# Person openly carrying an AR-15. Reasonable articulable suspicion of crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2018, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583 "2018-10-27T10:00:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/201 "2018-10-30T14:03:25Z")
This does seem to be one of those cases in which the law seems to clash with “common sense” about behavior that contributes to civic peace (cue in the chorus about phobias and cowardice and ignorance being the cause of people being upset, and snowflakes just having to suck it up). One thing’s for sure, if I’m armed I will be making an extra effort to NOT give cause for alarm by demeanor or conduct or being circumstantially inappropriate. As mentioned, there’s legal and then there’s wise which is why I am in no hurry to ever put to the test **Shodan** ’s Guide To Police-Citizen (If You’re White) Interaction. I would be happy to let this be one matter in which the rule devolved to the lower level and if community consensus in Place X is against open carry, then let that be the rule there, and if a community consensus in Place Y is to let it all hang out, let it. But there seems to be this whole race to universal unrestricted carry, no ifs ands or buts, going on that puts me off. Like I said, parameters of time, place and manner are placed on all sorts of rights. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/202 "2018-10-30T14:06:19Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is possible that they are simply “jackasses.” It is also possible that they just got bad news from work, were sent home, and are coming back for revenge. > > The simplified version of my reasonable articulable suspicion is that: > > 1. People do not typically carry rifles in town, despite it being legal. > 2. Rifles in town serve no legitimate self defense purposes, as I see no wild injuns around. > 3. Those citizens who desire firearms for self defense typically carry pistols. > 4. I suspect that it is possible this person carrying a rifle in town desires to harm someone. > > As a gun owner, a 2nd amendment supporter who agrees with Heller and McDonald, and generally hates gun restrictions, I believe that the above creates reasonable articulable suspicion. > > The test is not whether we can craft another plausible legal scenario. Again, in Terry, maybe those three guys were walking back and forth in front of the store and conversing about whether their wives would kill them if they bought the expensive item in the display. Walking is legal, talking is legal. Indeed, as the Court noted, looking in store windows is legal as that is why they are there. > > However, the sufficiently unusual situation caused the officer to have reasonable articulable suspicion. > > I don’t think my axe example has been answered. Is that not RAS without more? Even though axe carrying is legal? 1. It’s legal even if it’s not typical, people don’t typically sing I’m a little teapot on a corner but it’s legal. 2. There are PLENTY of cases were a rifle in town was used for self defense purposes. And unless it was by magic at some point someone carried that rifle in town, and probably in public. 3. Their choice of self defense weapon is none of the police’s or your business as long as said weapon is legal. 4. Your suspicion or gut feeling isn’t RAS. I felt he was up to no good isn’t going to stand up in court, and probably cost the city or the officer a LOT of money. As far a carrying an ax, or flamethrower for that matter, as long as it’s legal there would be no RAS, there could be many reasons for carrying an ax, flamethrower, and many other items, unless said item is against the law to carry there is no RAS. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/203 "2018-10-30T15:14:22Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > No, it does not. They could be carrying for many reasons. Getting a reaction is just one. There are many places in the world where carrying a weapon is entirely normal. You don’t say. But are they places that one would want to be? And why should one parade a military weapon in public? Outside of Switzerland anyway, a country not known (yet?) for mass shootings. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/204 "2018-10-30T15:47:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes. So, you are okay in some circumstances with limiting some freedoms if they may cause harm to others. > [@](#): > > It’s not really a presumption. He said: And is that what I said? Like I said, talking about someone else’s argument is poor form for arguing with another person. I can quote people on your side: > [@Robert Bowers](#): > > I just want to kill Jews. Does that have anything to do with your argument? No, then why do you presume to say that what someone else has to say has anything to do with mine? > [@](#): > > From “or similar weapon” (and similar phrasing he used in other posts) I think it’s pretty clear that he wants to ban all the scary guns, but I doubt he’s knowledgeable enough to delineate which ones those are. Once again, insulting someone else’s intelligence is not a great method of debating. You are supposed to be trying to insult _my_ intelligence here. But, you have DrDeth over here who claims that he can’t tell the difference between a deer hunting rifle and an AR-15, so I don’t know that it is just the “gun grabbers” who can tell which ones are the “scary ones”. > [@](#): > > I end up spending most of my time and energy beating back stupid ideas. If liberals would stop proposing those, perhaps we could get somewhere productive. Then don’t “beat back stupid ideas” propose some of your own. People are being killed and injured, and we should do something to address that. We have successfully reduced the injuries and deaths associated with cars, with alcohol, and with smoking, all without banning them. If a proposal is not a good one, that ther than just “beating it back”, haw about being productive and countering it with something that is not a stupid idea. Do you actually have any? I have yet to have heard _any_ proposals from the gun advocates that would decrease the injuries and deaths associated with guns. Maybe the problem isn’t that they are stupid ideas, they are just ideas that you don’t like, and that the problem is is that you don’t wish to do anything at all to reduce the harm associated with guns, and so anything that does address that is automatically labeled as a stupid idea. > [@](#): > > You are imagining things that I have not said. I didn’t mention crying or tears at all. You said: > [@](#): > > I have little doubt that a good number of Americans would not have purchased them without liberals like RTFirefly calling for their ban. You explicitly state there that people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban. > [@](#): > > I think you’re wrong. Gun sales spike when it looks like there’s a chance they may be banned. I don’t think they’re buying them “to upset liberals”, I think they’re doing it to get them before liberals ban their purchase. There is no chance that they will be banned, so anyone who bought a gun under that pretense is a moron who was lied to by the NRA. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It would be superfluous. So, is it ignorance on your part if you cannot tell a gun grabber who wants to work with the gun advocates to find ways of reducing injuries and deaths associated with guns and one that wants to ban all guns? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You saying this does not make it true. I would very much agree that if someone feels the _need_ to carry when they are in a Walmart, then they have serious paranoia issues that frankly make me feel uncomfortable with them having a gun. Of course, if you happen to be black, [you certainly know better.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III) > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > What would your reaction be if the cops say “That’s nice dear, but it’s perfectly legal, have a nice day”? “I am fulfilling my civic duty of reporting what I see as suspicious activity. I could not have gone in good conscience without letting someone in authority know about my concerns. If you do not feel that that is a concern to be checked out, then at least if it does turn out that my suspicions were warranted, I know that I did what I could to prevent tragedy.” In another thread, quite some time ago, it was stated that even if I saw people open carrying their guns _into a school_, that it would be silly to call the cops on them. Now, one of the problems is that, if I am concerned, and the police refuse to take my concerns seriously, then I\* may lie to the police, and claim that the gun bearer is waving it around or pointing it at people. For instance, not only the previous link with the beavercreek shooting, but you also have people who see a gun, and then lie to the police to get them to respond, [like in this story.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641) \*not I, but other people who have actually done this. > [@Shodan](#): > > What if that doesn’t match the legal definition of “brandishing”? > > “Hello, police - there is someone brandishing a rifle!” > > “How is he brandishing it?” > > “He is carrying it on his shoulder.” > > “That’s not brandishing, and it isn’t against the law.” > > “But I’m scared!” > > '_sigh_ - OK, we’ll have a talk with him." > > _Officer goes up to the guy carrying._ “Pardon me - I need to talk to you.” > > Person Carrying: “No.” > > Officer: “Stand where you are.” > > PC: “My name is so-and-so, I live at such-and-such an address, and I was born on such-and-such a date. Am I free to go?” > > Officer: “Why are you carrying that gun?” > > PC: “No answer. Am I free to go?” > > Officer: “We got a call from someone who feels threatened.” > > PC: “Not my problem. Am I free to go?” > > Officer: “Look, we just want everyone to feel safe. How about if you leave the gun at home next time?” > > PC: “No. Am I free to go?” > > Officer: “Why are you carrying the gun?” > > PC: “OK, last time. I have given you my name and other identifying information. I am not answering any more questions, I have committed no crime, and I don’t consent to any searches. Am I free to go?” > > Officer: “I am just trying to find out what is going on here.” > > PC: “I’ll take that as a Yes. Have a nice day.” Person Carrying walks away. > > Regards, > Shodan Much shorter conversation if you [happen to be black, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police) > [@Shodan](#): > > And if I behave as described, by simply repeating over and over “I refuse to answer questions. Am I free to go?” what do you suggest the police do? They can’t arrest me without reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime. Carrying a rifle is not a crime. Detain me more than briefly? “Briefly” doesn’t have a clear legal definition, but a Terry stop requires a reasonable, articulable suspicion that I am involved in a crime of some sort. Carrying a rifle is not a crime. If they tell me not to do it again, I will ignore them. > Should the police enforce local standards (as defined, apparently, by you) or the law, when they are in conflict? > > Regards, > Shodan So, after leaving the cop, you then head to your ex-girlfriend’s house and murder her. Too bad the cop couldn’t see that you were ineligible to possess a gun due to your numerous felonies and threats. Keep in mind, when you are being this way with the cop, the cop can shoot you, and they will not get into trouble for it. If they give you a “lawful order” to drop your gun, and you refuse, they are completely within their rights to shoot you dead. > [@Shodan](#): > > It has to be reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Therefore the second clause of your first point means that it is not RAS. > > And your fourth point misses the point. “It is possible” is not RAS. It is possible that I am driving my car on my way to run someone over. But the police can’t stop me because it is possible. > > Regards, > Shodan But, if you happen to be a black teenage girl, in a place where there was a report of a large black man being threatening, then it is _reasonable_ [to stop the black girl and beat her up.](https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/us/teen-police-assault-claim-california-trnd/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/205 "2018-10-30T16:09:41Z")
Consider the difference between open carrying a holstered pistol and holding the pistol in your hand. The former is protected (though it still distresses lots of people) while the latter would definitely constitute “articulable suspicion”. That’s why I think requiring long guns to be scabbarded in public is a reasonable compromise: it makes the firearm not instantly accessible and therefore not an immanent threat, or no more so than a holstered pistol. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/206 "2018-10-30T16:23:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Then don’t “beat back stupid ideas” propose some of your own. People are being killed and injured, and we should do something to address that. We have successfully reduced the injuries and deaths associated with cars, with alcohol, and with smoking, all without banning them. > > If a proposal is not a good one, that ther than just “beating it back”, haw about being productive and countering it with something that is not a stupid idea. Do you actually have any? I have yet to have heard _any_ proposals from the gun advocates that would decrease the injuries and deaths associated with guns. > > Maybe the problem isn’t that they are stupid ideas, they are just ideas that you don’t like, and that the problem is is that you don’t wish to do anything at all to reduce the harm associated with guns, and so anything that does address that is automatically labeled as a stupid idea. In high school, lots and lots of kids take a “driver’s education” course to familiarize themselves with the safe operation of automobiles. Why don’t we have a “shooter’s education” course offered alongside that so that they can familiarize themselves with the safe operation of firearms? I think it could reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. You onboard for that? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > You said: > > You explicitly state there that people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban. You’ve gotten yourself confused here. “I have little doubt that a good number of Americans would not have purchased them without liberals like RTFirefly calling for their ban” does not mean “people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban.” That’s not what it means at all. People buy them because they’re afraid the RTFireflys of the world might succeed to varying degrees. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > There is no chance that they will be banned, so anyone who bought a gun under that pretense is a moron who was lied to by the NRA. You haven’t been paying attention. While a nation-wide federal ban seems unlikely to pass anytime soon, there are a number of states that have enacted AW bans in recent years. Our very own **Bone** finds his options for firearm purchases severely limited. He is not a moron nor was he lied to by the NRA. That’s the reality in a number of liberal-leaning states. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/207 "2018-10-30T16:29:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Our very own **Bone** finds his options for firearm purchases severely limited. You call the ability to buy as many guns as you want from a list of 700 types “severely limited”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/208 "2018-10-30T16:37:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Much shorter conversation if you [happen to be black, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police) No, obviously not right - I don’t see what this has to do with an adult legally carrying a long gun in public, and not pointing it at anyone. > [@](#): > > So, after leaving the cop, you then head to your ex-girlfriend’s house and murder her. Too bad the cop couldn’t see that you were ineligible to possess a gun due to your numerous felonies and threats. Yes, it’s too bad. But I still don’t think police should be able to stop people without reasonable articulable suspicion. YMMV. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind, when you are being this way with the cop, the cop can shoot you, and they will not get into trouble for it. You know, don’t you, that this statement is ludicrously stupid. Maybe you don’t. That’s a pity, but all the more reason not to allow this kind of foolishness to inform public policy. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/209 "2018-10-30T17:59:48Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You call the ability to buy as many guns as you want from a list of 700 types “severely limited”? If you had a list of 700 types of literature you were allowed to publish, would you consider your first amendment rights “severely limited”? How about if there were 700 religions you could legally choose to follow? I mean, you could go to church as often as you want! How is that “severely limited”? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/210 "2018-10-30T18:10:13Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In high school, lots and lots of kids take a “driver’s education” course to familiarize themselves with the safe operation of automobiles. Why don’t we have a “shooter’s education” course offered alongside that so that they can familiarize themselves with the safe operation of firearms? I think it could reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. You onboard for that? Not on school grounds, I trust? But sure, I’d be okay with some sort of formal environment where teachers could hand students guns and find out how irresponsible the students really are. (And how much the student hates their teachers.) But what happens when a student fails this course\*? Can we prevent them from getting a “gun license” and prevent them from using one outside of private property, as we do with people without a driver’s license? How far do you want to take this analogy? - Note that I’m presuming there are ways to fail the class other than literally murdering your instructors/fellow students. Because yes, I know that’ll already make them ‘lose their license’ (if convicted), you’re so clever you. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/211 "2018-10-30T18:15:56Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > If you had a list of 700 types of literature you were allowed to publish, would you consider your first amendment rights “severely limited”? > > How about if there were 700 religions you could legally choose to follow? I mean, you could go to church as often as you want! How is that “severely limited”? I don’t consider this remotely the same thing, but to answer your question, no, I don’t consider that “severely limited” If it is possible to legally buy 50,000,000 guns, there is no way in hell that it could be considered “severely limited” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/212 "2018-10-30T18:19:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A semiautomatic rifle is a good tool to\* hunt small game\*? :rolleyes: Possibly the most popular .22 rifle is the Ruger 10-22, a semi-auto rimfire rifle, used indeed- to hunt small game. However, the .223 semi-auto rifles are also commonly used to hunt varmints. They are perfect for coyotes, for example. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/213 "2018-10-30T18:22:28Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yes, there’s nothing magical about the AR-15 in particular. Any weapon that is designed to kill a lot of people in a hurry shoudn’t be in civilian hands. So, that would be- fully automatic weapons, mortars, machine guns, etc- all of which _are_ banned, and with a few exceptions- \*are not in civilian hands. \* The AR15 is not so designed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/214 "2018-10-30T18:27:48Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > And why should one parade a military weapon in public? You mean the Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle? Because it is a standard deer rifle. Beretta, Glock and Sig handguns? Because they are just about the most popular handguns around, used by police, security, military and yes, civilians. **The AR15? Well, that’s not a military weapon.** > **[List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces | In active service (some branches or limited roles)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces#In_active_service_(some_branches_or_limited_roles)_5)** > > 1.XM7 (6.8×51mm Common Cartridge) (US Army) | > 2.M16A4 (5.56×45mm NATO) (USMC, US Army) | > 3.M16A3 (5.56×45mm NATO) (Navy SEALs and USN Seabees) | > 4.M16A2 (5.56×45mm NATO) (USAF, USCG, and US Army Training/Reserve/National Guard) | > 5.M27 IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) (5.56×45mm NATO) (USMC Automatic Rifleman) | > 6.M38 SDMR (Squad Designated Marksman Rifle) (5.56×45mm NATO) (USMC Designated Marksmen) | > 7.M110A1 SDMR (7.62x51mm NATO) (US Army Designated Marksmen) | > 8.Mk 14 EBR (Enhanced Ba > 1... See again, based upon ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/215 "2018-10-30T18:31:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > S > > But, you have DrDeth over here who claims that he can’t tell the difference between a deer hunting rifle and an AR-15, so I don’t know that it is just the “gun grabbers” who can tell which ones are the “scary ones”. \*\*I didnt say that. \*\* The only difference between a “deer rifle” and a “assault weapon” are cosmetic differences. You certainly can (and many people have) use a AR15 for hunting deer. In fact, it is you that can’t tell the difference, not knowing anything about calibers, range, muzzle velocity, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![BeenJammin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beenjammin/32/448_2.png) [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/216 "2018-10-30T19:35:07Z")
Maybe long guns (to include legal firearms designed to be operated with 2 hands) should be the ONLY firearms authorized for open carry. It is after all, much harder to sneak around un-detected in pursuit of your crime with a long gun. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/217 "2018-10-30T20:20:55Z")
> [@BeenJammin](#): > > Maybe long guns (to include legal firearms designed to be operated with 2 hands) should be the ONLY firearms authorized for open carry. It is after all, much harder to sneak around un-detected in pursuit of your crime with a long gun. I’d be okay with that. I mean I’d rather nobody walked around with weapons at all, but this would be an interesting compromise with no overt downsides that I can see. Presuming nobody minds if police overtly keep half an eye on anybody with a long gun walking by, of course. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/218 "2018-10-30T20:31:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In high school, lots and lots of kids take a “driver’s education” course to familiarize themselves with the safe operation of automobiles. Why don’t we have a “shooter’s education” course offered alongside that so that they can familiarize themselves with the safe operation of firearms? I think it could reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. You onboard for that? Yeah, it is a suggestion that I have made a few times on these boards. Akin to “sex ed.”, your parents could opt you out of it, if they so chose, but it would be offered in public schools, at different age groups, where kindergarten is pretty much “If you see an unattended gun, don’t touch it, get away from it, and tell an adult.”, with gun handling and shooting coming later. > [@](#): > > You’ve gotten yourself confused here. “I have little doubt that a good number of Americans would not have purchased them without liberals like RTFirefly calling for their ban” does not mean “people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban.” That’s not what it means at all. People buy them because they’re afraid the RTFireflys of the world might succeed to varying degrees. That is exactly what that means. “They wouldn’t’ have bought them without” “They bought them because of” are pretty much synonyms. They are worried that liberals may succeed to varying degrees in lowering the rate of injury and death by guns. > [@](#): > > You haven’t been paying attention. While a nation-wide federal ban seems unlikely to pass anytime soon, there are a number of states that have enacted AW bans in recent years. Our very own **Bone** finds his options for firearm purchases severely limited. He is not a moron nor was he lied to by the NRA. That’s the reality in a number of liberal-leaning states. [You can buy an AR-15 in California](https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-hasn-t-raised-age-limit-for-buying-12717669.php). > [@](#): > > Even though California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, an 18-year-old can still buy an AR-15 rifle as long as it lacks a detachable magazine and other features that define it under state law as an assault weapon. So, yeah, if over 700 models of gun, including the AR-15 are available, then to think that your options are severely limited is to believe the NRA’s lies. Aslo, how does thi explain a spike in AR-15 sales in deep red states? Do they think that suddenly they are going to flip? It’s also pointless. It was something that they were not thinking about buying. Then they heard about a mass shooting, and now they want it, just in case it gets banned, and now they can’t have the gun they didn’t know they wanted until they heard about it being used to shoot up a bunch of people? I’m not buying it, you were saying that guns like the AR-15 were being advertised by the AWB. I disagree, mass shooters are the most effective form of advertising. > [@Shodan](#): > > No, obviously not right - I don’t see what this has to do with an adult legally carrying a long gun in public, and not pointing it at anyone. That the cops can pull up and shoot you dead before you get to your , “Hello officer, what seems to be the problem here?” speach. > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s too bad. But I still don’t think police should be able to stop people without reasonable articulable suspicion. YMMV. And it does. My mileage is that parading about with long guns is reasonable articulable suspicion in the first place. > [@](#): > > You know, don’t you, that this statement is ludicrously stupid. > > > [@](#): > > > > Sadly, I do know that it is stupid, but I also know that it is true. To be fair, they don’t need to know that you have a gun, they just have to think that you have a gun. > > Maybe you don’t. That’s a pity, but all the more reason not to allow this kind of foolishness to inform public policy. If you are “scaring” the people, then you are creating a public disturbance. If you are creating a public disturbance, is that not a reasonable articulable suspicion? > [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*I didnt say that. \*\* > > The only difference between a “deer rifle” and a “assault weapon” are cosmetic differences. So, you are saying that you don’t think that there are any substantial differences between a deer rifle and an AR-15. I can point out over a half dozen. > [@](#): > > You certainly can (and many people have) use a AR15 for hunting deer. I could use it for opening my beer too, that’s not the issue. The issue is, would you use a deer rifle for combat? > [@](#): > > In fact, it is you that can’t tell the difference, not knowing anything about calibers, range, muzzle velocity, and so forth. You are the one that is stating that they are the same, while also stating that they are different. I’m not the confused one here. I know the difference, and can point it out and articulate it. You are the one that is claiming ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/219 "2018-10-30T20:31:21Z")
When the Black Panthers started carrying rifles on neighborhood patrols, California suddenly decided to pass a law making it illegal. > **[Mulford Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)** > > The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. > Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched Assembly... Before that it was perfectly legal in CA to carry a rifle in public, but people got upset when the wrong people started exercising those rights. [https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act](https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act) ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583/220 "2018-10-30T20:47:04Z")
So your point is that gun laws are racist? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-openly-carrying-an-ar-15-reasonable-articulable-suspicion-of-crime/823583.md?page=12)