Gun-toting teens alarm residents

spokesmanreview.com ^ | 05-31-07 | Hope Brumbach

[em2vn]

POST FALLS – Zach Doty typically wears a tie and dress shirt to church. But lately, a new accessory of his is raising alarm in Post Falls.

After turning 18 last month, the Post Falls teenager began strapping a loaded 9 mm Glock 19 handgun to his belt every day. He totes it in full view to Bible studies, the public library, city parks and neighborhood stores and on walks around town.

His 15-year-old brother, Stephen, has joined him, carrying a loaded Ruger .22-caliber rifle slung over his shoulder.

The brothers, who are home-schooled, say they're flexing their Second Amendment right, which allows citizens to bear arms. They say they're protecting themselves and others, deterring crime and making a statement about constitutional freedoms.

"If you don't exercise a right, eventually it will go away," Zach Doty said last week, a handgun tucked in a holster on his hip. "I'd like to raise people's awareness that it's a right, and I hope to encourage others to exercise that right."

The brothers are stirring up concern about citizen safety and gun responsibility.

Residents have alerted police and complained to the city. Police officers have stopped the boys on several occasions in the past six weeks.

And city officials say the brothers' action may lead to restrictions on carrying weapons on public property within city limits. At this time, the city doesn't have an ordinance that prohibits firearms in most public buildings.

"It obviously has created some controversy in the community. …We are fielding a significant number of calls from concerned citizens about how we're going to react to this and how we're going to ensure their safety is upheld," Post Falls City Administrator Eric Keck said. "It really is a matter of defining things very carefully and balancing maintaining one's rights and what has become the norm of society. It's something we're really going to have to examine."

[BlackbirdSST]

This is the Idaho I was a kid in.

It's the Georgia I was a kid in. Small world. Blackbird.

[BJClinton]

The boys should be polite to others and conceal the pieces. It’s just rude to carry a weapon outside your belt.

[Castigar]

You can open carry in Pennsylvania (except maybe Philadelphia)

[napscoordinator]

lol. I loved that! What a great way to begin the weekend...A great post!

[BlackbirdSST]

Thinking back. I know that I shot at my Grandfather’s house when we visited,...

LOL! And no-one slapped you upside your head? Blackbird.

[roamer_1]

Hi BJClinton,

It’s just rude to carry a weapon outside your belt.

This line of thinking is astonishing to me- It must be a cultural thing...

But then I've grown up with folks wearing a gun on their hip. The only reason they wouldn't is because they like a shoulder holster. Either way, it isn't rude...

-Bruce

[robertpaulsen]

"From what I see, you are arguing that you better not try to exercise your right, or somebody might get mad and take it away."

People can vote to ban open carry any time they feel like it. I just see any real reason for two teens to rub their faces in it and give the people an excuse to even consider it.

If open carry is such a good idea, why aren't more people doing it? Why just two teens in one city?

[marktwain]

Rights are like muscles. If you do not use them, you lose them.

[tpaine]

OK, so they arrest the boys on charges, and it goes up the appeals process, and the USSC rules that "keep and BEAR" means no restrictions on individuals BEARING their arms.

There are statist/communitarian's here who claim the boys are only protected by their state constitution, - thus, - the USSC will not hear this case because the second amendment protects only against a federal infringement, not state infringement. -
- They also claim that if the second amendment protected open or concealed carry, all states would have to allow the right to bear arms. -- As if this were a bad thing.

Majority rule communitarians sure have some odd ideas about our Law of the Land, agreed?

[marktwain]

“The boys should be polite to others and conceal the pieces. It’s just rude to carry a weapon outside your belt.”

They are not allowed to conceal them, by Idaho law.

[EternalVigilance]

Too darned many Californians of the liberal persuasion have moved to Post Falls, obviously.

[marktwain]

“If open carry is such a good idea, why aren’t more people doing it? Why just two teens in one city?”

It is a good idea. More people are doing it. I regularly do it in Arizona, as do numerous others. I have also done it in several other states. You just don’t hear about it because it is not considered newsworthy. My daughter regularily carried her Glock 19 9mm around Yuma, Arizona, when she was 16 years old.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“Pennsylvania is working on a bill that would have you registering every gun you own and paying a few per gun ANNUALLY. Not even Kalifornia is that fascist.”

Just to let you know about this. Yes, there was a couple of Philadelphia state legislatures that proposed the bill you speak of. Proposing something and getting it passed are two different things.

There were originally six co-sponsors of the bill. When the public got alerted to it, four of the co-sponsors withdrew their name from the bill. There was a huge outcry and protests against the last two scumbags. They are both from Philly which should explain everything. You see, the way it works in Pa is that the majority of it is very conservative and much like a midwestern state. The democrats in this state are pro gun and pro life. The exception is in Philly and where the democrats can snooker the voters.

As for open carry in this state, since there is no law forbidding it, it is legal. People do it while hunting and out in the country. The only place it is forbidden is in Philly (of course) unless you have a license to carry firearm (LTCF) permit. Though I would not recommend open carrying in a mall. You will certainly get a lot of looks. The LTCF permit allows you to transport loaded weapons and conceal carry. All it takes is filling out a form, and having two friends that will say what a nice guy you are. You give $25 to the county sherriff’s office and you get an LTCF.

This is from Pa’s state constitution: section 21

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

short and to the point, sweet...

[tpaine]

... a right is a right. It's not a right that society grants, but a right from God. That's the way they set it up when our country was established.
If the government wants to take away rights, then they need to change the Constitution. But you can't monkey with it based on "society's norms."

Our rights are self evident and inalienable, regardless of how anyone believes they came to exist. They cannot be 'amended away'.

We the people cannot decide which of these inalienable rights we will protect and to what extent - thats socialistic nonsense; - we have declared in our Constitution that life, liberty, or property cannot be denied or infringed without due process.

Unreasonable laws against gun-toting are infringements.

[tpaine]

You and others on this thread who have argued this angle come across as the worst sort of wimps.
From what I see, you are arguing that you better not try to exercise your right, or somebody might get mad and take it away.

That's the 'majority rule' angle all right. Socialist's insist that voters can 'take away' inalienable rights. - Apparently, they can't understand our Constitution.

You are willing to give up your rights on the mere possibility that it might make someone mad or scared. Are you always so afraid to assert yourself?

Actually there are a group of them here at FR that use every opportunity to spread the communitarian line. They are very adept at using conservative language to cloak their majority rule agitprop.

As far as me crying to Freerepublic about snivelers voting even more rights away, there's no chance of that happening. I'm from California. I have a lifetime of experience in learning to deal with sniveling hippies ruining everything. I don't bother crying about it. I just bide my time....

Me too. -- Well said.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

If you think some pointed headed elected dogcatchers can ‘remove’ rights from you, then you have NO CLUE as to what a right is.

The only time rights can be disabled is upon conviction of a felony. Technically they resume upon completion of sentence, but some states differ.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

But you must understand that it is more important to some people to feeeeellll safe, than to actually do something to forward their own safety. I see several here that would rather try to strip rights away from these two young men so they can feeeelll safe.

Nanny staters is what they are.

[fr_freak]

There are statist/communitarian's here who claim the boys are only protected by their state constitution, - thus, - the USSC will not hear this case because the second amendment protects only against a federal infringement, not state infringement. -

The original intent of the federal Contitution was to limit the power of the federal goverment to specifically enumerated powers. That is why each state had its own constitution, which usually mirrored the federal one. Only relatively recently has the interpretation been such that the federal government (through the courts) sees itself as having jurisdiction over the state and local governments through the federal Constitution. It is a usurpation of power for the federal court system to think it can micro-manage, for example the administration of a local school district based on the federal Bill of Rights, a list of rights which were meant to limit the federal government's meddling in local affairs, not increase it. Worse yet is when federal courts place injunctions on or overturn state laws, such as prop 187 in California, using the Bill of Rights as an excuse. That is EXACTLY the type of overbearing, tyrannical centralized government that the founders were trying to prevent.

The thinking that you have, where the federal Constitution has jurisdiction over the States, actually grants the federal government MORE power, and reduces the States to mere serfs. At teh beginning of our country, it was inconceivable that the federal government would tell a local school board how to run its schools, but that is commonplace now, because, instead of protecting us FROM the federal government, the Bill of Rights has become a tool used BY the federal government against us. Now, when some federal activist judge decides he doesn't like the way some kids in a particular school are expressing anti-homosexual Christian scripture, he merely waves his hand and says that "separation of church and state" says these kids have to shut up. If that same judge wants to promote homosexuality in a school, he waves his hand and says "freedom of speech" for the gay parade. However, if we were to take the original intent of the federal Constitution, taht judge would have no power to meddle in local affairs because he can only use the Bill of Rights against FEDERAL law and FEDERAL agencies. Then, the citizens of each state can actually live free of the fear of the all-powerful federal goverment.

[BigTom85]

I thought there was an age limit on carrying arms. I guess it depends on the state. It would definitely be surprising to see a 15 year old walking around with a loaded weapons.

I thought the same thing also. I thought you needed to be 21 to carry a handgun (except when hunting or at a shooting range). I am 100% for concealed carry- However, I am not sure walking around town with a rifle slung over your shoulder in the best idea. Walking down a back road with a rifle slung over your shoulder when walking to a trail to go deer hunting is one thing. However, walking down 'main street' doing so might not be a good idea. If you want to be armed at all times, just strap on a handgun and flap your shirt over it so it can't be seen and so they the local police don't get flooded with phone calls.

[Let's Roll]

Is that where Post Falls is? Idaho?

Re your tagline:

Romney criticized for being Mormon in NH - or similar headline here on FR - this from a state whose legislature just voted to allow same sex marriage? They should be too ashamed to criticize anyone.