No, I’m not going to say he’s wrong. He may know way more AR15 owners than I do.
I’m sure plenty of people buy them just because they look “badass”.
Murder. I see a guy with a loaded rifle walking down the street, I think he is going to go kill someone. Why else would someone carry a rifle in a city?
Well, he might be a gun activist doing so just because he can. If that is what he is doing, then he gets his gun back and he goes on his way.
Again, RAS does not mean that the cops have to exclude every possible legal activity that one might be doing in order to perform a Terry stop.
And yet again, simply because the activity you are doing is legal, does not mean it is not suspicious, just like in Terry. Many posters have said, “But open carry is legal in my state so that cannot be justification for a stop.” I’m sure that carrying an axe or a flaming sword is also legal. I’m sure it is legal to sit on a street corner wearing a diaper and sucking your thumb. It is legal to walk in circles repeating over and over again that you are Jesus Christ. The legality of the action has nothing to do with whether it creates RAS of a crime.
This doesn’t exactly make me feel sanguine about the proposed “walking around in public with one” person’s intentions.
Yeah, the truth is you never really know someone’s intentions, which is why making a spectacle of yourself with a gun is just asking for trouble, no matter the legality of it.
But when I speak of societal collapse, I’m talking about collapse. As in, you have to hunt/grow your own food, find your own water, stuff like that. Apocalyptic.
Probably why nobody intelligent does it.
Right. Of course I’m of the opinion you’d have to be literally insane to believe that that could happen in America - even with Trump doing his Trumpdest to Trump things up. Which just makes me glad that nobody I know* owns one; I’d be leery of hanging out with insane people.
*One friend of mine owns a handgun, or did. During a rather dark period of his life he brought it out and managed to convince some people he was threatening to kill them, when he really meant to convey that they were driving him to want to commit suicide. Fun times! Shortly after that incident he said he would get rid of the gun. I haven’t followed up on that; if he still has it, I don’t want to know.
I know numerous friends and acquaintances that own AR-15’s. I also have a close friend that owns a gun shop in Texas, that sells AR-15’s. Also considering that over 15 million people in the US own AR-15’s, if the primary reason a person would acquire one was to kill people, then these people are failing. The primary reason people purchase them is because the look like military grade weapons, even though they aren’t, i.e. what EscAlaMike said about looking badass. People that own them primarily use them to hunt with and to take to the target range.
Yeah, you already said this, and I asked for a clarification: Which one is the primary reason, and which one is the secondary?
I used to go to the range for practice to be a better Hunter.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Being a Hunter was considered badass back then.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I have asked for for a cite and all you have provided is the fact that you have been a police officer for many years and cited a law that says that the mere fact of openly carrying a firearm cannot be the sole reason for a disturbing the peace charge. I never said that a person should be charged with disturbing the peace for carrying a rifle. If your department does not do Terry frisks for carrying a rifle in your state, then fine, no skin off of my nose. My position is that it can and should be RAS for a Terry stop.
You keep simply making bald declarations that because your department does it a certain way, then so sayeth the law and so sayeth the Lord. I am not making any declarations except that IMHO, the open carry of a rifle (not a pistol)(again, not during a Second Amendment event or with other indicia that the person is not violent) in an urban area in sufficient RAS to believe that a violent crime is afoot.
I partially agree with your other points. If my position was adopted, you may conduct a Terry stop and briefly detain the person and his weapon. You may ask questions which the person is free to refuse to answer. Depending on the state, he may refuse to even identify himself. In no state that I am aware of would he be required to present ID.
If your Terry investigation does not establish probable cause for arrest, then you must let him go with his weapon.
I don’t think that this procedure is unreasonable at all.
No, I provided you quotes from the Attorney Generals office, and told you that during actual trainings the AAG has told us repeatedly that openly carrying a rifle in and of itself is not RS for a Terry stop, and advised how to conduct ourselves when dispatched to an open carry complaint. I wasn’t recording the training session so you can either believe me or not.
Unfortunately the website I also quoted from (WILENET) is restricted so I can’t directly link to the section the places I quoted from appear. You wouldn’t be able to get into that section. Nothing I can do about it.
But I did provide the contact number for the AG’s office. Feel free to call them and argue your point.
I don’t dispute your contention that your AG’s office said that. But realize that that is one lawyer’s opinion on the issue and it is not dispositive of the issue under discussion. That would ultimately be up to the courts.
As I said, I don’t care if you state has adopted such a policy. But I don’t see that the policy is mandated in law.
The problem I have is that if this becomes more and more commonplace and people hear that a person can carry a loaded AR-15 down the street and the cops have no authority to even briefly detain them to investigate, then we will see more laws passed banning open carry, and the legislators might go more crazy and ban the open carry of pistols.
Imagine in Pittsburgh if the shooter drove up in front of the Temple and was being observed by an officer. He pulls an AR-15 out of the trunk, loads it, and then walks down the sidewalk, up the stairs into the Temple. That looks pretty suspicious to me, and really to most people on this issue. If that came out that the police were told that they could do nothing in that situation because all of those acts were perfectly legal under PA law, then the law gets changed.
I want robust Second Amendment rights. Being a dickweed by carrying a rifle in an urban area only harms those, and ultimately presents a real risk to public safety. I’m not saying you can’t own a gun, or carry a gun, or own an AR-15 with whatever magazine capacity you want, or even carry it in a rural or suburban area. But in a city? That to me is too far.
My first post in this thread (emphasis mine):
At no time did I say this is the case everywhere in America.
Do you have any clue about how law enforcement works? If the AG says something is not to be done, that’s that. If a court ruled that it is not RS to detain a rifle OCer in (I believe it was Madison) that’s that. “I detained him because he had an openly carried rifle and therefore could have had criminal intent” is not enough to fly here.
In this scenario he is no longer on public property. That may change the dynamic.
It is also not the same scenario you gave in the OP.
It may have been Green Bay. Or both. I know there was a suit that was raised over some officers that detained some guys carrying a rifle and a shotgun, it was published in the DOJ bulletin about 2013. I’ll see if I can dig up that issue.
Linky? I don’t think I’d call LEO on anyone of any color if they’re just going about their business.
Which incident? This week’s, or last week’s, or the one of the week before? Yes, there’s a fucking problem, and denialists are part of it. :rolleyes:
But what if the carrier really is a Bad Guy With A Gun? How do you know he’s lawful? And even if he is lawful, how do you know he’s still not a Bad Guy?
But what if monkeys fly out of my arsehole?
I understand there’s a lower probability, but it’s still basically a very similar question. :rolleyes:
You clearly have never been a hunter or a gun enthusiast. I’d say both, as most hunters also spend a good amount of time target practicing at an official range or on their land or lease. But if you’ve got to make me pick, I’d say the range, as there are probably many people that don’t hunt but like target shooting.