What's the point? They never show up until after it is too late. When's the last time you heard of 911 being called for an intruder or suspicious person outside and the cops actually catching them?
“The Portland Police Bureau, however, asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns to immediately call 911.”
So call someone with a gun if you see someone with a gun?
I don’t think the timing is right to do something like this. The average non-gun owner doesn’t understand this.
I believe in gun rights, but these two are idiots.
This is an interesting tactic. Sadly, Florida does not allow open carry or I would take part by carrying an M4 on my shoulder while grocery shopping.
Pro-gun Americans need to start discussing this as a valid tactic. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with normalization of open display of firearms in public again. It was commonplace just 100 years ago, and in countries like Israel, it’s almost required.
I would happily carry an AK or an M4 on my shoulder in public and a concealed handgun on my person if the law in Florida allowed it. (The military people I know have always said that your handgun should only be used to get safely to your rifle.) After a while, the police would stop assigning resources to callers reporting “a man with a gun” since those who are openly displaying the firearm in a public square while taking part in a perfectly legal activity (i.e. grocery shopping) are definitely NOT interested in committing a crime. They’ve already got the eyes of the public on them.
“What they really should do is observe the person to determine if the person is aggressive,” he said of seeing someone with a gun in public. “We’re not doing anything threatening to anyone.”
Perhaps those that did call the police, didn’t want to take the risk that they would do something aggressive, or to them, walking around like that was aggressive behavior..
Open carry is a great educational tool.
And then they talk about tying up resources when people do what they were requested to do by the authorities.
But isn't that against the law?
Keep in mind this is Oregon. This was most likely a stunt pulled by the Left to further inflame the Liberals.
The guns were obviously not illegal, or there would have been arrests. The article first calls them assault rifles, then later only rifles.
Ed Schultz yesterday claimed that automatic vs. semi-automatic is defined by the gun maker, and that features like the stock, grips, clips are what define it as automatic.
Stupid move, given the current hysteria.
What would be really interesting if is some other law abiding citizen with a license to carry pulled his weapon and killed them. Who gets charged with what at that point?
A few decades ago, no one would have been concerned about seeing men going about their business in public with a rifle slung across their shoulder, but the police would have been called if someone was acting insane in public.
Today, the insane wander the streets and no one is concerned, but carry a rifle in public and the police get called along with much handwringing.
We changed how we reacted to these two situations, and we’ve reaped the consequences. Perhaps we should change back.
Actually, in some jurisdictions, they may very well have been charged with disorderly conduct...
I am surprised that they weren’t...
I do not believe they are idiots, they are making a statement, and since we kinda have that pesky little First Amendment, they were obviously backing it up with the Second Amendment...
All intents aside of course...
Just my opinion...
However, because of this latest media outcry and propaganda mission, I am starting to think these guys are right. The fact that there were a flurry if 911 calls about this proves their point: the public has been indoctrinated and are generally stupid when it comes to firearms and our rights.
Granted, there are few reasons to carry a full length rifle down the street in the city, but I am to the point where I think everyone who carrys a handgun should start carrying openly where allowed... for the sole purpose of demystifying the whole thing and forcing ACCURATE education onto the public. They have been sold faulty information for decades and they won't seek out the truth on their own. Only when it is in front of them are they forced to deal with it and then, finally, recognize it for what it is.
A couple of questions occur to mind upon reading this story:
1. If these two young men had been exercising their rights in this way at Sandy Hook, would the monster have done what he did?
2. Even if he proceeded to do what he planned to do, which seems somewhat unlikely in the the presence of armed citizens, could he have possibly killed twenty-six people?
Good thing they were not carrying a lit cigarette. Can you imagine the outrage?
Large numbers of the public are still quite ignorant about gun laws. And while open display is a reasonable idea, it would have been far more effective if they had conducted a “reasonable public notification” ahead of time.
This actually creates allies and musters public support, if done properly, as well as reduce public anxiety, which is also good.
For example, design a simple 8.5 x 11” paper in such a way that it can be clipped into four parts, each of which has the same message about gun law, what is legal, and that people openly bearing guns will be in the neighborhood on a given day.
Xerox a bunch of these and clip them, then hand out slips of paper to all the local businesses *and* the police, and offer to answer any questions they have.
The big reason is that if somebody sees you with a gun, and runs into a business to call the cops, it creates a double safety. The businessman will tell them to relax; and the police will inform the caller that it is all legal.
I am fortunate enough to work in a gun-free zone, so I don’t have to worry about stuff like this.
But I have considered wearing one of my open-carry holsters to work - no gun, just the holster. I know there would be meltdowns all over the campus.
I could go with either ‘old west leather’ or ‘black/full assault’ holster...just as a fashion statement.