Utah - Arrested for openly carrying his "assault rifle" to the mall

[RamboLiberal]

OREM -- Orem City prosecutors filed disorderly conduct charges Thursday against the man who was seen carrying an assault rifle in front of University Mall last Saturday.

Police also released dash camera video of the incident.

In the video a police officer confronts 51-year-old Philip Taylor, yelling, "Keep your hands where I can see them."

Taylor is heard replying, "Utah is open carry, officer."

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14078120

The charge is an infraction. It is punishable by up to $750 in fines and does not carry the possibility of jail or prison.

Police responded about 9:40 a.m. on Jan. 15 to the south side of the mall, near Nordstrom, after several people reported a man carrying guns at 1600 South and 800 East.

An officer found Taylor, 51, with a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, Orem police Sgt. Craig Martinez said. The officer drew his own gun and ordered Taylor to put his weapons down and his hands up, which he did, Martinez said. Taylor told police that Utah was an "open carry" state, which allows people to carry guns in public as long as they are unloaded. Taylor’s were not loaded.

Taylor was handcuffed and his guns were temporarily confiscated while the officer searched him for other weapons, Martinez said. Mall security then requested he be escorted off the property for trespassing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51091487-76/taylor-guns-martinez-police.html.csp

IMHO this guy is a doofus. Remember the name in case President Obama is ever in Utah. See if he shows up outside carrying his rifle & handgun.

[shadowrider]

1. An assault rifle. Ain't no way. n/t

[Pancho Sanza]

7. When in doubt, consult the official reference

[krispos42]

46. Almost but not quite right

Fixed it

[Ian David]

2. You see, what he can do is carry his guns to the same place, every day, at the same time...

... until he either sues for harassment and civil rights violations...

or they finally leave him alone, and he shows-up to shoot everyone.

[county worker]

3. We are in de-evolution. How ridiculous it is to allow someone to walk around with and assault weapo...

openly!

[Pancho Sanza]

4. Yes, good for the prosecutors. We can't have people doing stupid in public.

Even if it's not illegal. :grr:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. "good for the prosecutors... even if it's not illegal" - You're a bona fide liberal you say, huh?

with public statements like that, could you mind not telling anyone you meet?
You'll make the rest of liberals look bad.

[Pancho Sanza]

11. Sorry, I thought the sarcasm would be obvious.

Apparently not. :blush:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. oops

shoulda looked at the poster, mah bad. :blush:

[Callisto32]

62. Self Delete

I thought joo wuz seriouz!

[cleanhippie]

80. .

.

[slackmaster]

5. "He was released because he was technically not breaking the law by carrying the guns openly."

So this is really a non-story.

Laws tend to be rather technical by nature. Generally speaking, everything you can do is either perfectly legal or not legal.

The word "technically" adds no value to the sentence, rather it seems to be only intended to inflame the reader.

[Pancho Sanza]

12. Yes, the word was only added to create the (wrong) impression that it wasn't REALLY

legal. Typical weasel-wording from the anti-constitutionalists.

[pacalo]

6. Classy.

[HankyDubs]

9. omg our freedumbs are disappearing!

Slippery slope!

[Pancho Sanza]

14. I really hope you're not so sanguine when it comes to provisions of the "Patriot Act"

:eyes:

[HankyDubs]

15. I'm not sanguine when it comes to the PA

One question I have for the gungeon is why they didn't rise up with all their guns to attack the US government for denying constitutional liberties?

Isn't that what the 2nd amendment is for? Isn't it true that since there was no massed armed resistance to the PA, that means gun rights advocates are actually quite happy with the PA?

[Pancho Sanza]

22. Probably because most Americans didn't really appreciate all the nuances in the act

until it was already in place. That doesn't mean we (or you) have to like it but so far the threats to liberties haven't been -perceived- serious enough to justify open rebellion. I make no promises for the future, and I imagine you're aware of the 'tea party' which has its own agenda and is well-armed. I'd just as soon not have them be the only ones with access to equalizers.

[HankyDubs]

23. good answer I guess

"I imagine you're aware of the 'tea party' which has its own agenda and is well-armed."

I'd rather not emulate the tea party. If you do, that's up to you I guess. I prefer Gandhi to Dick Armey.

[RSillsbee]

50. Emulating Gandhi

Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi Quote
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."


Well. we agree on something

[HankyDubs]

54. strawman!

making laws against guns in malls...not the same as confiscating all guns in the whole nation.

Yeah, gandhi (the pacifist who was a victim of gun violence) wants you to be armed to the teeth.

[RSillsbee]

57. Straw man!! not

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.<1><2>

[HankyDubs]

67. You needed to copy paste the definition

and still didn't understand what you copied?

[petronius]

69. If you understood that definition, you'd realize that the only strawman in this subthread

was created by you; amusingly enough, it's in the very post where you accused another poster of creating a straw man...

[HankyDubs]

83. lol

Just plain hooey. Pretending that gun control proponents want to confiscate all guns is a strawman. It's really just that simple.

And no, I think it's eminently supportable that Gandhi (the pacifist who was a victim of gun violence) didn't want people to be armed to the teeth.

[petronius]

90. You honestly don't know what a straw man is, do you?

There's no shame in that - it's never too late to learn something new - but you should probably stop throwing the phrase around until you understand it...

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Speaking of strawmen

what of that quote leads you to sarcastically imply Ghandi wanted everyone armed to the teeth?

[HankyDubs]

84. question

how many assault weapons did gandhi own? How many 31 round magazines did he need to free his people?

[AtheistCrusader]

92. None and none.

Now please explain the relevance?

[beevul]

85. Reading is fundamental.

"making laws against guns in malls"

Surely you missed that the person arrested was "in front of" a mall, and not IN the mall.


Small distinction for you, I know, since a gun was involved.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Maybe you can explain *this* Gandhi quote for us, then? kthxbye.

"Taking life may be a duty... Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

-- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, comp. and ed. by Krishna Kripalani, Navajivan Pub House, Ahmenabad-14, 1971.

[HankyDubs]

86. i'm not sure how it's relevant

Did I say manslaughter of deranged gun wielding maniacs should be punished?

KTHXNRDBYE...lol at this kinda crap.

[X_Digger]

25. Where were you on October 27-28, 2001?

Me, I was in DC, protesting the patriot act.

Were you there?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

27. So you have no room to complain if you can't be bothered to show up..

And no, I did not have a CHL at the time, nor would it have been legal to carry.

Nice, though. I'm the one protesting the infringement of our civil liberties, and you call _me_ a teabagger.

How many anti-war protests have you attended?

How many times have you volunteered to be an escort at a planned parenthood center surrounded by right-wing bible thumper filth?

When's the last time you protested police brutality of our GLBT members?

[HankyDubs]

30. How many anti-war protests have you attended?

Quite a few, actually. I live in the San Francisco bay area. It wasn't feasible for me to attend a rally in DC...this doesn't mean that I give up my right to "complain."

Of course your actions are laudable if true, and they demonstrate the point I was trying to make quite well. The first amendment rights of speech and assembly, not our ownership of firearms and willingness to resort to violence, are what protect our other freedoms.

[X_Digger]

34. All freedoms are important..

.. if you can chip away at one, that same strategy will work on the rest. This cafeteria constitutionalism is as bad coming from our own party as it is from the rethugs and their 14th amendment shit recently.

If we set the precedent, others will follow it in ways that we never expected.

I've been to Crawford once (but I live in TX), I was in DC in 2003 (twice), 2004 (or 2005- not sure), 2009 (Inauguration, that time). It helps that I have family in VA and a rewards card with 260,000 miles on it.

[HankyDubs]

36. All freedoms are important

but none are absolute.

"others will follow it in ways that we never expected."

Slippery slope BS.

[X_Digger]

37. Had I said something about 'absolute' then your point would be valid.

Since I never asserted that.. well, you get the point.

"others will follow it in ways that we never expected."

Slippery slope BS.

You don't think if we provide the example of how to subvert a constitutionally-protected right (DC v Heller) that the rethugs wouldn't use that same tactic to their advantage (Roe v Wade)??

Keep dreaming!

Here's a quote I happen to like..

Famed constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow, is a former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yet, says Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

[HankyDubs]

55. asserting that

People should be able to walk around inside malls with assault weapons slung over their shoulders...that's an absolutist position.

The rest of your post is a big fat strawman, including the Derschowitz quote. I'm not trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, merely asserting that a sane reading is better than an insane reading.

[X_Digger]

58. If open carry is legal in a place, then there's nothing 'absolutist' about doing so.

Chip, chip, chip..

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Again with strawmen.

He wasn't inside the mall, he was walking past it, and if he had tried to enter, the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS of the mall could ask him to leave, or have him charged with tresspassing.

[oneshooter]

74. I carry concealed at the mall. Any problem with that?

If there is then TOUGH, Texas law allows it as long as the building is not properly posted.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

76. That's very reassuring to know we can count on being protected by well

trained professionals. Maybe we should make laws allowing all veterans to carry concealed weapons in shopping malls. Might just help revive Main Street America.

[shadowrider]

77. Every time you go to the mall, you're surrounded by guns you can't see n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Oh, they're not there to protect *you*- and no one claims they are,...

save those who labor under the idea that non-cop, non-security guard civilians are some variety of auxiliary police.

[PavePusher]

97. I'm not there for your protection...

that's your responsibility.

If protecting myself happens to help protect you, so much the better, but it is not my primary purpose.

If you want me to be obligated to protect you, I will require a salary commensurate with the risk, and the same lack of legal liability as the police. Good luck with that.

[beevul]

88. Again...

"People should be able to walk around inside malls with assault weapons slung over their shoulders...that's an absolutist position."

First, whats an assault weapon?

Second, I didnt see where he was walking around INSIDE with any guns.




"The rest of your post is a big fat strawman, including the Derschowitz quote. I'm not trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, merely asserting that a sane reading is better than an insane reading."

LOL, you have - through things you've said in other posts - admitted your trying to do what Derschowitz described, and claiming you aren't. Everyone here knows what YOUR reading of the amendment would be.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[Callisto32]

64. Indeed.

They end where other people's rights begin.

My owning weapons does not in any way affect anybody else's rights.

[PavePusher]

31. Because the P.A., as heinous as it is...

is not yet up to the level of armed rebellion in response.

Check your history books to see how bad things have to get before significant numbers of people will even consider violent resistance.

[rrneck]

42. We voted for the Democrat. Duh. nt

[spin]

49. The Patriot act is not enough of a reason for armed resistance ...

it's a step in the wrong direction but we as citizens may well be able to elect officials who will change the law or if it is abused, the court system may strike provisions of the law down.

We have done far worse in the past. Remember how we rounded up Japanese citizens during WWII?

Our country has the longest lasting written Constitution in the world. We don't take to arms easily, nor should we.

There may be a time for a rebellion many years in the future. Who can say? But the time is not now.

[petronius]

44. A man was arrested at gunpoint for engaging in a 100% legal activity

Would your response be different if it had been a different activity? :shrug:

[Francis Marion]

75. Do the people have the right or not?

Did Black Panthers have the right or not to carry firearms in public, demonstrating on the steps of the California Legislature?

I would say that they did have that right because Black Panthers have every protection of law and every other right of The People.

Would a strong and secure state allow people to have guns in public, even on the steps of the capital building? That is an experiment in political speech.

Gun rights are the pH test of politics: try to exercise them, and you learn something about the political freedom nearby- whether or not the institutions respect the law and rights you think they should respect, and whether the people even recognize an exercise in civil rights when they see it.

We learn how much trust exists between government and people, and between an individual and their society.

The result in Utah?
The local LEOs agreed on the right to carry. Good.
But the PD didn't allow a peaceful person to exercise a civil right in public without treating the man like a suspect. Less good:
1) the PD acted to protect the public, because (some of) the public asked them to do so.
2) (some of) The public was alarmed at the sight of a person exercising Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights. This suggests that education is necessary.

Should the sight of a person with a firearm in public, by itself, bother us? They have every right to do so. And yet this same stimulus scares some people, and for understandable reason, given recent events.

So who are we going to let win: a tiny subset of humanity- terrorists- who abuse law and the public trust? Or do we keep our calm and trust the great mass of law-abiding people?

We going to look sideways at every line of voters because some people commit election fraud?

We going to report every 'Middle Easterner' or person in a burka because some of them are suicide bombers?

I would rather live in a society that respects, and recognizes, the rights of everybody, from Black Panther to Joe Citizens alike. Because if our government is so strong, secure, and trustful of The People that even a radical's rights are recognized and respected, than your rights and mine will also be respected.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Note that the arrest was recinded...

What he was doing was legal. Dumb but legal

[slackmaster]

13. I found out many years ago, to my delight, that there actually is a law against stupidity here in CA

In about 1981 or 1982, we had a winter ocean swell that produced several days of very large long-period waves.

There are some reef breaks north of La Jolla cove that under extreme conditions become surfable, but only by expert, professional class surfers.

Of course there are always a few dumbshits who have inflated perceptions of their proficiency at surfing. One such man was pulled, battered and bleeding, out of the dangerous surf by lifeguards who put themselves at risk to save him. (One of my best friends was a sergeant in the lifeguards at the time.)

The same dude attempted to go back into the surf the next day. The lifeguards recognized him, arrested him, charged him with some violation of the Penal Code, and took him to jail.

Yes, there really is a law against being dumb.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Have a reference for that? It would be real useful on some occasions.

Disorderly conduct is the cops catch all, but it rarely holds up.

[slackmaster]

19. Pre-Web. I doubt that I could find it. Maybe in the Union-Tribune archives.

If anywhere.

[Pancho Sanza]

17. It's just after the criminal citation for Possession of Rape Tools

That's one we used to threaten kids with in order to confiscate their liquor back when I was a cop. Our FOP lodge was always very well stocked. :-) (I am not kidding)

[PavePusher]

32. Wouldn't the bulk of the Cali government...

be suceptible to arrest under that?

[HankyDubs]

20. What he was doing was legal. Dumb but legal.

You don't see any problem with this? The line between "dumb" and "massacre" is paper thin here. All he had to do was point and shoot and he crosses over it.

[slackmaster]

28. Kind of like when you're driving a car, and a school bus stops in front of you...

...and a bunch of kids get out and cross the street. The line between "good driver, obeying the law and paying attention to his surroundings" and "massacre" is paper thin. All you'd have to do is take your foot off the brake and step on the accelerator, assuming your car has an automatic transmission, and you've crossed over it.

[HankyDubs]

35. lol this again

You all can't seem to get enough of this bad analogy.

A car is not like a gun. A car has other purposes besides running children over. Some might even suggest that killing people is NOT REALLY one of the intended functions of a car. This can't be said about guns. The primary function that guns serve is to put holes in things, and one of its intended functions is to put holes in people.

This individual was not a "good driver." He is more akin to the speeding lunatic putting his desire to go real fast ahead of other people's desire not to be killed. He didn't kill anyone (yet) but he certainly engaged in risky behavior that could easily have led to a disaster. We can now expect to see lots of copycats carrying their semiautomatic rifles in enclosed public spaces.

But it is interesting to see that you have no problem at all with an obviously nutty and stupid individual walking around a mall with a shoulder cannon. Free-dumb!

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Does the primary purpose matter to those injured and dead?

For inanimate objects whose purpose, is, indeed putting holes in things and sometimes people, guns are rather less efficient

than cars at killing and injuring people.


And speeding drivers by definition break the law. We should not be (and certainly not advocating) arresting people because

what they do "ought" to be illegal.

[HankyDubs]

52. yes, it does

I can't speak for the dead and neither can you, but it seems very clear to me that a person injured in a car accident (being such a person myself) would not have the same feelings about the accident than if they were "accidentally" shot by a lunatic running around inside a mall with an assault weapon.

For the record, I also believe it should be illegal to drive your car inside a mall a la "Joliet" Jake Blues. Is that a controversial position in the gungeon?

[RSillsbee]

59. Speaking as a person who has been accidentally shot

As well as, accidentally injured in a car wreck (and deliberately hurt by a hit and run driver )

I held more animosity toward the idiot that tried to run me over while I was hitch hiking to work. Although to be fair, both incidents were almost 30 years ago and I regard both as water under the bridge

[rrneck]

43. He probably

drove to the mall.

:rofl:

[HankyDubs]

53. and again

should he be allowed to drive his car inside the mall?

[RSillsbee]

60. False equivalency

Driving a car inside a mall is an inherently dangerous act. Simply possessing a firearm (and an unloaded firearm at that) endangers no one. Firearms do not have evil mind control powers they can't make you start shooting. The criminal has to make that choice all by himself

[HankyDubs]

68. LOL!

I agree, false equivalency. All of these comparisons between guns and cars are bull shit.

"Simply possessing a firearm (and an unloaded firearm at that) endangers no one"

Inside a mall? Really? How is the mall cop supposed to know you aren't about to rob the GAP? How's he supposed to know the weapon isn't loaded? What if he draws and shoots and a ricochet kills a little girl? There have been mass shootings inside malls before...and I think it even happened in Utah.

[RSillsbee]

73. Simply possessing a firearm

Inside a mall? Really? How is the mall cop supposed to know you aren't about to rob the GAP? How's he supposed to know the weapon isn't loaded?

I don't go to the mall often but, when I do I carry a gun. Please explain how the simple fact that I am armed endangers other shoppers?

What if he (the Mall cop) draws and shoots and a ricochet kills a little girl?

Then the mall cop is at fault as he had no basis under Colorado law to draw , let alone discharge, his weapon

There have been mass shootings inside malls before...and I think it even happened in Utah.

There sure have and not a one has been committed by a permit holder carrying a concealed hand gun. The shooting in Utah was stopped because a citizen w/ a handgun put a bullet through the shooter's brain pan.

In the Vonn Marr shooting in Omaha the shooter walked right by the gun buster signs w/ an SKS rifle before opening fire

TYPO

[HankyDubs]

87. nothing simple

"Please explain how the simple fact that I am armed endangers other shoppers?"

I could go in several directions with this. If you have an ak-47 slung over your shoulder, you are most definitely intimidating other shoppers and putting them in danger. As I explained...how are we to know you aren't planning to start shooting at shoppers, and how is the mall cop supposed to know you aren't an armed robber?

"Then the mall cop is at fault as he had no basis under Colorado law to draw , let alone discharge, his weapon"

So wait, does the mall cop need to wait until the loony/robber/etc is actually pointing the ak-47 at patrons or shopkeepers before he draws his weapon? Maybe that's too soon. Should he wait until the loony has claimed his first victim? Is that too soon? The disaster in this case has NOTHING to do with the person who created a situation that otherwise would not have existed?

"There sure have and not a one has been committed by a permit holder carrying a concealed hand gun."

Well since this isn't the scenario we are talking about, it's not relevant.

"The shooting in Utah was stopped because a citizen w/ a handgun put a bullet through the shooter's brain pan."

Gotta love the blood-thirsty delight in this sentence. It's wrong though, the "citizen" in question was an off-duty police officer who had received mandatory firearms training.

[RSillsbee]

91. Please explain how the mere presence of a firearm endangers people

I could go in several directions with this. If you have an ak-47 slung over your shoulder, you are most definitely intimidating other shoppers and putting them in danger.

Being intimidated doe not equal being put in danger. Please explain how the mere presence of a firearm endangers people

So wait, does the mall cop need to wait until the loony/robber/etc is actually pointing the ak-47 at patrons or shopkeepers before he draws his weapon?

Yes, the Mall Cop has to wait until the person carrying the weapon presents a credible threat of violence. Just having a weapon does not meet Colorado's thresh hold. Although there is a law against carrying a long gun w/ a loaded chamber in your vehicle. That law does give any Colorado Peace Officer the legal right to ensure that the long gun does not have a loaded chamber.

It's wrong though, the "citizen" in question was an off-duty police officer who had received mandatory firearms training.

The off duty cop was (obviously) off duty andout of his jurisdiction. He had no police authority. Also most CHP holders have more hand gun training than the police. ( Google frontsite or thunder ranch some time)

[PavePusher]

98. Note also that your feeling of "intimidation"...

has nothing to do with my intent. If you project irrational fears, that is your problem, not mine.

I would advise you to observe those individuals carrying before assigning them to your invented catagories.

[rrneck]

61. If there's a road there.

[one-eyed fat man]

56. Holland v. Commonwealth 1956

The Kentucky court of appeals settled the question in clear and unambiguous language.

Holland v. Commonwealth 1956

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. The heavy emphasis...is upon the undue advantage given to a person who is able suddenly to expose and use a weapon..."

Someone wearing a gun in a holster openly does not particularly draw attention. Although the question did come up recently at the State Capitol.

Beshear Not Concerned About Capitol Gun Policy

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear sees no reason to change the current “open carry” policy for handguns at the State Capitol. Beshear says he feels comfortable and safe in the building. But even if he wanted to alter the policy, Beshear says he doesn’t have the authority.

“Gov. Patton did issue an executive order at one point I think banning weapons in the capitol. And that’s what caused the laws to arrive at where they are today and that is, the legislature is in control of that issue, and not the governor,” he said.

"Some might even suggest that killing people is NOT REALLY one of the intended functions of a car."

Works pretty good when you are fed-up with Critical Mass-holes and no need to change magazines.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Just as what Philip Taylor was doing. But *that* offends your sensibilities, so it's OK.

Let us know when you make Dectective First Class in the Department of Precrime. Then we might just listen to your

diktats about when it's appropriate to arrest those not breaking the law.

[YllwFvr]

39. if he had pointed it and pulled the trigger at the crowds

after the dull "click" he could have been arrested for all kinds of things

[AtheistCrusader]

72. No, all he had to do was LOAD it and he'd have committed a crime.

It was not loaded. Hence, legal.

[bluerum]

21. Can you say 'kicking a big fucking beehive'. What a dumbass. eom

[PavePusher]

33. Sometimes, kicking the beehive is what is required to create change.

I guess lunch-counter sit-ins (kicking the beehive) were only done by a bunch of dumbasses.

[bluerum]

45. False equivalency. Only one side had guns in Selma. And it wasn't the civil rights protesters.

And the more I think about it the more idiotic the comparison seems. Black people were oppressed for hundreds of years. At the point of a gun and with white clothed klanners with burning crosses. MLK was shot by some fucking coward hiding behind a high powered rifle.

Yeah. Black people fought for and gained civil rights with non-violence.

[PavePusher]

47. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/22/civil-rights-and-gun-sights

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/martin-luther-king-civil-right

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. A group called The Deacons for Defense and Justice would disagree with you.

Why is it advocacy for gun control is such a good marker for ahistorical revisionism?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=331645

Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense

http://www.thesouthernshift.com/news/2010/04/remembering-robert-hicks-and-deacons-defense

Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense
Submitted by Southern Shift on Mon, 2010-04-26 11:32

The story around Robert Hicks and his group Deacons for Defense have all but been erased from public consciousness. You check on familiar touch points like YouTube and there's nothing there. Pictures are hard to find and articles are scant. The thought of armed Black men standing up to the KKK and successfully protecting lives and propert during the harsh days of the Jim Crow South is a scary thought for many. The truth of the matter is many African Americans did not sit back and just allow themselves to be beaten and terrorized by the KKK. Hicks represented an underplayed part of our history..


The passing of Robert Hicks will not be acknowledge on the same scale as the passing of Guru, Dr Dorothy Height and Benjamin Hooks but he is no less important. We tip our hat because he did what many have come to belive was the unthinkable.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25hicks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert%20hicks&st=cse

Robert Hicks, Leader in Armed Rights Group, Dies at 81
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Published: April 24, 2010

Someone had called to say the Ku Klux Klan was coming to bomb Robert Hicks’s house. The police said there was nothing they could do. It was the night of Feb. 1, 1965, in Bogalusa, La.

The Klan was furious that Mr. Hicks, a black paper mill worker, was putting up two white civil rights workers in his home. It was just six months after three young civil rights workers had been murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

Mr. Hicks and his wife, Valeria, made some phone calls. They found neighbors to take in their children, and they reached out to friends for protection. Soon, armed black men materialized. Nothing happened.

Less than three weeks later, the leaders of a secretive, paramilitary organization of blacks called the Deacons for Defense and Justice visited Bogalusa. It had been formed in Jonesboro, La., in 1964 mainly to protect unarmed civil rights demonstrators from the Klan. After listening to the Deacons, Mr. Hicks took the lead in forming a Bogalusa chapter, recruiting many of the men who had gone to his house to protect his family and guests....

Native Americans were right there, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

[Hoyt]

24. Another good reason to restrict guns in public, especially those carried by the stupid.

[YllwFvr]

40. he was trying to push the boundaries of his rights

I leave it to you what kind of job he did. Ive made up my mind about it

[lawodevolution]

41. how do you know he is stupid, do you think he is stupid because he owns a gun?

[Hoyt]

48. Took a wild-assed-guess based upon his actions. You don't think he is?

He is proof of my theory that the more people who get guns -- especially to carry in public -- the less intelligent and/or those needing a serious mental assessment will become an increasing percentage of the gotta-have-a-gun-in-public folks. Just a thought because maybe we really need to do something.

[Callisto32]

66. I can cetify my IQ at 147.

Should my rights be taken away too?

Are you just an elitist, or do you have good reasons for granting rights based on intelligence?

[HankyDubs]

82. its always funny

to me when people cite their IQ numbers so support the idea that they are "intelligent." Intelligent people are informed, and informed people know that Alfred Binet designed the IQ test to diagnose brain injury or disease. He cautioned against using the test as a numerical measure that quantified intelligence. People who cite their IQ scores...just aren't all that intelligent.

[KansasVoter]

94. Jesus, are you a piece of work. Bragging about your IQ???

[RSillsbee]

51. How are you going to restrict criminals from carrying in public NT?

[Atypical Liberal]

63. The definitive reason why open carry is a bad idea.

Look, I am as pro-2nd-amendment as anyone. But this is pretty much the definitive reason why open carry is a bad idea. It incites panic.

Look, when you see someone walking through the mall with a rifle, there is no way to know if this is someone about to shoot up the mall or someone just exercising their right to open carry.

So the only prudent thing to do at that point is call the police. Because if you didn't, and it turned out this was another deranged lunatic, then what?

So now the police resources get wasted responding to people just walking around with a firearm. It most certainly is a public disturbance.

Open carry just causes way more problems than it solves. If you want to carry a firearm, carry concealed.

[PavePusher]

65. Or, maybe you could observe the person for actual odd behavior...

If they are browsing the shelves of the bookstore with coffee in hand, reading Mother Earth News, probably not a threat.

Making assumptions... you know the rest of that, I'm sure.

P.S. Rights do not require camoflauge. Homosexuals did not gain acceptance by staying hidden in the closet.

[Atypical Liberal]

93. Nobody is going to do that. I would not do that.

Look, if I saw someone walking up the the front door of a mall carrying a rifle, I would assume that I was about to witness another mass shooting. I'd be on the phone to the police instantly. I'm not going to trail him and see if he stops by the coffee shop for a latte or if instead he takes up a good firing position on the second floor balcony.

I understand what you are saying about camouflage. But I'm not saying you can't carry a firearm - I'm just saying concealed carry is the proper way to go about it. Open carry causes more problems than it solves.

[PavePusher]

96. How does it "cause problems"?

If Civil Rights do not "cause problems", they fix problems.you mean that ignorant people panic and ill-trained police over-react, then maybe you have a point. But even that happens very rarely in the places where open carry is legal, rarer still where it is fairly common.

And it won't get common unless people do it, and everyone sees that the sky doesn't fall.

If we went by your criteria of "causing problems", women and non-whites would not be able to vote, gays wouldn't be able to hold hands or kiss in public, I wouldn't be able to read many of my favorite pieces of literature or speak about my opinions... I'm sure you get the picture.

Civil Rights do not "cause problems", they fix problems.

[Atypical Liberal]

99. Looks like you answered your own question.

If Civil Rights do not "cause problems", they fix problems.you mean that ignorant people panic and ill-trained police over-react, then maybe you have a point.

Well there you go.

But even that happens very rarely in the places where open carry is legal, rarer still where it is fairly common.

That's because, thankfully, not many people do like this fellow and walk around a shopping center with an assault rifle slung around his neck and a pistol on his hip.

And it won't get common unless people do it, and everyone sees that the sky doesn't fall.

I don't want it to be common. I don't want the public constantly having to make a decision as to whether someone is up to no good or not, constantly re-visiting the issue of the legality of carrying firearms in public. Carry concealed.

If we went by your criteria of "causing problems", women and non-whites would not be able to vote, gays wouldn't be able to hold hands or kis in public, I wouldn't be able to read many of my favorite pieces of literature or speak about my opinions... I'm sure you get the picture.

Civil Rights do not "cause problems", they fix problems.

This is a poor analogy. None of the examples you cite cause people to wonder whether a mass shooting is about to take place.

[PavePusher]

100. My apologies for the mangled first sentence structure...

I don't know how that happened. Looks like my last sentence got stuck in the middle of it somehow.



"I don't want the public constantly having to make a decision as to whether someone is up to no good or not, constantly re-visiting the issue of the legality of carrying firearms in public."

We have to do this many times every day. Vehicles, tools, food preparation, heavy equipment and construction... the list is vast. Yet you take these issues in stride. Well, most people do. A rare few become insanely paranoid, but that's another discussion. Why do you focus only on the gun?

And I'm sorry, but again, my Civil Rights do not require hiding.

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Simple.

We have to do this many times every day. Vehicles, tools, food preparation, heavy equipment and construction... the list is vast. Yet you take these issues in stride. Well, most people do. A rare few become insanely paranoid, but that's another discussion. Why do you focus only on the gun?

Because people seldom engage in nefarious activities while openly using vehicles, tools, food preparation, heavy equipment, or construction.

[RSillsbee]

95. I open carry frequently

I incite curiosity not panic

[beevul]

89. I hope...

I hope he finds a way to take them to the cleaners, like what is happening in Wisconsin.

Thats the only way change is going to happen.