Posted on 01/10/2013 9:46:29 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Two men seen walking down a Portland street armed with assault rifles told police they were exercising their Second Amendment rights and hoping to educate the public on gun rights.
Several calls were made to 911 on Wednesday afternoon, with alarmed residents reporting two men with guns strapped to their backs walking through the area of Southeast Seventh Avenue and Spokane Street in Portland's Sellwood neighborhood.
When police arrived on the scene, they found two 22-year-old men carrying rifles openly on their backs. The two were also holding valid concealed handgun licenses in Oregon, according to Fox affiliate KPTV.
The men reportedly told officers that they were seeking to educate onlookers about their Second Amendment rights.
"Exercising my rights with a rifle to try to decrease the demonizing of peacefully exercising your rights in public," one of the men, who declined to release his full name, told the station.
Portland authorities later identified the men as Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce. Officers said carrying firearms openly is legal in Oregon and carrying a concealed gun is legal with a valid license, according to the station. But doing one or both may generate 911 calls and possibly tie up resources that are needed for a real emergency.
One of the men told the station that he hoped people would approach him and talk to him, instead of calling police.
"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."
The Portland Police Bureau, however, asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns to immediately call 911.
It’s not a smart thing to do.
Let’s say you, or another Freeper or anyone else, is exercising your right to open carry an AR-15, a Weatherby 30.06 or whatever, and some panicky numbnuts sees you, and says, “Holy S**t! It’s a mass-shooter” and blows you away from behind from his bedroom window?
Sure, you’re peacefully carrying a weapon. But the shooter in this hypothetical doesn’t that. For all he (or she) knows, you’re on your way to blow away a bunch of people at a school, a community center or the local shopping mall.
And in the shooter’s mind, he (or she) has just prevented a massacre.
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.
Perhaps, but if so, it only appears that way because gun owners have been silent and civilized about the thing. We are not in a minority on the issue, as is evidenced every time this issue comes up on the ballot as well as by recent polls concerning gun control. Gun control proponents have always been in the minority; a noisy, well-organize minority, yes, and now with media help they can appear as a majority.
I used to be against this sort of behavior because I felt that the reality of gun ownership by calm, normal people was the image that was important to present. I believe now that it is important to present an outraged image for precisely the reason you articulated above: we look like we're a quiet, cooperative minority. We need to be loud, passionate, in-your-face because that's the coin of the political realm at the moment. Not irresponsible or reckless, but I'm thinking anger is no longer out of bounds. IMHO, of course.
And I just hope this sort of behavior doesn’t prove to be positive for the anti-gun people. We’ll see
Class III ATF regulated full automatic firearms are legal in Oregon with the proper tax stamps and registrations. Then you get to pay for the firearm itself. A Class III M16 goes for approximately $15,000 these days.
This done, now, you get to carry your M16 (or Thompson or MAC10) open, right? I would think so ---
Right now, the 1st amendment isn’t being questioned
Mrs WBill is fond of saying, "Just because you can does not mean that you should."
I'm not sure that I can think of a situation where it's more applicable than this one.
And additionally...I think the poster who speculated that this pair was a couple of anti-gunners trying to stir up trouble, may be on to something.
The choices of criminals cannot trump the rights of the law-abiding.
Lying low and not questioning our leaders for even bringing the 2nd amendment issue up is the best response?
We’ve tried being responsible, reasonable, compromising and while our freedoms die from thousands of incremental tiny bites. Our opponents tire of the small bites and seem to want to “finish their meal”.
We are the ones inflaming the populace?
I don’t think it just appears that way, look who got elected. I have never had anything about gun control on any ballot I’ve seen.
One of the most shockingly ignorant things I have ever read on FR.
I have, but not within the last couple of years. I-676 in Washington State was touted as a gun control slam-dunk and ended up losing hugely even in liberal Seattle. The other guys have the megaphones, we have the votes, which is why it seldom is voted on these days and also why 0bama is looking to implement by Executive Order.
Who or why doesn’t really matter, it’s the consequences that matter. Lots of freepers here remember when they could walk around with a weapon in their home town, but the people that are making the stink and the laws and are big influences in the anti-gun group, do not live in these towns, they live in cities. Cities are where the influential people are and no one walks around with weapons showing, without negative consequences.
I always thought we needed the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st. My position is that if we live in fear of inflaming the liberals and are afraid of openly exercising any of our rights then they have won. That’s the same as negotiating with terrorists as far as I’m concerned.
No, it’s the ones that go around carrying rifles in public that are. All it takes nowadays, is 1 or 2 individuals doing this sort of thing every month or 2, and it’s global and it’s blown out of proportion and it generates negative consequences. It’s just not smart.
As far as I know the 1st ammendment is under question and has been gradually for a long time. What about healthcare and “free exercise of religion”?
Stevie_d_64 : I’m not sure of your meaning, but in Texas open carry of a long rifle is quite legal... and of course concelaed carry pretty much is a state requirment !! The legislature is working on open carry of firearms as in Arizona because the fear of accidental exposing a concealed weapon keeps many from carrying... and carrying is a GOOD thing for law-abiding citizens !! Let’s hope the folks in Austin don’t get hung up on this politially correct banning bandwaggon that will do nothing but hamper the rights of the law-abiding and allow the criminals easier means of committing their crimes !!
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.