Posted on 12/26/2012 11:04:53 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
The president of a Maine gun owners group said he and his peers were troubled by a gun-rights activist's decision to walk with an assault rifle in Portland Monday, an incident that drew a police response but did not result in any citations or arrests.
Monday at approximately 11:03 a.m., the Portland Police Department began receiving calls about a white male in his twenties walking in the West End of the city carrying a rifle.
"He was an open carry activist and just wanted to do it because he could," explained Portland Police Commander Gary Rogers in an interview.
The man was found to be carrying an AR15 style assault rifle with a high capacity magazine, Rogers stated in a press release. "The individual identified himself as an open carry activist who was exercising his Second Amendment rights to openly carry a firearm," Rogers stated in the press release.
The department received approximately 65 calls about the man, and officers ultimately encountered him on Cumberland Avenue at Mellen Street. "The individual was not in violation of any laws or ordinances and was not detained," Rogers stated in the press release. But officers gave the area "heavy special attention" until approximately 2:30 p.m. when the man left the area, Rogers said.
On Wednesday, Jeff Weinstein, president of Maine Gun Owners Association Inc. based in Yarmouth, issued a statement about the incident.
"Openly carrying an AR-15 or equivalent rifle, or any long-gun for that matter, in a heavily populated municipal area is inherently threatening to most everyone, whether they themselves are gun owners or not," Weinstein stated. "While I fundamentally support the right to openly carry firearms, that right is accompanied with the responsibility to employ sensible behavior during the exercise of the open-carry right. Alarming people unnecessarily is not the intended purpose of open-carry. The recent open-carry incident in Portland does not reflect the typical behavior of a huge percentage of Maine gun owners. Virtually all responsible gun owners with whom I've spoken since the incident are disturbed by it and wish it hadn't happened."
Weinstein noted that the incident occurred less than two weeks after a mass-shooting tragedy at an elementary school in Connecticut.
"The public display of an AR-15 rifle, while walking randomly throughout the City of Portland, is not conducive to building trust between gun owners and those without guns," Weinstein stated. "This is especially true in light of the Newtown, CT murders of 20 children and 6 adults. Timing, social sensitivity, and human compassion should have trumped the urge to assert the right to open-carry."
Rogers said police have encountered "open carry" advocates in the past, but noted, "(Someone) with an assault rifle is a new take on it."
In order to carry a concealed weapon, a person needs a permit, but to "open carry" does not require a permit, Rogers explained.
"There was no crime committed, people called because they saw it and were concerned about it. Most people seemed to be surprised that it isn't prohibited by law," he said.
On Dec. 20, Portland Mayor Michael Brennan joined other mayors from across the country in calling on President Barack Obama and members of the U.S. Congress "to pursue sensible gun laws." In an open letter to the President and Congress, Mayor Brennan along with mayors from New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Sacramento and dozens of other communities "called for reasonable changes to gun laws and regulations including enacting a ban on assault weapons and other high-capacity magazines, and the strengthening of the national background check system and penalties for straw purchase of guns," according to a city press release.
City Councilor Ed Suslovic, on the Portland Police Department's Facebook page, where Monday's incident was recounted, wrote, "Thank You to our Portland Police Officers for keeping us safe even when there are armed idiots walking the streets!"
these are “no scary things” voters.
(see hitchiker guide to the galaxy no stress glasses)
It is not “low information” voters, it is “just plain stupid” voters.
“Openly carrying an AR-15 or equivalent rifle, or any long-gun for that matter, in a heavily populated municipal area is inherently threatening to most everyone, whether they themselves are gun owners or not,”
That’s the problem of the people feeling threatened, not the rest of us citizens. Cops who are allowed to dress in black, wearing masks, and kicking in doors without announcing themselves, are inherently threatening to me, so will the Chief of Police use his department’s resources to assuage my fears as well?
"...is inherently threatening to most everyone..."
That perception wouldn't exist if it wasn't for decades of liberal bed-wetting on every aspect of the RKBA issue.
We need to keep taking back the ground we have lost. This guy is doing it.
Yes, he could have done it better, but he did it. How many of us have the cajones to risk as much as he did to do what we think is right?
I’ve been to a few open carry events. Looking forward to the next one too...
A right not exercised is more easily removed.
You’ll notice that there is a lot of resistance to the exercise of freely openly carrying arms by a surprising number of gun advocates, as evidenced even in this story. I think that the reason is because they have at some level bought into the idea that it is unreasonable to be armed.
You’ll note, as well, that they are all about ‘feelings’, not about the facts in this case: there is no mention of the man behaving erratically, threatening, or any other “red flag” — he was harassed because he was exercising his rights in no wise contrary to any valid law.
In short, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is actively discouraged... I cynically think so that, as you observed, the right might be [more easily] removed.
i think those that insist on open carry are publicity whores. Conceal is for self defense, the bad guys will be busy taking out the open carry while those concealed can get the bad guys. Dad, cop for 25 years, open carry side arm, when he retired he went to conceal. Wasn’t interested in the publicicty, was interested in self defense...lots of freepers disagree with me, its a semi-free country, but it seems open carry of rifles and guns is a guy with a size problem.. If I was intent on doing some bad stuff, the open carry gets the first few shots.
Most states with a "right to keep and bear arms" clause in their constitutions have benefitted from what I think are erroneous court decisions that "concealed carry" may be regulated by the state.
In so doing, the courts have made it possible for the state to determine qualifications for carrying concealed which our Founders would find laughable.
By so solidly permitting states to regulate concealed carry, the courts have implicitly ruled that open carry is the basic right that is protected by the Second Amendment.
At the same time, "shall-issue" concealed carry has become so widespread, that liberals find themselves preferring the "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" benefit of concealment. They don't have to recognize that the right exists because it is invisible.
My hope is that the Supreme Court will someday, assuming that it has not been replaced by liberals, recognize that our Founders were silent on the issue of concealment. Had they intended limitations such as requiring concealment or requiring open carry, they could have said so.
The truth is that there are times and places for either.
The person open-carrying in Maine is doing good work in exercising a right which will be lost if not exercised.
Here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, they have passed a law to ban open carry and they maintain the existing law of allowing local law enforcement to determine who has "good cause" to carry concealed (which for most of us means "NO").
The best outcome for Kalifornia and the U.S. is to recognize that one may "keep" arms, whether openly kept or invisibly kept, and that one may "bear" arms openly or invisibly. Neither keeping nor bearing is limited in the Second Amendment by what people prefer others to do.
There seems to be some pretty strong evidence that people intent on doing some bad stuff choose locations where people are disarmed. When those who are openly carrying arrive, the bad guy either shoots himself, so that his death is immediate instead of risking a life in prison using a wheel chair, or the bad guy surrenders.
I agree with and defend the second amendment, I just don’t think open carry of a rifle or shot gun is the wisest way to defend one’s self, while conceal carry, anyone you pass on the street could be carrying, so lets pass on anyone that even looks like he/she might have a gun...Just because the law gives the OK, I don’t believe it is the wisest when it comes to self defense. I know lots of freepers disagree with me, but its just my opinion. There are a lot of different kinds of holsters for hand guns. Now if your way out west, your long gun is kept in the truck, Situation can also determine how you carry..
Just reread your post, I do that cause I can miss something the first time through.....You live in California, I am so sorry LOL it use to be a great state.....
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.