I would heartily disagree.
ANYONE who paints only the muzzle of an AK pistol orange is (IMHO) guilty of "disguising" a firearm. Non-firearms that appear to be actual firearms have the barrel painted orange specifically to show that it isn't a firearm. I see it as a reasonable impression that such a pistol is "concealed," since its true nature HAS been disguised.
This "disguise" as you put it, was so well done in fact that the following occurred:
-Nobody on the trail per the rangers complaint was "worried" at all. He was "just playing airsoft".
-The elderly couple did not go and pound on the rangers door. He was "just playing airsoft".
-The ranger didn't even have to ask if it were airsoft, because there was no doubt in his mind that it was, per the orange tip.
-In that vein, he didn't even have to ask Leonard for his HCP, or stop him in the first place.
-When asked if it was an airsoft pistol, Leonard replied that it was.
Except, everything I just said, is a lie, and the exact opposite is what had actually occurred.
Add in camo clothing, and frankly, whether legal or not, it IS over-the-top, and is more of a "look at me" choice than anything 2a- or SD-related.
Everybody dresses different. I wear my Army issued Gor-Tex now and then, as well as my field jacket. I usually have jeans on at the time, with black sketchers or hiking boots.
When I am not dressed like that it's typically khaki shorts, flip-flops, and various shirts. I even have a shirt that has a "To Do" list on it, and in bold words are, "Your Mom". I OC with that on, as well as the aforementioned camouflage outfit.
People WILL paint an internal picture of you regardless of how YOU feel you are dressed. Your position is not conducive to supporting the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation, whether you feel is reasonable or not, on the activities of "free" Americans conducting themselves within the scope of a right that "shall not be infringed".
There are individuals who have BEEN arrested who dressed in a very "redneck" way, and in this case, part of your argument would undoubtedly be that their attire formed their intent.
Not only is this distasteful as a thought process, but you are setting precedent for thought crime based on what people wear.
Ouch.
Any other carry limitations you would like to throw out there?
He chose for visual impact, with a VERY obvious choice made to create contact.
The threat was very obvious when the following occurred, right?:
-The ranger asked if the firearm was real, and Leonard stated politely that it was.
-The ranger asked to see Leonards HCP, and Leonard complied.
-The ranger had a conversation with Leonard, wherein Leonard was peaceful the entire time.
-The ranger released Leonard, and Leonard politely stated that if the ranger would like to talk, Leonard would be more than happy to, and that he would be in the parking lot at his little black civic.
I am sure at this point you have more than confirmed that he is a militant terrorist out to eradicate law enforcement in Radnor Lake. Except, that's clearly not what he did, nor was he out there for that reason, no matter how much those who oppose him try to paint a picture to that end.
All of these situations, indeed life, is like playing a large game of chess. The further you can see forward by dynamic move count, the more prepared you will be, and the more about life you will perceive.
Weigh all of Leonards actions and you see somebody who is fighting for 2nd Amendment rights, even if it is merely for himself.
Slow, or Thundar, you guys mind keeping us posted on what happens?
I will try.
