Whatever side of the story we are seeing, the fact is he was arrested for "rudely displaying a rifle". That is not a crime. How does one exactly "rudely" display a firearm? That is a meaningless term. Regardless of whose side we are seeing, regardless of the cop's thought process, he committed no crime, and was charged with a crime that does not exist.
Well, I've not been able to find anything about that specific charge. All my searches for it just lead me to the article. However, I feel that he really had no business carrying a rifle that has been such a focus recently. Also, in reading some other forums, it was said he was on Airport Rd near Old Howard Rd. There happens to be a medical center near there. You think that might have put the cops on edge a bit? Bottom line, there are a lot of details being left out.
Well, I've not been able to find anything about that specific charge. All my searches for it just lead me to the article. However, I feel that he really had no business carrying a rifle that has been such a focus recently. Also, in reading some other forums, it was said he was on Airport Rd near Old Howard Rd. There happens to be a medical center near there. You think that might have put the cops on edge a bit? Bottom line, there are a lot of details being left out.
Carrying a gun (legally, I might add) that was linked to a tragedy is not a crime. If we should stop using/doing things based on misinformation or unfortunate connection to terrible events, then what would we have left in this world? No cars, planes, trains, office buildings, schools, scissors, ovens, homes near water, etc, etc, etc. Yes, I can understand being mindful of the ignorant reactions one might come across (I myself didn't take my M4 to the range for a few weeks out of respect), but this event didn't happen a few days after Newton. It happened five months afterwards. Do we now need to put restrictions on when people are allowed to legally buy/use/mention /display things?
Carrying a gun (again, legally) while walking on a road that does not forbid guns is not a crime. Texas is an open carry state, meaning you can carry any legal firearm on your person nearly anywhere you want (excluding schools, government offices and private property that explicitly forbids firearms). He was well within his rights carrying the weapon while walking along that road. The father was not only exercising his Right to Open Carry based on Texas law, but he also held a Concealed Carry Permit, which FURTHER protects him from prosecution. If you don't know what a CCP is, in short, it is a form of identification that states that the County government in which he resides, as well as the County's POLICE DEPT are in agreement that he has meet ALL REQUIREMENTS to legally own and carry a legal firearm on his person and in his vehicle in whatever manner (concealed, visible, loaded, unloaded) that he wishes, on any land he wishes (excluding locations listed above). Nothing about the man's actions or firearms was illegal.
Yes, it is the police's duty to respond to reports of a man carrying a gun. I don't think anyone would fault them for making the effort to see what was going on. However, everything else the police did after that is disgustingly wrong and illegal. This is how it should have gone down:
Officer: Excuse me, I'm Officer Exnay-onda-Onutsday. I'm responding to reports of a man and boy on the road with a gun. I need to do my job and make sure you are not a threat and are legally allowed to own this gun. Do you mind placing the rifle on the ground?
Father: Absolutely. *places rifle on the ground*
Officer: *approaching him* Do you have any other weapons on you, sir?
Father: Yes, I have a 45 pistol on my left hip. Would you like me to remove it and place it on the ground as well?
Officer: Yes. I need to see your driver's license, and a CCL if you have one.
Father: I do. Both are in my wallet in my back right pocket. *slowly removes wallet and hands it to Officer*
While waiting on validation of the ID and CCL, the Officer and Father discuss why they are walking on the side of the road with weapons. Seeing how nothing about it is illegal, and his documentation comes back fine, the Officer lets the father and son continue on their hike with weapons intact.
I won't deny that it appears that the father should have controlled his temper better, even though it does appear to be justified. In situations like this, even if you are completely within your rights, it's best to not give the police ANY reason (valid or not) to detain your further. If you're going to carry a weapon, you need to be prepared for the police to come calling - it's their job to make sure your not a crazy criminal. In the same vein, the police need to know and follow the law. Arresting a guy because you're mad that he's made at you is not a valid enough excuse.
So the Gun Bill lost even thought they got 54 votes trying to pass it(46 against it)
But Ted Cruz gave us this piece of logic
"If you decide you want to sell your shotgun and you put an advertisement on Craigslist, under that bill, before you can do so you have to go through the federal government" for a background check, he argued.
How exactly is that a bad thing. The bill they created basically was very watered down that it basically only did one minor thing(stop people from making sales on internet sites without background checks) while stating most other things don't change(you could still sell to family and friends without background checks, it specified not to create gun registries)
Allow me to clarify my position on this. I don't think this guy needed or had any business carrying an AR-15 while walking down the road with his son in a not as rural as its been made out to be area. Especially in light of all of the gun debates going on right now. I think it shows either poor judgment on his part or an intent to bring on a police confrontation. I agree that he was within his rights to do it, I just don't think it was a smart idea. Also, since we don't have any official report from the police side of the incident or dashcam footage, the story is very one sided. Based on how this guy was talking to the cops, I'm willing to wager that he wasn't the most cooperative from the start. Cops just don't take chances with people carrying guns. Especially if that person is unwilling to put the gun down without being asked, "Pretty please," in the proper tone.
Again, I'm not saying the man wasn't within his rights to carry the rifle, I'm saying it wasn't the smart thing to do.
On a side note, why would you do your 10 hike on a main road and not in say, a state park? When I think hiking I think of nature, not pavement. Just saying.
Whatever side of the story we are seeing, the fact is he was arrested for "rudely displaying a rifle". That is not a crime. How does one exactly "rudely" display a firearm? That is a meaningless term. Regardless of whose side we are seeing, regardless of the cop's thought process, he committed no crime, and was charged with a crime that does not exist.
Rudely displaying a firearm is another term of actually pointing it at a person! I have seen this term used twice in my life. One was when a crazy neighbor took aim at me and a friend with her rifle because heaven forbid, we were jumping on my trampoline in the middle of the day, and the other was when a stupid friend of mine had a beebe gun and pointed at a car driving by, and with his luck, the car was an unmarked policeman. He was 10 at the time and was just given a warning, but basically, even if you have no intensions of using the weapon, if you aim it at somebody, it's still a crime.
Can't say I'm surprised by the demise of the gun background check bill. Well, now if you're an old black lady and you have trouble voting because of arbitrary voter ID laws, just say you're a gun. See if that works.
Can't say I'm surprised by the demise of the gun background check bill. Well, now if you're an old black lady and you have trouble voting because of arbitrary voter ID laws, just say you're a gun. See if that works.
The thing is the bill was just so watered down they might as well should have voted for it to say they did something. Now when people see that they basically didn't vote on a bill because they don't want to hassle people selling guns over the internet that's going to be a campaign war cry how you can't get Republicans to even agree on the smallest things
From my understanding the 2 Senators who wrote the bill basically had the NRA sit in on the session with them when they wrote the bill(basically stating that everything stays the same BUT selling guns to people you don't know (ie not family or friends) you need a background check in private sales, plus the added bonus of written words they can't use this to make a gun registry) then when they come out with it the NRA says hey if you vote yes on this your NRA rating is going down. I guess that's how lobbyists like the NRA work
Rudely displaying a firearm is another term of actually pointing it at a person! I have seen this term used twice in my life. One was when a crazy neighbor took aim at me and a friend with her rifle because heaven forbid, we were jumping on my trampoline in the middle of the day, and the other was when a stupid friend of mine had a beebe gun and pointed at a car driving by, and with his luck, the car was an unmarked policeman. He was 10 at the time and was just given a warning, but basically, even if you have no intensions of using the weapon, if you aim it at somebody, it's still a crime.
At the end of the day, the NRA isn't the spokeman of the people. Its up to the people to decide and their rep to enact the majority's decision. I don't agree with the decision against firmer background checks, but I think President Obama is out of line in expressing his disappointment. The President is in the White House to enact with will of the people as presented via the senators, congressmen/congresswomen, and any intermediaries that I missed. If there's people against firmer background checks, then the decision was made as it should have been--just not as I, nor the President, wanted it to be.
At the end of the day, the NRA isn't the spokeman of the people. Its up to the people to decide and their rep to enact the majority's decision. I don't agree with the decision against firmer background checks, but I think President Obama is out of line in expressing his disappointment. The President is in the White House to enact with will of the people as presented via the senators, congressmen/congresswomen, and any intermediaries that I missed. If there's people against firmer background checks, then the decision was made as it should have been--just not as I, nor the President, wanted it to be.
Most polls are showing anywhere from 85-92% of people want background checks. Now even if those polls are skewed a bit or have a decent amount of people not fully understanding the full context of the question, it looks like a majority of peoples opinions are not being taken into consideration in favor of a lobbyist group.
I mean honestly what is wrong making it mandatory for private sales to have background checks? It should be noted this bill specifically allowed exceptions for sales between friends and family(which seemed to be the major complaint I heard from the pro gun side, that selling between family would be a hassle so the pro gun side got that waived) so it was basically going after sales in cases of internet sales, selling through a paper or at a gun show back lot(which if we are to believe the pro gun side never happens in the first place). The bill basically bent over backwards and gave in to address every complaint the NRA and pro gun people raised for the pass 2 months and it still failed.
And you know this, how? I've not seen the police report or even seen the police's side of the story.
Also, I found another snippet that said he was carrying the rifle with it slung over his shoulder and in front of him. This is called "at the ready" and tells me his hand was on the pistol grip. That is NOT how you want to have a conversation with a cop.
It varies considerably. There's de facto, and de jure law.
Compare Montana to say New York City.
However, the US Supreme Court has gone on the record (with DC v. Heller) that handguns are covered by the Second Amendment. However even that has been circumvented by state and local governments with new laws. And then some simply refuse to issue permits, which are required in some areas.
Media Critic, Conspiracy Theorist (well, Researcher and Debunker) Mark Dice gets people in Cali to sign fake petition to ''go door to door' to gets guns out of people's homes and repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Love him or hate him, Southern Cali always comes off as very.......Big Govt in these type of videos. And no, these are not fake to scripted.
That's about what I thought. The reason I asked is because I'm trying to figure out just how gun control legislation can be considered unconstitutional. So many of my friends throw out that term, but I think it's an indefensible position.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
