Open Carry Incident - Vincennes

[Cameramonkey]

While I find freedrom trolls annoying, I sure as hell support their right.

Would I carry an AR (assuming I had one) in public? Not very likely. Would I carry one inside a fastfood chain? Even less likely. Do I support other people's rights to do so? Sure do.

I'm an introvert. The less attention I can draw to myself, the better. Just leave me a lone so I can eat my cheeseburger alone while I face this wall.

Im about to tick a few people off. I dont care...

OCing a long gun is the "Westboro" execution of gun rights. CAN you do it? YES! Is it the most intelligent thing to do given the current climate? Probably not. is it helping our cause? Obviously not.

So by carrying a long gun, ESPECIALLY a "scary black rifle" you are putting your 2A exercise on the same level as the WBC. Do they have the right under the 1ST to spew their drivel and hatred? They sure do, and you are exercising your 2A rights at the same level of "in your face, offensive to those that dont agree with you" of your right.

And were the cops unprofessional jerkwads? Yes. Personally, I would file a complaint with the dept. Assuming there was no embellishment, (the last bit about holding up the AR seemed a bit over the top to me), and there were no lies on the 911 tapes about men robbing the place, this is ripe for a lawsuit.

 

[actaeon277]

Im about to tick a few people off. I dont care...

OCing a long gun is the "Westboro" execution of gun rights. CAN you do it? YES! Is it the most intelligent thing to do given the current climate? Probably not. is it helping our cause? Obviously not.

So by carrying a long gun, ESPECIALLY a "scary black rifle" you are putting your 2A exercise on the same level as the WBC. Do they have the right under the 1ST to spew their drivel and hatred? They sure do, and you are exercising your 2A rights at the same level of "in your face, offensive to those that dont agree with you" of your right.

And were the cops unprofessional jerkwads? Yes. Personally, I would file a complaint with the dept. Assuming there was no embellishment, (the last bit about holding up the AR seemed a bit over the top to me), and there were no lies on the 911 tapes about men robbing the place, this is ripe for a lawsuit.

Once again, to the Moms Demand Action, you are guilty of the same thing, by carrying a pistol. The arguments are all the same.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Once again, to the Moms Demand Action, you are guilty of the same thing, by carrying a pistol. The arguments are all the same.

Then fine. A gun is a gun. the 2A says I can carry a SAW around. Or maybe mount a MA2 to my truck. They are all the same, right?

 

[chezuki]

Now what? I understand he didn't have a LTCH, but his real purpose was to see if he could get attention. My questions is, what happens now? The cops were called and a huge scene was made. The thread was posted on INGO; too bad the video was not saved. But now what? What is going to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again?

This is what I really hate about the attention getters. They just want the attention, but do not care what blowback that attention brings. Anyone could have told you what would happen. So, when is the lawsuit going to be filed?

If the guy was truly carrying the AR because he refuses to pay the fee to exercise a right, then I would be totally behind him, but I don't see that as being his main objective.

When one of these stories continues forward towards the greater good, I'll buy the "fighting for my rights" argument (such as the OC at the zoo incident). Baiting a reaction just so you can say "hey look, I got a reaction" is silly.

 

[CZB1962]

Certain groups have fought for their Rights over the years, most of them VERY vocally, and VERY "in your face", and very much "pushed the limits" of what was deemed acceptable at that time.... those groups won their Rights, or are winning more Rights as time progresses.

Why do you think the passivity approach works better for gun owners?

(EDIT: I see 88GT beat me to the punch..lol)

Those groups were/are trying to gain rights that were denied them but granted to other parts of society...the right to vote, the right to marriage, the right to be equal. Those groups had to turn the tide of public opinion to their favor.

Do you think most of white America was for civil rights in the beginning? Do you think most of America was for gay marriage 10 years ago or now for that matter? What changes things is public opinion...we agree on that I think.

The difference is that we already have the right to bear arms and for now, most of society agrees with that right. It is ours to loose if we turn the tide of public opinion against us. We only need to fight to protect what we already have and part of that is keeping public opinion on our side.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Now what? I understand he didn't have a LTCH, but his real purpose was to see if he could get attention. My questions is, what happens now? The cops were called and a huge scene was made. The thread was posted on INGO; too bad the video was not saved. But now what? What is going to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again?

This is what I really hate about the attention getters. They just want the attention, but do not care what blowback that attention brings. Anyone could have told you what would happen. So, when is the lawsuit going to be filed?

If the guy was truly carrying the AR because he refuses to pay the fee to exercise a right, then I would be totally behind him, but I don't see that as being his main objective.

I can't rep you enough for this post. THAT'S EXACTLY IT!!!! All these people want to record these "*******" cops for "violating" their rights, and start a crapstrom. All of these attention whores want to do is post a video online showing their vast knowledge of personal rights, not attempt to change how things are handled. People just armchair quarterback, and when they're in the spotlight, they choke like Tony Romo playing in a prime time game. They just want to let everyone know that officer x is a JBT who wants to violate your rights. It's a GAME gun owners are playing, and losing. There will be no lawsuit, OP's pal will go on in life, and the officers involved may do the exact same thing in the future

 

[singlesix]

Then fine. A gun is a gun. the 2A says I can carry a SAW around. Or maybe mount a MA2 to my truck. They are all the same, right?

Guns are just another tool, you know like a hammer.

 

[88GT]

Now what? I understand he didn't have a LTCH, but his real purpose was to see if he could get attention. My questions is, what happens now? The cops were called and a huge scene was made. The thread was posted on INGO; too bad the video was not saved. But now what? What is going to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again?

This is what I really hate about the attention getters. They just want the attention, but do not care what blowback that attention brings. Anyone could have told you what would happen. So, when is the lawsuit going to be filed?

If the guy was truly carrying the AR because he refuses to pay the fee to exercise a right, then I would be totally behind him, but I don't see that as being his main objective.

I would like to point out that the only reason a huge scene ensued is because that is the way the LEOs responded.

Hear me out: Guy with a long gun eating peacefully, not threatening in the least (ignoring the fact that people feel threatened by the mere presence of a firearm). Someone decides he shouldn't be allowed to do that and calls LE. LE has the opportunity to assess the situation by peering through the window before making entry. What does LE see? Nothing. Nothing but a bunch of patrons eating their greasy burgers and fries. So how in the world does that warrant the response by LE? Especially the idiotic yelling of the question, "Who has the AR?" If there is no perceivable threat, then why go in "guns blazing" (figuratively speaking)? Just go in and have a nice, quiet conversation with the individual. Maybe determine if he's allowed to stay by checking with the manager quietly. On the flip side, had there been a possible threat based on what LE might have seen through the window, barging in and yelling "Who has the AR?" is likely to be answered in a non-verbal way. So it doesn't really matter how one looks at this, the response of the officers was unacceptable. It was over the top and completely unnecessary to make a scene out of nothing. Or it was tactically stoopid to barge in and not know what's going on?

Actually, "kowtow," is exactly what they are doing. Off ALL the gun rights we DON'T have, these activist want to focus on something that we're already allowed to do? For as much as I can't stand that moron Adam Kokesh, he a guy that puts his money where his mouth is. He's focused on rights that are DENIED to the people, not those that we are free to express already. If these "OC a long gun" types think they're doing such a service, why don't they express the rights that they should have, rather than the ones they already have. It's cowardice. They'd rather be on the "right" side of the law rather than run afoul of it and risk getting in trouble fighting for the rights they actually should have.

For instance, all those knuckleheads in California started OC'ing long guns when it made illegal to OC handguns. They loved to make their little vids and show the world how they were "expressing their rights." ....and then California made OC'ing long guns illegal, and I haven't seen a vid out of that place since. It smart money would have been to challenge the handgun law directly rather than simply saying "welp, we lost that right, time to move on."

I can't stand "fair weather" activists, if something concerns someone so much they should be willing to stick their neck out and fight for it. It's a waste of time and energy to express a right that is legal, under the law, when that time could be better spent trying to expand laws that currently deny rights.

Kut, I would argue that we do NOT have these rights because every time someone chooses to exercise them, the sheeple and LE do everything in their power to stop it. If we had the right, we wouldn't be barred from doing it.

To the bolded: if we can't freely exercise rights that aren't legally prohibited, then what makes you think people are going to be willing to undo a legal prohibition? This is about public opinion, after all. If legal behavior gives them the heebie jeebies, why would they change their opinion on 'illegal' behavior.

I understand the consequences of carrying a long gun reflect negatively on firearms owners, but ask yourself why. It isn't because someone is carrying a long gun. It's because the reaction to it. I'm going to go back to the homosexual agenda (and I don't use that word in the conspiracy sense, just the simple meaning of the gay community's attempt to normalize the behavior). They publicly chastized people for reacting negatively in an attempt to "retrain" society's response to what was once completely unthinkable behavior in public. They made the normal response abnormal. When we let the normal response to firearms go unchallenged, we are tacitly agreeing that their reaction is valid and logical. I refuse to do so. It is not the long gun carrier that is out of bounds. It is the public for thinking that an inanimate object is inherently evil and unacceptable. Yes, I understand this opinion is in the minority. Lots of things have been in the minority in the past. I also refuse to accept that being in the minority is grounds for dismissing the validity of the opinion.

Im about to tick a few people off. I dont care...

OCing a long gun is the "Westboro" execution of gun rights. CAN you do it? YES! Is it the most intelligent thing to do given the current climate? Probably not. is it helping our cause? Obviously not.

So by carrying a long gun, ESPECIALLY a "scary black rifle" you are putting your 2A exercise on the same level as the WBC. Do they have the right under the 1ST to spew their drivel and hatred? They sure do, and you are exercising your 2A rights at the same level of "in your face, offensive to those that dont agree with you" of your right.

So it's your assertion that going about my business with a long gun on my shoulder is the functional equivalent of targeting a specific group of people with the intent to berate and badger them?

If carrying a long gun is only done to be "in your face," so is OCing.

And were the cops unprofessional jerkwads? Yes. Personally, I would file a complaint with the dept. Assuming there was no embellishment, (the last bit about holding up the AR seemed a bit over the top to me), and there were no lies on the 911 tapes about men robbing the place, this is ripe for a lawsuit.

For the sake of disclosure, I personally think the OP's story is full of . But I am basing my arguments off of the assumption that it isn't and I am taking it at face value and nothing more. The discussion on my end is academic and intended to highlight the big picture of the argument, not get bogged down in the details of a scenario that may or may not have happened at all. And, yes, the LEOs were beyond jerkwads. They were douchebags. I think their behavior was very "in your face" just for the purpose of calling attention to themselves and showing their power because they carry a firearm.

 

[88GT]

Those groups were/are trying to gain rights that were denied them but granted to other parts of society...the right to vote, the right to marriage, the right to be equal. Those groups had to turn the tide of public opinion to their favor.

Do you think most of white America was for civil rights in the beginning? Do you think most of America was for gay marriage 10 years ago or now for that matter? What changes things is public opinion...we agree on that I think.

The difference is that we already have the right to bear arms and for now, most of society agrees with that right. It is ours to loose if we turn the tide of public opinion against us. We only need to fight to protect what we already have and part of that is keeping public opinion on our side.

I am denied the right to do something if every time it is done, someone with a badge tells me I have to stop. That it is legal is somewhat superfluous at that point.

I can't rep you enough for this post. THAT'S EXACTLY IT!!!! All these people want to record these "*******" cops for "violating" their rights, and start a crapstrom. All of these attention whores want to do is post a video online showing their vast knowledge of personal rights, not attempt to change how things are handled. People just armchair quarterback, and when they're in the spotlight, they choke like Tony Romo playing in a prime time game. They just want to let everyone know that officer x is a JBT who wants to violate your rights. It's a GAME gun owners are playing, and losing. There will be no lawsuit, OP's pal will go on in life, and the officers involved may do the exact same thing in the future

And I hope they succeed. Because that is the only way it's going to change.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Oh, and to add to my point for those on the fence... Swap amendments for a second. If we were in a fight for our right to free speech and govt entities across the country as well as our leaders in DC were starting to lean toward the removal of the 1A entirely, If not limiting it so tightly that it was no longer effective*, as an avid 1A exerciser and evangelist for its need would you REALLY want a group like the WBC running around doing their thing? They are the poster child for those that think the 1A shouldnt be so broad and unrestricted.

With rights come responsibilities.


*requiring a license to speak your mind, unreasonable prohibitions on where you can speak freely, whether you can criticize others or the government, etc

 

[88GT]

Oh, and to add to my point for those on the fence... Swap amendments for a second. If we were in a fight for our right to free speech and govt entities across the country as well as our leaders in DC were starting to lean toward the removal of the 1A entirely, If not limiting it so tightly that it was no longer effective*, as an avid 1A exerciser and evangelist for its need would you REALLY want a group like the WBC running around doing their thing? They are the poster child for those that think the 1A shouldnt be so broad and unrestricted.

With rights come responsibilities.


*requiring a license to speak your mind, unreasonable prohibitions on where you can speak freely, whether you can criticize others or the government, etc

Because arguing for the free exercise of our rights based on the stipulation that it be done in a non-offensive manner is better? It's still limited.

 

[KW730]

I long for the day when a person can carry whatever gun s/he chooses. We aren't there yet. In fact when it comes to "assault rifles", we are probably further away from public acceptance than we ever have been...mostly because of the negative press they've received because of the evil ***holes that have used them in their murderous rampages and the other reasons of which we're so familiar. I just have to ask ya KW730--what was the reason your friend chose to carry his AR that day?

He doesn't have a handgun.

I have a question though. Does the individual carrying the rifle have a LTCH? Or is that the reason he WAS carrying a rifle, because he DOESN'T have a LTCH? This would make sense to me. Friend doesn't have a LTCH, and wants to fit in with his OCing friends, so he grabs his AR15 to take to a fast food joint

Does have an LTCH, does not have a handgun as he is waiting until he turns 21 to purchase one from an FFL.

I should add to this, in this particular case, it WAS acceptable. I spoke to a LEO pal of mine, whom just so happens to live Vincennes. I was hoping he had some insight into this incident. He told me the officers probably acted like this because of multiple armed robberies at this McDonalds. As well as multiple threats taking place involving firearms. They were responding as if something was going down, which has happened MULTIPLE times at this location

That is insightful. Thank you. Still doesn't explain the the way they acted after determining there was no threat though, which they did from outside the restaurant and again inside before drawing on us.

I completely missed the part where OP stated he recorded the whole thing. This is now a closed case for me. They wanted to see if something would happen if they OCed an AR15, and it did. Now let's go tell an online forum we got exactly what we were looking for!!!

I started recording after having a loaded AR pointed at my body and being unlawfully instructed to leave the restaurant. Thanks for making assumptions though.

Personally, I would file a complaint with the dept.

Already being done.

They just want to let everyone know that officer x is a JBT who wants to violate your rights.

If it was only about calling out the officers, don't you think I would have publicly listed their names?

 

[copperhead-1911]

Stop carrying the long guns in public and this stuff won't happen.

I am inclined to go with that.

unless you have a major reason like you are eating in a major city like the ones Obama carried 99% of the vote

 

[billybob44]

" he is waiting until he turns 21 to purchase one from an FFL. "

And why would that be?? There are plenty FTF deals to be made from private partys..Bill.

 

[actaeon277]

Then fine. A gun is a gun. the 2A says I can carry a SAW around. Or maybe mount a MA2 to my truck. They are all the same, right?

Yes, you have the right. And I support the ability to do it. What is your point?

Oh, and to add to my point for those on the fence... Swap amendments for a second. If we were in a fight for our right to free speech and govt entities across the country as well as our leaders in DC were starting to lean toward the removal of the 1A entirely, If not limiting it so tightly that it was no longer effective*, as an avid 1A exerciser and evangelist for its need would you REALLY want a group like the WBC running around doing their thing? They are the poster child for those that think the 1A shouldnt be so broad and unrestricted.

With rights come responsibilities.



Nice misquote.
With power, comes responsibilities.
With great power, comes great responsibilities.

No, WBC is NOT a poster child for limiting the 1A.

Did you guys perhaps NOT study history and founding of the country?
You do not protect YOUR rights, and ignore everyone else's right, as long as they don't bother you. If they can take someone else's rights, then they can take yours.
You do not protect the free speech that is pleasant and nice. You protect that which is nasty and controversial. There is NO NEED to protect speech that everyone agrees with.
If you only protect that which YOU PERSONALLY agree with, then THERE ARE NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
*requiring a license to speak your mind, unreasonable prohibitions on where you can speak freely, whether you can criticize others or the government, etc

 

[chezuki]

I started recording after having a loaded AR pointed at my body and being unlawfully instructed to leave the restaurant. Thanks for making assumptions though.

If it was at the managers request, there was nothing unlawful about you being instructed to leave.

 

[sepe]

What speaks volumes to me is that many here accept the story lock stock and barrel. Anyone who is willing to carry an AR into a McD and videos the cops is probably capable of exaggeration. Just saying.

Just to be on the safe side, I always automatically assume everything anyone says is a lie...even myself.

 

[chezuki]

Just to be on the safe side, I always automatically assume everything anyone says is a lie...even myself.

You know that's not true!!!

 

[actaeon277]

You don't need to have a sports car.
It's not against the law, but you're just trying to make a statement.
If you drive that sports car, people will start wanting to limit engine size.
Don't be surprised if the police pull you over when you are not speeding. You are just asking for it.

 

[KW730]

" he is waiting until he turns 21 to purchase one from an FFL. "

And why would that be?? There are plenty FTF deals to be made from private partys..Bill.

He is not a member here and has no idea how to go about finding someone with a weapon he wants for a private sale.

If it was at the managers request, there was nothing unlawful about you being instructed to leave.

They only spoke (and I use that word loosely since it was more of a shout across the restaurant) with the manager after continuously shouting that we would be arrested for interfering if we did not leave. The moment the manager shook her head in response, we stood up and walked out.

I appreciate all the responses, even from those who may disagree with the way myself or my friends acted, or those that think I'm nothing but a liar. It has sparked good conversation which is all I posted this for.