Posted on 06/01/2007 1:26:08 PM PDT by 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."
It's the Georgia I was a kid in. Small world. Blackbird.
The boys should be polite to others and conceal the pieces. It’s just rude to carry a weapon outside your belt.
You can open carry in Pennsylvania (except maybe Philadelphia)
lol. I loved that! What a great way to begin the weekend...A great post!
LOL! And no-one slapped you upside your head? Blackbird.
Its 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
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?
Rights are like muscles. If you do not use them, you lose them.
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?
“The boys should be polite to others and conceal the pieces. Its just rude to carry a weapon outside your belt.”
They are not allowed to conceal them, by Idaho law.
Too darned many Californians of the liberal persuasion have moved to Post Falls, obviously.
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.
“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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.