapon on the street.  Whether the teen is fatally ventilated during this transaction or merely damaged is consequential only to relatives, loved ones and the local heath care system.
2014-08-04 09:40:52 AM
1 votes:
206 comments as of the time I wrote this and it always ends up the same. The gun rights guys say the liberals are wrong who say the gun rights guys are wrong. You know what? This is not a gun rights issue. This is a crazy 18y/o's issue with him wanting attention. This is not about the right to do, it is about the what you have the sense NOT to do. I don't care if he does have the right to carry a shotgun. I don't care if he is not breaking a law. Does that mean that he should be allowed to make people in his community uncomfortable because he has the right to? Sure you can all say that people should not be nervous because he is not doing anything. Have you ever been on a roller coaster? You are locked in, strapped in the speeds are regulated, and there are people that inspect them regularly for safety and damage. You know what? They still scare the SHIAT out of me when I get on one. You can call it an irrational, but could it not be just as irrational for an individual to knowingly terrorize a community just because he can. The whole get use to me carrying a gun argument sounds like the same argument I use to use when I wanted a chick to take it in the poop chute. And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.
2014-08-04 09:36:25 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: 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.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.


He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.
2014-08-04 09:35:38 AM
1 votes:
Eh, at least the kid is walking around getting some exercise for a change.  I don't care about guns for the most part, but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

I don't really expect great reasoning from a teenager, but it sure seems to me, that these "protester" types are just inviting legislation that ruins it for the average hunter, who gets back from a hunt and carries their rifle into a donut shop rather than leaving it unattended in their pickup truck.
2014-08-04 09:32:14 AM
1 votes:

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.


Age is different than skin color.

I'm 34 and carded about 75% of the time I go into a liquor store and buy alcohol, or order alcohol at a restaurant.  Why?  Because I look like I'm in my early 20's, and most restaurants and liquor stores, to comply with the 21+ law in these United States, will card if someone looks younger than 30.  Because sometimes life is hard on some teenager and they end up looking like old farts long before their time.  Heroin is a hell of a drug, after all.

Same goes with cigarettes.  18+ (sometimes 19, at least to purchase), and I'm FINE with age-based carding.

This isn't like stop-and-frisk, and I've yet to hear of the police using excessive force in an age-based stop.  You show your ID like asked, they look at the date of birth and, if you're not breaking the law you go on your merry damned way.

I show my ID at the liquor store and I get my booze.

Same thing.  If the police stopped me outside of the liquor store and asked for my ID, I'd be FINE with it, so long as they didn't make me drop my rum.
2014-08-04 09:30:22 AM
1 votes:
Oh, you're applying for a job? Yeah, we saw you on the news and it turns out you like to be an asshole. I'm sorry sir we have a no asshole policy at work. You would cause way to many problems for us.
2014-08-04 09:27:59 AM
1 votes:

pendy575: Perhaps the proximity of the shootings is the reason his teenaged brain told him to do this. I would think proximity to that type of event in a young persons life combined with access to firearms could easily lead to this type of thought process.

The police did not have any right to stop him and so the request for id is harrassment. They did not stop him to check for id at all and most of is know that. The check for identification was simply a form of harrassment. He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked. Did they inform him they were checking identification to determine his age in relation to possession of a firearm? Nope

They ginned up a charge when they realized he was within his rights and they had screwed up. He should sue the city


You have entirely too much faith in police.  They "ginned up a charge" (I like that) when he decided to be a dick.  That's how police really work.  Be pleasant and don't harm anyone/anything and they won't arrest you.  Be a dick and they'll find an excuse.

As they tend to have several gun nuts on the force and they all go to ranges to practice, I'm sure the police were very aware that was legal.  They came up, asked why he was walking around with a gun (a perfectly reasonable security measure) and he proceeded to be a dick yelling about his rights instead of actually talking to the police.  Things are escalating with an armed man.  Time to show a little concern.

They ask for ID.  Hey, this guy is being combative maybe he's crazy/violent/illegally in possession of a firearm.  Actually, I'm not entirely sure that last one is possible in CO.  He continues to dick up their day, so they decide to dick his up.

That's how police work.  They are tired and annoyed and will go out of their way to ruin your day if you are a dick.  It doesn't matter what the situation is, they can always find an excuse to at least fine you.  They probably would have allowed him to continue if he'd cordially introduced himself when the police walked up.
2014-08-04 09:27:59 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
media.giphy.com
2014-08-04 09:26:43 AM
1 votes:

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.


What you seem to be missing is that the more people do this, the more likely it is that the constitution will be altered to make doing this illegal...

They don`t pass laws to stop people doing stuff that nobody is doing. Every law has some people who want to do the banned action. If more people want it banned than want to do it, guess what is likely to happen?

Enough random members of the public where he was already thought he should get arrested for his actions whether it was a crime or not. That percentage will increase over time.

I support this teen in his drive to ban guns in public places.
2014-08-04 09:24:45 AM
1 votes:
" it is a custom more honor'd in the breach than the observance "

I am fine with someone carrying a weapon as long as they don't have mental issues. Unfortunately, I feel that the need to carry a weapon around in day to day life is a strong sign of mental illness (in most cases). I am into guns in the same way that I am into aircraft. I appreciate the design and utility, but I understand that they have limited usefulness outside of specific instances.

/owns two guns
2014-08-04 09:22:24 AM
1 votes:

BeerGraduate: I second open-carrying SWORDS



Playing around with swords is my job.  I sure as hell don't.  Swords (or any other melee weapons) give all the advantage to the strong, the large, and the young adults.  Women, older persons, short people, disabled folks...they'd become even more of a victim class than they already are.

Don't get me wrong - I'd actually like to see a Code Duello come back with melee weapons.  Let young, stupid, men fight each other in a legal, controlled setting in a manner that won't hurt bystanders.  But for general defensive use?  Speaking as a disabled vet who's getting up in years, it's in nobody's best interest to force melee implements to be the primary self-defense tool...save for large men between about 16-30.

Which gender/age demographic commits (by far) the most crime already?  Oh right....men between about 16-30.
2014-08-04 09:21:45 AM
1 votes:
When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.

total number of farks given by everyone else: 0
2014-08-04 09:21:04 AM
1 votes:

lilbjorn: 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.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?


I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.
2014-08-04 09:19:39 AM
1 votes:

dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.


Powder residue is sticky, filthy, corrosive, and the exhaust gasses are used to operate the mechanism in many semiautomatic firearms (which means the stuff in question is getting all up in the fiddly bits.). Hence the need for frequent cleaning vs. cars. (Gas burns relatively cleanly, and cars are designed in such a way that they're largely self cleaning anyway, although that adds to complexity and expense.) Older cars still get carbon buildup in their nether regions, and there are procedures for that.

Firearms also do not have pumps actively circulating oil through them, hence the need for manual lubrication.

The blowing up body parts thing occurs when you try to take apart a loaded weapon. Performing maintenance on a running car is also discouraged.

Personally, as a paranoid, i do things like disconnecting the battery before doing engine work, unplugging the garbage disposal before sticking my hand down there (and looking nervously at the wire while doing so) and measuring wood three times (!) before cutting it, with my hands as far away from the saw blade as possible, and making sure that I'm holding the saw such that I am not in the potential flight path of a blade or blade fragments. (Yes, there's a guard, but let's pretend it's not there.)

Living in fear is a terrible curse.
2014-08-04 09:18:18 AM
1 votes:

Headso: In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.


That's great. And that applies to this situation how, exactly? Or did I miss the part of the story where this involved a teenager in a rural area during hunting season, acting in a way all the locals are accustomed to regarding his hunting rifle post- or pre-hunt?
2014-08-04 09:16:26 AM
1 votes:

Veloram: MagSeven: kim jong-un: 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.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.

[img.fark.net image 240x105]
I introduce to you, the AA-12


It's still a smoothbore, and still not effective beyond 50 yards or so. Maybe 100 yards firing slugs. That said, shotguns are considerably more accurate than pistols at across-the-room distances, because of the longer sight radius.
2014-08-04 09:13:07 AM
1 votes:

MFK: You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing.


In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.
2014-08-04 09:13:01 AM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.

All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.


This post has much poetential. CO has a stop and identify law that's perfectly constitutional, just as I linked. Carrying a weapon in public has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. I never said anything about disarming anyone.

There are a lot of people who've built themselves a mental maze to reinforce this exact kind of paranoia, tho...
2014-08-04 09:10:43 AM
1 votes:

PreMortem: 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.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


Counterpoint. Chicago, NYC, Baltimore... you liberals talk a big game yet the cities you dominate say differently.
2014-08-04 09:04:13 AM
1 votes:

kim jong-un: 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.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Irony defined.
2014-08-04 08:59:59 AM
1 votes:

pendy575: The 4th amendment states fairly clearly that it related to militia

So treat people like they should be training for militia with regards to gun ownership

Inspect their weapons. Make sure they are trained in their proper use


This a joke post?

Hope so.
2014-08-04 08:58:28 AM
1 votes:
You liberals sound exactly like the old school boys when the Civil Rights marches were going on, you know that, right?
2014-08-04 08:53:09 AM
1 votes:

serpent_sky: My point is the kid is an idiot, could easily get shot by someone else, and should not be doing what he's doing because clearly, he is frightening and intimidating people (hence, multiple calls to get the police out there when he's wandering with his gun), as opposed to merely expressing his right to bear arms and being harassed for doing so. I'm fairly certain we agree on all of this?


I noticed that one of the local restaraunts had posted a "no firearms" notice on their door as well as one of the local movie theaters which is, I think, a great response. If these idiots want to walk into a business I'm patronizing like a high plains drifter then I'll take my business elsewhere.
2014-08-04 08:49:54 AM
1 votes:
Did all the trolls wake up at the same time or something? It's unique to see a cluster of poorly spelled, ill-informed opinions suddenly pop up in a green thread that had already hit the main page.

I should have figured this was too civil and sane for a gun thread.
2014-08-04 08:41:35 AM
1 votes:

rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.


All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.
2014-08-04 08:33:25 AM
1 votes:

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.


Well, I'm certainly no attorney, but they asked him to prove he was 18.  He looks like he's 15, at the most.  I'd say that's a reasonable request given that he looks too young to be doing what he's doing  WAY back in the day, I used to get carded at bars - once by the the police after I had been served (they did a spot check).  This kid is being a douche for the sake of being a douche and he knows it.  Hopefully, this will solve itself and he will trip while walking around with his constitutional right pointed at his own head.
2014-08-04 08:28:43 AM
1 votes:

Lorelle: Why are they always so white and pasty??


Because black people learned early on that anyone with more than a mild tan gets shot by the police.

Kid's a douchbag but I applaud him for making open carry nuts continue to look like a danger to the community.
2014-08-04 08:26:47 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid - indeed, that's a big reason why we would like to see him stop doing what he is doing - before he get's his dumb ass hurt.


I don't really care if he hurts himself. He's an adult and he's free to do stupid shiat if he wants. He's also free to suffer the consequences.

I wouldn't say I want it to happen, but if he shoots his foot off that's his problem and I'm not going to feel any worse about that than when I'm laughing at some idiot on Youtube who cracks his nuts riding a bike off his roof.
2014-08-04 08:23:42 AM
1 votes:

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.


You're right. If anybody sees any illegal aliens open-carrying, they should grab them and deport them right away. We already have enough attention-whoring assholes in this country.
2014-08-04 08:22:34 AM
1 votes:

I alone am best: Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.


People have justified death for less than brandishing a firearm in public, which is something most people would feel somewhat threatened by because it's not normal behavior.  Again, legal, sure. But normal? Not unless you're on hunting grounds or at the range.  Going to the mall or McDonald's with a rifle could very easily be seen as threatening to rob the place - and certainly would in many places.

Also: this kid wasn't part of a rally or a group or anything. Just a lone weirdo walking down the street with a long gun. You really, really can't see how people would find that disturbing or even a threat to their safety?

I'm not saying he did anything illegal, or that the way the law is written, he wasn't within his rights. But lots of legal activity is misinterpreted and can lead to injury or death. I'd say carrying a firearm randomly, for no real reason, in public like that is very easily misinterpreted in a way that could easily send someone else over the edge - either a random loon, OR someone who genuinely saw him as a threat and was also armed. An armed society is not necessarily a polite one, and fear will override manners almost every time.
2014-08-04 08:20:51 AM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.


The Disorderly charge here is Colorado's law for brandishing a weapon, and may even have him for Menacing with a firearm. That and it is illegal in Aurora to fire a firearm outside of a designated range or in the duties of a law enforcement officer. So well done kid, at the least you have a class 2 misdemeanor and threatening that you going to break even more laws in a fantasy that you will save the day is more likely to get a psych evaluation than a medal.
2014-08-04 08:19:52 AM
1 votes:

Jurodan: I can easily imagine a scene where this guy walks into a public venue there like a super market or, for sheer idiocy, the movie theater and gets shot by some startled concealed carry gun owner trying to prevent another massacre.


I have wondered about this scenario.  Is Colorado a "stand your ground" state?  I can imagine this kid getting shot and no one going to jail for i... ah I couldn't finish, if he got shot of course someone would go to jail.  He isn't blah, after all.
2014-08-04 08:19:20 AM
1 votes:

MagSeven: kim jong-un: 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.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.


img.fark.net
I introduce to you, the AA-12
2014-08-04 08:18:41 AM
1 votes:

heavymetal: it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.


Just curious, has the need ever actually arisen?

Like, have you ever been walking down the aisle at walmart with your shootin' iron on your hip and suddenly a race riot broke out in Housewares or a gay rapist jumped at you from behind the paper towels and you found you suddenly needed to distribute a few Freedom Holes at a split second's notice?
2014-08-04 08:10:14 AM
1 votes:

llort dam eht: We're missing the main point here, and it is by far the saddest.

At 18 years of age this guy's dick doesn't work. At least I'm assuming since he feels the need to carry around a substitute with him out in public. He needs a doctor or a girlfriend or both.


You know - it is possible for people to have very severe and profound mental and emotionsl difficulties that have little or nothing to do with sexuality.

snowshovel: sycraft: Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun.

Exactly. That's why all teachers should be trained and armed at all times. Then we won't have to worry about the crazies.


God knows there are no crazy teachers. I feel safer already.
2014-08-04 08:04:30 AM
1 votes:
We're missing the main point here, and it is by far the saddest.

At 18 years of age this guy's dick doesn't work. At least I'm assuming since he feels the need to carry around a substitute with him out in public. He needs a doctor or a girlfriend or both.
2014-08-04 08:04:00 AM
1 votes:

keylock71: Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?


They failed somewhere about ten years back.
2014-08-04 08:02:55 AM
1 votes:
Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?
2014-08-04 07:55:25 AM
1 votes:

mekkab: jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.

You unload it and you sure as fark don't point it at anything you don't want to put a hole through.

/and the moment a gun is out of sight, assume it walked itself across the room and re-loaded.
//Fark Gun Safety 101


Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.
2014-08-04 07:53:36 AM
1 votes:
Desensitized != Comfortable
2014-08-04 07:53:05 AM
1 votes:

kim jong-un: Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Actually in video games the slug shotgun is one of the most powerful weapon in the CoD series. One hit kills each time and you have crazy range.  If the shotgun isn't rifled then it is not as accurate as any other firearm.
2014-08-04 07:51:51 AM
1 votes:
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

I thought the police could hold you for 24 hours to determine your identity if you refused to present proper identification during an investigation. And all police stops are investigations.
2014-08-04 07:46:51 AM
1 votes:

Avery614: I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety


That's actually true in most states.  Many people consider that unacceptable.  It's also worth nothing that the alternative is "you can't shoot until they've started shooting at you".  That should also be unacceptable, for obvious reasons.

dookdookdook: So, educate me a little here: Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign? We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?


I'll take the question as legitimate, rather than responding to the (troll) tone.

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.  That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger.  Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

The flip side to that is, when you need to pull the trigger, gun manufacturers and gun owners want there to be as little *stuff* interfering with that process as possible.  Each *thing* between your decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun goes "bang" is a potential failure step, and if you're in a position where you actually do need to pull the trigger, a failure is a life-threatening thing.

So, essentially, gun manufacturers assume that the person holding the weapon is rational and competent enough to not put their booger hook on the bang switch without good cause.  If you put it there, and pull, then the gun not go bang.  Almost every "accidental shooting" ever is the result of somebody ignoring that fact, be it soldier, cop, or private citizen.  The failure is the person, not the machine.

Now, the reason the trigger pull is part of the takedown process on a Glock (and several other guns) is a desire to reduce weight (carrying a gun all day gets surprisingly heavy) and to reduce the number of switches and so forth sticking out of the gun (each of which represents a failure point and a thing to catch on clothing or a holster).  Plenty of other guns have takedown latches - but they all made the choice during design to accept the possibility of those failures.  Glock assumed that the owner would be competent enough to triple-check the firearm before taking it apart from regular maintenance so as to avoid an accidental discharge (and in so doing saved the weight and failure chance).
2014-08-04 07:40:18 AM
1 votes:

sycraft: Just wondering if you've ever owned a car, or any other mechanical device for that matter. If you have, you should be aware that all mechanical devices need maintenance. Your car is no exception, and guns are no exception. The usual purpose of disassembling a gun is to clean it and to oil it. Any time you have metal against metal, oil is a good idea. You might note your car has an oil pan for just that reason, and it needs to be periodically changed, along with its filter.


An oil change happens a few times a year, and carries next to zero risk of serious bodily injury if you have even the remotest idea what you're doing.  OTOH guns are infinitely less complicated mechanically and on a whole have much less raw death potential than a car, yet they still need to be constantly cleaned and adjusted, and will absolutely fark your shiat up if you commit one tiny brain fart.
2014-08-04 07:39:06 AM
1 votes:

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.


I bet that shiat would go out the window as soon as a black, Arab , or Latino decided to do the exact thing.
2014-08-04 07:34:51 AM
1 votes:
Too bad self-righteousness isn't a felony, that would get a lot of loons off the street.
2014-08-04 07:34:44 AM
1 votes:

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


The same should apply to Hispanic looking individuals in border states and minority voters too.  Or is that "different"?
2014-08-04 07:33:29 AM
1 votes:

serpent_sky: Also, I think part of the reason these things get national attention is just how different the laws are in every state. Any one of those guys came trotting down the street around here, and there would be just short of, if not, a SWAT team on them in minutes.  But seeing guns is not normal around here and it would absolutely panic everyone.


I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety.  I could certainly see someone being in fear for their life and shooting baby Huey because, you know, he's walking around town pimping a farking shotgun a few days after a mass shooting.

www.quickmeme.com

/oh wait he's white nevermind
2014-08-04 07:31:19 AM
1 votes:
Apple cheeked Steve Lohner seems to be the embodiment of all that is wrong with American gun culture.
Bonus: refusal to obey /arguing with authority when asked a simple question in an area known to be affected by crime. I've been assured here on Fark that this a valid reason for cops to beat/shoot/taser/strangle/bodyslam random unarmed random folks.
2014-08-04 07:23:50 AM
1 votes:
By the way, used to ride my bike through town to go hunting when I was in 5th grade, with a shotgun or a .22 across the handlebars. Not a single eyebrow was raised. The horrors.....
2014-08-04 07:23:02 AM
1 votes:
Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


Investigating what? No crime was committed and he's within his rights, move along, pig.
2014-08-04 07:20:05 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:

[www.law.louisville.edu image 364x273]

Morse v. Frederick


See also Tinker v. DesMoines.   The Supreme Court ruled that free speech can be censored in public schools if said free speech interferes with maintaining school discipline.
2014-08-04 07:06:33 AM
1 votes:
Lorelle:  Why are they always so white and pasty??

Because some basements are not equipped with sun lamps and tanning beds.
2014-08-04 07:04:26 AM
1 votes:

August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?


Yeah, we can be here... it's just impossible for us to post anything and expect any traction from it. Being the most sensible of the gun-owning segment of the USA, our rational thought doesn't have any opportunity to take hold before the weirdos chime in. Just have a look at Weeners by Trailltrader and the Boobies made by Dramboxf a dozen or so after it.

Now, I'm pretty sure based on his profile that Trailltrader is a troll. I mean, he's weighing in on the discussion before there is any discussion taking place, and he doesn't even have the details correct. On the other hand, that's pretty much exactly how the NRA works: they don't understand the 2nd Amendment, and they love to argue and debate things that don't need to be argued and debated.

Dramboxf, on the other hand, apparently just invents narratives to prove unimportant points. Really... his dad hired a "first amendment attorney" to discuss why the student newspaper wouldn't publish his opinion poll about sex. *big farking roll-eyes.*  Riiiiight. His girlfriend in Canada was super-supportive of it too. ANyhow, that type of story is great because on the 0.00001% chance that it is actually true, it shows how he was raised to believe that normal expectations of people living in society were to be interpreted as affronts to god-given rights.
2014-08-04 07:04:05 AM
1 votes:

whitman00: zamboni:

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

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.


I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.
2014-08-04 06:59:37 AM
1 votes:
When asked to provide ID proving his age, Lohner refused to do so, while videotaping the encounter (seen below) on his phone.

Oh he's one of those assholes.
2014-08-04 06:55:58 AM
1 votes:
Behold a future spittle flecked arsehole. Bet his hero is Ted Nugent.
2014-08-04 06:52:22 AM
1 votes:

LazyMedia: Georgia law already does that


Indeed.  However, other places do not.

serpent_sky: Damn... it's just an all around hairy issue. Like I said, I see these people, more than anything, ultimately leading to the repeal or restriction of open carry laws because they're just too much trouble to deal with under the current laws.


Yup, it's largely a matter of intent.  "Intent to walk around with a firearm in a safe, controlled, and nonthreatening** manner" should be legal, while "intent to attention whore with a gun" should not.   However, it's next to impossible to actually enforce or write legislation based on intent.  One can DO it...but it tends to simply become a de facto prohibition on even the legal facet of the activity.

A similar example is the ban of torrent programs on college campuses (utorrent, etc).  There's absolutely free, legal, torrent downloads out there (Microsoft released Mechwarrior 4:Mercs and all the expansions as a torrent a few years ago, for example), but because there's no way to tell the intent behind having that program installed on your computer, the whole thing ends up getting banned.


**I'm aware there are some people who consider being able to see a gun whatsoever as "threatening".  I remember having somebody in my apartment who saw a completely disassembled pistol on a table in an unocccupied side room and wanted to know if it was "going to suddenly go off".  Those people are stupid, and should be ignored.
2014-08-04 06:39:17 AM
1 votes:

serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...


If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.
2014-08-04 06:38:02 AM
1 votes:

August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?


SSSHHut uuup! You're not supposed to let the nutjobs know liberals have guns too. Weren't you at the meeting last week?
2014-08-04 06:37:09 AM
1 votes:

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

/ Gun is always loaded...


That is one dumb kid. Someone get him some gun safety lessons stat before he blows his fool head off.
2014-08-04 06:34:18 AM
1 votes:

kim jong-un: 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.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

www.memelets.com
2014-08-04 06:33:15 AM
1 votes:
Is he old enough to buy cigerettes?

What exactly is the penalty for under age cigerette buying?
2014-08-04 06:27:01 AM
1 votes:
As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?
2014-08-04 06:22:08 AM
1 votes:

Karac: That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue. If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.


The school newspaper isn't much different from the resident's bulletin at a nursing home or the local church weekly bulletin. I could write and submit whatever I wanted, but the organization isn't required to publish it if it is not something they see as in the best interest of their residents. I suspect the speech issue gets more tricky if something is not sponsored by the school (or an organization or business) though they could easily enough make rules about what could be distributed on their property.  I remember in high school my then-boyfriend and I passed around some punk zines we made, and were told we could make whatever we wanted on our own time, but couldn't be leaving them around the school or putting them on the bulletin boards.  *shrug*  It was like attempting to educate rocks, anyway, so it didn't really harm our enterprise to hand them out at shows and record stores.
2014-08-04 03:13:09 AM
1 votes:
i2.photobucket.com
2014-08-04 02:46:27 AM
1 votes:

Mentat: We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.


Yep. Maybe they are just compensating or something. Anyway, that kid in TFA doesn't appear old enough to have hit puberty yet.
2014-08-04 02:00:00 AM
1 votes:
Didn't you guys watch the damn Lego Movie?
2014-08-04 12:48:10 AM
1 votes:

Yaw String: Insert token masturbation reference here.


Nut-Rubbing Anuses
2014-08-04 12:32:40 AM
1 votes:

Lorelle: Cewley: Nuts Ruining America.

Nutty Raving Assholes.


Naive retarded asshats.
2014-08-04 12:01:31 AM
1 votes:
He should convert one hand to a chainsaw to complete the ensemble.
2014-08-03 11:52:09 PM
1 votes:
Have you seen the kid? Tipping intensifies.
2014-08-03 11:51:31 PM
1 votes:
When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.
 
Displayed 349 of 349 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report