Man well within his rights, might be arrested OCing.

[rodbender]

if YOU are such a big supporter of the 2A why is it that you, and all of the "hardcore freedom fighters" here get all hush hush about long rifle OC? Is it or is it NOT a right? Why is it that you can sit there saying that the other guy is not a 2a supporter because he doesnt agree with OCing around sensitive areas or at sensitive times, yet you guys wont even TALK about long rifle OC even though its the right of many people to carry them.

Because the rules of an internet forum tell you not to talk about them? You guys talk about OCing in areas that you KNOW dont like it or even dont allow it, yet speaking of something thats against the rules on a discussion forum zips you right up??

It would probably be safe to say that long rifle OC discussion is off limits because people know its extreme and dont want to be associated with it. So you let other peoples rights slide while you promote and support your own, how is that having an "ideal in FREEDOM"? Its more like having ideals in what works for "you".

See rule #14 at link below

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[WCrawford]

I'm all for our 2nd amendment rights

Can I call BS here?

and this guy was within his rights. But, we do have to use a little bit of common sense and not abuse our rights. I don't carry just because I can and anyone that does so is only a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I carry for one specific reason. It is my self defense weapon; for both me and anyone that needs help. I'm not out there to impress anyone with my weapon; if I'm going to flash it around unless I'm going to be pointing it in someone's face.

Let's face it, with all the gangbanger's out there it's no wonder people got nervous. Nobody knew who this guy was or what his intentions were. This is why our government wants to take our rights away.

A gun is a weapon and I think some people seem to forget this.

For such a 2A supporter, you sure don't like how others are legally carrying. Because of your stance, I am now carrying my firearm because I want to. I am now only open carrying my firearm to piss *you* off.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

 

[WCrawford]

if YOU are such a big supporter of the 2A why is it that you, and all of the "hardcore freedom fighters" here get all hush hush about long rifle OC? Is it or is it NOT a right? Why is it that you can sit there saying that the other guy is not a 2a supporter because he doesnt agree with OCing around sensitive areas or at sensitive times, yet you guys wont even TALK about long rifle OC even though its the right of many people to carry them.

Because the rules of an internet forum tell you not to talk about them? You guys talk about OCing in areas that you KNOW dont like it or even dont allow it, yet speaking of something thats against the rules on a discussion forum zips you right up??

It would probably be safe to say that long rifle OC discussion is off limits because people know its extreme and dont want to be associated with it. So you let other peoples rights slide while you promote and support your own, how is that having an "ideal in FREEDOM"? Its more like having ideals in what works for "you".

I'm sure there are a great many of us who either support or don't care if a person legally OCs a rifle or shotgun, but that is not the focus of this board and most of us RESPECT Mike and John enough to live by their rules. Please do the same.

 

[sharkey]

if YOU are such a big supporter of the 2A why is it that you, and all of the "hardcore freedom fighters" here get all hush hush about long rifle OC? Is it or is it NOT a right? Why is it that you can sit there saying that the other guy is not a 2a supporter because he doesnt agree with OCing around sensitive areas or at sensitive times, yet you guys wont even TALK about long rifle OC even though its the right of many people to carry them.

Because the rules of an internet forum tell you not to talk about them? You guys talk about OCing in areas that you KNOW dont like it or even dont allow it, yet speaking of something thats against the rules on a discussion forum zips you right up??

It would probably be safe to say that long rifle OC discussion is off limits because people know its extreme and dont want to be associated with it. So you let other peoples rights slide while you promote and support your own, how is that having an "ideal in FREEDOM"? Its more like having ideals in what works for "you".

I would suggest learning to read. This thread is about a man who was oc'ing a rifle. I am clearly defending his right to do so by calling out Felix. Also, the comment I made about never talking about long gun carry was sarcasm. I posted a picture of the guy with a rifle!

While I disagree with the forum's rules about long gun talk I do not have freedom of speech here just like I may not carry my firearm into your home against your wishes.

I do not consider rifle OC to be extreme. I reside in the FREE(er) state of Arizona. And the boys in blue, tan etc. recognize that right here. Not that we need their permission of course.

Edit to add: Name one time I have ever talked about OC'ing in a non public/government area that does not like/allow carry? I have openly started a discussion on gun control using machine guns as an example (which I believe we are constitutionally allowed to own and carry) to further education and philosophy. I wrote that in the mindset of someone who is for gun control to point out where we allow encroachments into our rights. U.S. vs Miller ruled against a sawed off shotgun because it was not "ordinary military equipment" (though it was). The second amendment is about being able to stand up to the government, not hunting, sports, or permission slips.

 

[sharkey]

Listening to people share the strong support of the Second Amendment within reason of course is like a Christian who tells me how strong their faith is in the bible but they don't believe in the devil or hell.

Either you believe it or you don't.

If you support gun ownership just for sport, hunting, whatever your flavor, with all the exceptions for who can carry where with what type of gun, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am. Just don't bring the Second Amendment into it.

I've honestly been questioning if it's constitutional to deny rights to convicts who have served their time. I haven't delved into the research part of it yet and may not for a while.

My understanding of common law is once your time was served you were a free man. Your debt was paid. I could be mistaken.

 

[protect our rights]

Listening to people share the strong support of the Second Amendment within reason of course is like a Christian who tells me how strong their faith is in the bible but they don't believe in the devil or hell.

Either you believe it or you don't.

If you support gun ownership just for sport, hunting, whatever your flavor, with all the exceptions for who can carry where with what type of gun, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am. Just don't bring the Second Amendment into it.

I've honestly been questioning if it's constitutional to deny rights to convicts who have served their time. I haven't delved into the research part of it yet and may not for a while.

My understanding of common law is once your time was served you were a free man. Your debt was paid. I could be mistaken.

I believe it is waaaay too harsh, ANY felonies and you can't own or carry a firearm. Well let me tell you there are a lot of BS laws out there that if you make the wrong move, will leave you without the right to protect yourself

 

[sharkey]

I believe it is waaaay too harsh, ANY felonies and you can't own or carry a firearm. Well let me tell you there are a lot of BS laws out there that if you make the wrong move, will leave you without the right to protect yourself

Not just felonies. Misdemeanors (not just DV misdemeanors either.) Restraining orders. Others may be able to add more examples. The misdemeanor is BS. The restraining order is rife for abuse and one I personally wrangle with. I can see the other viewpoint but it is illegal. Taking away/suspending a right without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[flb_78]

...

You just made my statement nonsensical by deleting your post

sorry about that, but your post wan't even posted when I edited mine.

I had my dates backwards, that's why I deleted it. I never even saw your post so I don't know what it said.

 

[OC for ME]

I'm all for our 2nd amendment rights and this guy was within his rights. But, we do have to use a little bit of common sense and not abuse our rights. I don't carry just because I can and anyone that does so is only a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I carry for one specific reason. It is my self defense weapon; for both me and anyone that needs help. I'm not out there to impress anyone with my weapon; if I'm going to flash it around unless I'm going to be pointing it in someone's face.

Let's face it, with all the gangbanger's out there it's no wonder people got nervous. Nobody knew who this guy was or what his intentions were. This is why our government wants to take our rights away.

A gun is a weapon and I think some people seem to forget this.

Of course you carry "just because you can." The law(s), or lack of law(s) permit you to carry if you choose to do so. You could choose not to carry yet you can legally carry so you do carry just because you can carry. If you were not permitted to carry legally then you would not carry if you wished to remain a LAC.

 

[since9]

Municipal Court Judge Tracie Todd's personal opinion, despite the prosecution and their case being made fools of in a court of law.

It's a case of a judge deciding for his/herself what the law is instead of interpreting the law as it's written.

The lawful carry of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen is NOT disorderly conduct. I'm glad you're appealing it up the chain, as it's very appealable, and precedent does exist higher up to get this overturned on appeal. Just keep at it...

And when it's overturned, it's time for that civil lawsuit against the municipality to recover all damages, including attorney's fees!

I'm all for our 2nd amendment rights and this guy was within his rights.

So you're admitting he not only broke no laws, but was acting as a law-abiding citizen well within his rights to do so.

But, we do have to use a little bit of common sense and not abuse our rights.

I have a right to chew bubblegum. Are you saying I'm abusing my rights if I opt to chew ten pieces a day? How about if I opt to chew three pieces at once? If it's a right, then it's a right, and our Constitution says this right "shall not be infringed." By refusing the sound legal arguement presented by the defense and instead opting to find for disorderly conduct, the judge was NOT administering justice, but rather, was attempting to further his/her own ideal of what should or should not be, IN VIOLATION of the law. Do judges break the law in their decisions? You bet, every darn day! Are they held accountable for it? Largely, no. If they're overturned on appeal, that goes into their record, and if they'd like to move up the chain, records are available for review. Too many overturns, particularly when a judge is ruling contrary to the law, will likely prevent further advancement. Sometimes it pays to get a newer judge who is still trying to further their career than someone who knows they've been put out to pasteur.

I don't carry just because I can and anyone that does so is only a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

How in the world did you arrive at a conclusion that I or the many other OCers out there are a "danger" to anyone? The accidental death rate due to motor vehicle accidents is 28 times the accidental death rate due to firearms, despite the fact there are 250 to 300 million firearms out there, roughly the same number as there are motor vehicles. By your faulty logic anyone who goes for a Sunday drive "just because they can ... is a danger to themselves and everyone around them." That would even qualify for a non-essential purpose, such as going to the movies or driving to a park. "Oh, the horror! That man is engaging in disorderly conduct because he's DRIVING WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE!!!"

So far you're batting a thousand ... towards the goal of nonsense, as in you're not making any sense at all, same as the judge.

I carry for one specific reason. It is my self defense weapon; for both me and anyone that needs help.

Good for you!

I'm not out there to impress anyone with my weapon...

We arent' either.

...if I'm going to flash it around...

From what I gather, there was no "flashing it around" as part of the case.

...unless I'm going to be pointing it in someone's face.

That's not flashing it around. That's self-defense, totally different set of legal grounds.

Let's face it, with all the gangbanger's out there it's no wonder people got nervous.

If people actually got nervous, it's not because of "all the gangbangers out there," who almost without fault NEVER open carry. It's because the people either aren't used to seeing open carry, or because they've been brainwashed by Hollywood, the Brady Bunch, and the other anti-gunners out there into wrongly equating MWAG with danger/fear. Given the previously-mentioned statistics, people should be 28 times more afraid of crossing the street than encountering a man with a gun.

Nobody knew who this guy was or what his intentions were.

Oh, boo-hoo! Sorry, but the 4th Amendment protects my privacy and my intentions from public scrutiny. Any number of people around me could be carrying concealed, legally or illegally, and I don't know what THEIR intentions are, either! What's the solution? Should we walk around naked and gunless for the rest of our lives? There are still locations for hiding weapons, even firearms...

This is why our government wants to take our rights away.

NO. They want to take our rights away because they either want to CONTROL us, or they have irrationally-based fears and errantly believe that by stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, that'll somehow carry over to the law-breakers who couldn't care rat poop about following a law, but who'd love to see even more disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

A gun is a weapon and I think some people seem to forget this.

EVERYTHING is a weapon and I think some people seem to forget this. Pillow, pencil, stick, screwdriver, monkey wrench, hammer, many kitchen utencils, bare hands and feet, swimming pool...

This judge is so unabashedly off-base I've little doubt she'd find disorderly conduct if someone walked through a mall carrying a cane. "I was afraid for my life! It looked so big, heavy, and dangerous, like a weapon, and I didn't know what his intentions were!!!"

This line of thinking is so un-American it makes me SICK to my stomach. Good thing I'm at the end of your post. It's too bad the OP's still in the thick of things, legally. If that judge had half a neuron, she'd reverse her decision then disbar herself immediately.

 

[eddallen1958]

First off There are a few people here who do have some common sense.

However, I can tell there are a couple of young minded, know it all, Billy Bad Asses on this forum that think a firearm is nothing more than I toy and a symbol of there mocho attitude. My only point was, people need to use common sense when carrying and have a reason for carrying. Carrying a weapon just because you can is like driving a car over a cliff just because you can. That's kind of stupid isn't it.

I open carry and conceal carry but I do it responsible and have a purpose for doing it. It is my self defense weapon, not my macho attitude device. I know what it's used for, I know how to use it, and I HAVE USED IT. I'll bet when it came right down to time that you need to use your gun, most of you big mouths would turn and run.

There's a lot more responsibility to carrying a weapon than having a big mouth. You know who I'm talking about and you're the one's that will be getting mad and bashing on this post. So go ahead and have your fun kiddie's. I won't be responding to any of your childish remarks.

 

[protect our rights]

First off There are a few people here who do have some common sense.

However, I can tell there are a couple of young minded, know it all, Billy Bad Asses on this forum that think a firearm is nothing more than I toy and a symbol of there mocho attitude. My only point was, people need to use common sense when carrying and have a reason for carrying. Carrying a weapon just because you can is like driving a car over a cliff just because you can. That's kind of stupid isn't it.

I open carry and conceal carry but I do it responsible and have a purpose for doing it. It is my self defense weapon, not my macho attitude device. I know what it's used for, I know how to use it, and I HAVE USED IT. I'll bet when it came right down to time that you need to use your gun, most of you big mouths would turn and run.

There's a lot more responsibility to carrying a weapon than having a big mouth. You know who I'm talking about and you're the one's that will be getting mad and bashing on this post. So go ahead and have your fun kiddie's. I won't be responding to any of your childish remarks.

I believe driving a car off a cliff would be like putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger, not carrying a OCed handgun because we can. Unlike you we feel the need to help educate the public on the issue of lawful carry of a handgun. It's ok though, not everyone is cut-out for a rights movement. By the way I have used mine as well, you throw it out there like that changes something. It makes me even more wanting to get our rights FULLY restored. If they turn and run and were able to, is that not better than taking a life, Even if they would have had the right to. You seem like your trying to prove that YOUR the macho one. "I would stay and live/die in a blaze of gunfire hm!" There are MANY single minded people on this forum, you know who YOU are.

 

[WCrawford]

I believe driving a car off a cliff would be like putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger, not carrying a OCed handgun because we can. Unlike you we feel the need to help educate the public on the issue of lawful carry of a handgun. It's ok though, not everyone is cut-out for a rights movement. By the way I have used mine as well, you throw it out there like that changes something. It makes me even more wanting to get our rights FULLY restored. If they turn and run and were able to, is that not better than taking a life, Even if they would have had the right to. You seem like your trying to prove that YOUR the macho one. "I would stay and live/die in a blaze of gunfire hm!" There are MANY single minded people on this forum, you know who YOU are.

Don't feed the trolls. Let the Fudd think he supports the 2A.

 

[j4l]

Does anyone read any problems with Mr. Aphosian's viewpoint? To me it seems he is on the side of the mall and does not have a problem with the prosecutor filling disorderly conduct charges because the OCer did not use what he considers "proper decorum".

I hope folks in Utah on the RKBA side have a little sit down with Clark Aphosian and explain to him that lawful means lawful. The lawful exercise of our 2A right must be defended at every turn. Sometimes, it seems, our RKBA "leaders" are our own worst enemy.

Here is what the city prosecutor has to work with, to the best of my knowledge.

....ANNOYS?....REPOSE?....c'mon Orem Utah....if this code were enforced equally, nobody would be walking the streets in Orem.

I think the prosecutor can argue that this guy was disorderly, he just has to convince a judge that he is within the law to punish this guy.

I hope the prosecutor takes a pass on this one. If he does not take a pss I hope the OCer gets a good lawyer and pounces all over Orem's check book.

Clark Aphosian, lacking any other knowledge of his efforts for the RKBA in Utah, is a tool on this specific issue.

Normally, I'd agree. But this guy was an idiot. What purpose did he have for tooling around like that in a (probably) crowded shopping area? Was there a range in the area? A gun shop/sporting goods (Academy/Gander/BassPro etc) in the mall or nearby where he might have been getting accesories/scopes, etc for?
If not, then what the hell did he feel a need to parade around town with that kind of hardware displayed for?
I agree that lawful means lawful, but where do we-as the pro-gun side of things-draw a line? Do we jump to the defense of every jackass that just has to go out and test everyone?
This whole "because I can, I dare you to challenge me" nonsense really needs to be reeled in, I think. Or at least done with some kind of common-sense.
Guys like this, who go seeking out such attention by decking themselves out as a Rambo-wannabe give the anti's plenty of "HEY LOOK AT THAT GUN NUT" ammo to use against us.
And guys like this should fully expect this sort of attention when they do.

 

[j4l]

The guys in blue, tan, etc. who do law enforcement for a living; hopefully, tempered with some common sense and sound judgment based on statutes. And eventually adjudicated by the courts system.

But that common sense part is a two way street...carriers have some responsibility as well. And marching around outside a shopping mall with an exposed long gun, pistol and knife shortly after a mass killing is just dumb in my way of thinking. That's akin to being dead right.

You can skewer me for saying it but there's a limit to how much society will tolerate before we are thought of as radical kooks to be reined in. And embracing this guy actions even though he was in the right by the legal letter of the law isn't going to win us any friends.

I CC, I OC, I attend the relevant meetings, I support those wronged financially and physically at their trials but I'm not going to stand up and say this guy's actions were responsible behavior. He's either looking for attention or has lost sight of reality. We've fought too hard for our modest 2A gains to have our momentum slowed by support for stunts like this.

^^^THIS, exactly.

And this: What the heck kind of logic is there to this concept of constantly "testing" everything, and putting everything out in everyone's faces? If OC is legal there, great-then carry your sidearm and go on about your way like it's another,normal day.But this crazy concept of "now I have to break out all my guns and wave them in everyone's faces to educate them that I can" is like some kid getting his driver's license and going out to do donuts in a parking lot just to say "hey everybody-I can drive!! woo hoo"
Wtf?, over?

If it's legal where you are, then they "get it".You've got the right,you can now excercise it with some common-sense and maturity,at least. Those of us inclinded to own and carry arms are more than likely going to just do so. Those who arent inclined arent likely to have their minds changed, or be "educated" by any of you. Most antis are the sorts who've long since made up thier minds to be so-their loss. But giving them more and more excuses to keep us down, and restrict us isnt the way to "protect" our rights.

 

[eye95]

Normally, I'd agree. But this guy was an idiot. What purpose did he have for tooling around like that in a (probably) crowded shopping area? Was there a range in the area? A gun shop/sporting goods (Academy/Gander/BassPro etc) in the mall or nearby where he might have been getting accesories/scopes, etc for?
If not, then what the hell did he feel a need to parade around town with that kind of hardware displayed for?
I agree that lawful means lawful, but where do we-as the pro-gun side of things-draw a line? Do we jump to the defense of every jackass that just has to go out and test everyone?
This whole "because I can, I dare you to challenge me" nonsense really needs to be reeled in, I think. Or at least done with some kind of common-sense.
Guys like this, who go seeking out such attention by decking themselves out as a Rambo-wannabe give the anti's plenty of "HEY LOOK AT THAT GUN NUT" ammo to use against us.
And guys like this should fully expect this sort of attention when they do.

Could not what you said have been posted word-for-word about OC of a handgun?? I've heard that precise argument made against OC of a handgun.

I do not advocate OCing long guns--but only because we lost our rights incrementally, and it is wisest to restore them incrementally. At this point in the incremental process, OCing long guns costs us more hearts and minds than it wins us. But what hurst the movement more would be LEOs getting away with arresting lawful carriers because the carry "alarmed" someone. The same argument could be made against lawful OC of a properly holstered handgun.

 

[j4l]

Could not what you said have been posted word-for-word about OC of a handgun?? I've heard that precise argument made against OC of a handgun.

I do not advocate OCing long guns--but only because we lost our rights incrementally, and it is wisest to restore them incrementally. At this point in the incremental process, OCing long guns costs us more hearts and minds than it wins us. But what hurst the movement more would be LEOs getting away with arresting lawful carriers because the carry "alarmed" someone. The same argument could be made against lawful OC of a properly holstered handgun.

Understand your point,completely.BUT it's splitting hairs between those of us inclined to, and in support of owning/carrying, and if need be, using arms. A sidearm in a holster, even if noticed by most of the blind sheeple, can be argued away a bit more easily than some clown on a casual stroll through the local Shopping Village with an AK, a Bowie knife and a sidearm.The sheep cannot be counted on to make such a distinction.

To John Q. Sheeple though,the presence of a long gun in such places induces panic, fear, and the like. They arent seeing this guy, and thinking to themselves
"oh look at that proud,upstanding American excerising his rights" that is highly unlikely to be going on in thier "minds". Nor is it likely to be going on in the head of the mall cop, or the actual cops, or anyone else.
Now, if it were some organized event of some sort, some kind of demonstration and the like-maybe.

But let me ask all the pro-OC/pro-CC folks in here. In all honesty, if you were strolling through that shopping center that day, with the wife and/or kid(S) in tow, OC'ing as you would,and in walks some Rambo wannabe with an AK over his shoulder-
are YOU initially inclined to go over and shake his hand and applaud the guy for "getting the word out", or is your first instinct going to be to free up your gun hand,and watch this guy very very closely while looking for the best cover you can find for the wife n kids?

 

[eye95]

I don't consider the advocating of rights to be splitting hairs.

I disagree with the wisdom of his tactic, not his absolute RIGHT to use it. Knowing in advance that he would attempt such would prompt a rebuke from me. That he was arrested for it would prompt my unqualified support for him and against the unconstitutional actions taken against him. Period.

Moving on.

 

[rodbender]

I agree that lawful means lawful, but where do we-as the pro-gun side of things-draw a line?

We draw the line between lawful and unlawful.

 

[Lady Glock]

What if he didn't have a case and was taking it in to be serviced? I don't understand why everyone gets crazy over seeing a gun.