Posted on 06/12/2012 7:01:42 AM PDT by marktwain
I do not know what went on between the kid and the police do you? I agree, that it is legal and we have the right to carry open-carry in some states. I have no problem with the law. I just do not see the reasoning behind doing it, when anyone old enough to own a weapon, should realise the effect it will have on others.
Perhaps the police over-reacted, perhaps not. End result is negative publicity for gun owners and still some taxpayer money being spent where it didn’t have to be.
Myself, I am an advocate for concealed carry without a permit and luckily, Virginia may go in that direction.
I would imagine that the police asked why, unfortunately, I can’t find any information on it. Do you know why he was?
Obama and Holder’s Just-Us Dept. couldn’t care less about protecting 2A rights of the citizenry. In fact, Fast & Furious indicates quite the opposite.
The reason is that he cannot carry a concealed weapon.
Perhaps the police over-reacted, perhaps not.BS statement, the police over reacted period. You do not charge someone with a crime if they have not broken the law. It is lawful to open carry.
End result is negative publicity for gun owners and still some taxpayer money being spent where it didn’t have to be.
That looks like positive publicity to me. The taxpayer money is being wasted by the police and prosecutor not the 18 year old.
In 3 yrs he can.
Has anyone actually found out why he was carrying in downtown? What reason did he give? Just that it’s legal?
Do you know if the charges are actually for carrying a weapon, or for something else. The article doesn’t go into any detail about the charges.
I guess we look at the publicity differently.
I finally found some info...it was 10:20 in the evening
‘Officers stopped the man and asked for identification so they could verify if he was old enough to be in possession of the rifle. Birmingham Police Cmdr. Terry Kiernan said adults are allowed to carry firearms in Michigan, though Combs appeared “very young,” Kiernan said.
However, police said Combs refused to identify himself, and he was taken into custody for disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm and obstructing an officer.
Later, police determined the weapon was a M1-.30 caliber rifle that was fully loaded with one round in the chamber. No proof of ownership for the rifle was ever obtained, and Kiernan said the Combs was uncooperative during police questioning. As of Monday, Kiernan said police are not sure of Combs’ motives.’
he does look very young in the picture. I guess he wasn’t arrested for carrying a weapon after all. I don’t think many responsible gun owners would carry a chambered weapon around downtown at 10:20 in the evening. Would you?
Normal trumped up charges when the police want to harass someone.
Did you see his picture? He looks like he’s about 13yo. The police asked him for ID to show if he was legally old enough to carry the weapon. He refused
What should they have done? You look 13, you refuse to show any ID proving you’re legal. That is obstructing justice and the law officers. No way of proving your legally carrying a weapon, that is brandishing.
The whole thing would have been over with right on the spot, if he had just shown them proof of age.
How is this not the kids fault? Would you have shown them your ID? Would the NRA have told him he shouldn’t carry a weapon with it chambered in a downtown area? Would the NRA agree that he should have shown proof of age/
This is America we do not have to carry identification papers nor do we have to present them on demand of the police.
However, police said Combs refused to identify himself, and he was taken into custody for disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm and obstructing an officer.
If he told them his name then all else is BS. I would not take the word of the police in this instance. They had no reason to approach him in the first place.
I don’t think many responsible gun owners would carry a chambered weapon around downtown at 10:20 in the evening. Would you?
I have, it is not against the law.
NO
If there is probable cause, what is wrong with that? If you saw a kid that looked like he was too young to carry downtown, you wouldn’t approach him? You wouldn’t just let someone you didn’t think should have one, walk around with a loaded weapon, would you? Don’t you think you have a responsibility as an adult to find out what was going on?
Of course it’s not against the law, it just isn’t responsible for an 18yo to walk around downtown with a chambered weapon.
Why not?
I don't know why; I think I read somewhere that the rifle was a gift -- but your first sentence bears some thinking about, as it reveals a question:
For what purpose would the police arrest/detain/question a citizen who was not obviously breaking (or about to break) any laws?
To answer anything is to make the assumption that the young man had evil intent. Yes, I grant that there is such a thing as hunched, but a "hunch" does not match the standard of "probable cause" (which is hideously abused by LEOs).
The Fourth Amendment is particularly important here, given its origins:
The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all.From about.com.
What we are seeing here is a return to the mindset/organization which produced Writs of Assistance; "we can stop you at any time, for any reason, and you'd better not defy us" is the mantra of many "Law Enforcement"-types.
I finally found out about this. He was stopped because he looks very young. The police asked him for ID/proof of age and he refused.
What do you think they should have done at this point?
From the MI state-constitution:
Art I, §6 -- Bearing of arms.Is he a person?
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
The police asked him for ID/proof of age and he refused.
Writing for the [Supreme] Court in Florida v. Royer 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Justice White stated:
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way.
What do you think they should have done at this point?
Honestly, there is nothing they should have done. The young man was breaking no law, nor was there any [valid] law that could apply, nor was there a reason to believe that he was going to break some law, therefore any detainment by the police is nothing less than Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law; the error lies in the assumption that they should do anything at this point.
The police should have backed off and left him alone. If they were very concerned, they could have followed him at a little distance.
In Michigan, you are not required to show ID when asked by the police.
The fact that he was walking around with the rifle slung over his shoulder was a good clue that he was making a political point. Criminals virtually never do that.
It appears to me that the police wanted to assert their "authority" when they did not have any.
No one needs a reason to exercise their rights. His lawyer has said that this is a very rare case, that he has never represented someone who knew his rights so well.
Here is something from an earlier post: "Eighteen-year-old Sean Combs (not 'Puffy') was arrested last April by police because he was walking around town with a rifle slung over his shoulder. He'd just received his M1 Garand for his birthday and he was showing the gun to several other teenagers. Cops showed up on the scene and asked to see his ID. Combs declined, but after a few more police showed up Combs decided to give in. The police moved to arrest him the moment he reached for his ID."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2886981/posts
Apparently, interpreting sarcasm or irony isn't your strong suit. Skip it.
Tactically, I prefer (and routinely use) concealment. However, I am working for an open carry law in Texas, because I object to being "illegal" should I fail to conceal.
Example: when I drive, I prefer to hang my suit/sport jacket in the back of my vehicle -- for comfort. I object to being technically in violation of the law when I walk from the driver's seat to where I can don my "cover".
Besides, here in Texas, the summers sometimes get too hot for "extra" clothes....
Just because you want to conceal, don't deny others their own choice!!!
To me, your position sounds like "It’s a stupid, stupid, stupid idea."
2nd Amendment “Shall not be infringed” 4th Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” The can ask who I am but I do not have to show papers.
Well you convinced me. Really hadn’t thought of that.
We do need an OCL to protect our CCL right. And a good lawyer.
However, not everyone with a CCL is sane enough to have one and I have my doubts about the ones who go around carrying a rifle over their shoulder or an AK-47 to any meetings just because they can.
Again, you make sense and I have seen the light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.