http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20120422/NEWS02/204220350
Why would he have a round in the chamber?
If that’s true, he will likely lose in court.
The police can always come up with a reason to have asked him for his ID, that no one will be able to question.
They could even say they just wanted to see if the boy was safely carrying the rifle.
Because, when you insert a clip (M1 Garands really use clips) into an M1 Garand, it closes the bolt and automatically chambers a round.
If a Garand is loaded, there IS a round in the chamber.
“Why would he have a round in the chamber?”
Who cares? Is it legal to have a round in the chamber? Must be, since they apparently haven’t charged him with carrying a fully loaded weapon. You might as well ask why the gun was loaded at all, or why he had a gun in the first place. That’s none of your business.
I am so bloody sick of this mindset of “Well, it was legal, but it was stupid.” Fine, so it’s stupid. So what? Tell the kid he’s stupid, then, don’t arrest him. How about we don’t arrest people for being stupid yet legal? How about we save arrests for when people are actually breaking the law? I think that’s how the law is supposed to work.
“If that’s true, he will likely lose in court.”
If there’s a law against fully loaded open carry, okay. But if not, and you’re only arguing that somehow it was legal but stupid and inflammatory and therefore suddenly illegal, I cry foul. Because then the court would be allowing the round in the chamber to prejudice them. It’s post facto rationalizing.
I clicked on your link and after reading the thoughts of the grand high police poohbah, I have absolutely no doubt the kid did nothing wrong and they only arrested him because the cops thought something that’s perfectly illegal ought to be illegal. The article says, “Studt noted the rifle was fully loaded with a bullet in the chamber. He couldn’t imagine anyone walking nearby and feeling comfortable.” Now, I don’t know if this is the usual illeteracy of reporters, or if those two sentences are supposed to logically run together. But if it’s the latter, that makes1 no sense. How would passersby know it’s loaded? How would anybody, without checking? Whether or not it’s loaded is irrelevant, and only reported in the interest of post facto rationalization.
“Police held the rifle in order to determine proof of ownership.” That’s a nonstarter. They couldn’t have possibly had reasonable suspicion that it wasn’t his gun. Cops aren’t allowed to go around assuming the things people carry aren’t their property. Also, the kid’s i.d. wouldn’t have anything to do with ownership.
“’He was trying to make a scene — and he did,’” Ah, now we get to the nub of the issue. I’m sure it did make a scene, of sorts. It’s not every day you see someone walking around with a rifle. The cops want to pretend like this scene endangered the peace, or something. But it was perfectly legal, and from all reports there was nothing for the police to bother themselves about. Nobody did anything illegal before the cops butt, thereby laying the ground for the magical charges of “disturbing the peace” and “ obstruction of justice.”
We all know that a cop can drum up any charge he wants, whether or not it applies. Let the courts sort it out, is their logic and the explicit comment of the police chief. When he says the kid wanted to make a scene and did, he’s basically admitting that the cops are going to make open carrying a crime even though it isn’t. If it’s not illegal, something else is, and they’ll charge you with that. That is, unless you go along with everything they say. Then you’re a good little citizen again, and can go on your way.
Always remember, you don’t have to go along with illegal orders. If the cops have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, tell them. If they arrest you for hurting their feelings and rely on the courts to finish their dirty work for them, so be it. Maybe at some point the courts won’t take the cops’ word for it, and “disturbing the peace,” “obstructing justice,” etc. will be laughed at, when not backed by outside corroboration.
“The police can always come up with a reason to have asked him for his ID, that no one will be able to question.”
Yes, and that’s what’s made a mockery of the 4th amendment, and cops for that matter.
“They could even say they just wanted to see if the boy was safely carrying the rifle.”
That wouldn’t justify asking for his i.d., nor stopping him at all, really.
“something that’s perfectly illegal ought to be illegal.”
Something that’s legal ought to be illegal, I mean.