Man carrying guns in parking lot speaks out (Utah)

[Mr. Clean]

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/Man-carrying-guns-in-parking-lot-speaks-out/sWzkVuyWJUqGWDfdGLE8HA.cspx


Man found walking with unloaded assault rifle near University Mall is charged with disorderly conduct.
Phillip Taylor, the gun owner says, “Utah supports open carry. I’m protected by the U.S. Constitution. I just thought ok, it’s time to prove it, so I went out completely unloaded.”


I don't think his charges will hold up. Besides having tons of police officers respond to 911 calls and ect; nothing wrong happened. He was well within his rights to do what he did and somehow by exercising his rights, I, a right to arms supporter am going to get fucked because of him.

So do I believe what he did was smart? No. Hell No. I'd like to punch him in the balls and tell him thanks for fucking the rest of us. :mad:

[LoSTBoY]

I wish the UK people had a right to Bear arms:

http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.com/772000/772056_d6ca_625x1000.jpg

:(

[Danny]

what a dumbass. "ill walk around with an assault rifle, of course people will check to see if its loaded and get closes and not run to the cops shouting 'columbine', of course".

retard. Its like a guy owning a shotgun and taking it into mcdonalds ~because everyone will know theres no bullets in there and not think you a robber. :rolleyes:

[LouCipherr]

I'm surprised this dumbass wasn't gunned down by the dumbass police. (yes, both are dumbasses, that was intentional. :lol:)

[JDFP]

I'm surprised this dumbass wasn't gunned down by the dumbass police. (yes, both are dumbasses, that was intentional. :lol:)

Oh, he wasn't black was he?

I know, shame on me for saying it... but face it, everyone was thinking it.

As far as gun laws -- people should certainly be allowed to follow their Constitutional right to carry arms -- within reason. There's no reasonable point in carrying around an assault rifle near a freaking mall. That's just asinine. People like this give gun rights activists a bad name -- oh yeah, the people that kill people with guns give gun rights activists a bad name too -- but those people are evil, this guy is just stupid.

j.p.

[Exatreides]

Actually I automatically assumed he was a white male in his mid 30's.

[JDFP]

Actually I automatically assumed he was a white male in his mid 30's.

Probably. I was being a smart ass with that comment... just making a lib at Lou's comment of "miracle he wasn't shot."

j.p.

[SymphonicX]

its more than dumb by the sounds of it, it could be interpretted as threatening behaviour - which surley would make it illegal.

Anyway who wants to go around with an AK anyway? What benefit other than "looking cool" did this guy get from this? what a prick

[Tricky]

We done got ourselves a prime suspect!

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/white-trash-redneck-white-trash-gun-trailer-demotivational-poster-1217614619.jpg

[slickwilly13]

This is what pisses me off. When the black panthers have one of their rallies in Huntsville, Tx, usually when a guilty black man is going to be executed, they openly carry assault rifles. If I did that with my white friends not only would the police draw guns on us, we would be arrested on site. It is a fucking double standard that pisses me off.

[Danny]

Actually I automatically assumed he was a white male in his mid 30's.

ditto, if its an american gun related story odds are high, especially in people below the age of 25, our first instinct is "white man". Especially if its a larger firearm.

theres an overcompensating penis joke there, but im just gonna put the punchline on the shelf for lou to have at it.

[LouCipherr]

theres an overcompensating penis joke there, but im just gonna put the punchline on the shelf for lou to have at it.

:shifty:

I ain't sayin' nothin'... :lol:

[Danny]

:shifty:

I ain't sayin' nothin'... :lol:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/Paul_Starr_148_o.jpg

well dats cus' we iz roighy't clissy gents so we is sir.

[Eyebiter]

About ten years ago a few businesses and local governments began installing "no firearms allowed" signs here in the United States. It wasn't legal, just an arbitrary decision in certain cities to restrict the use of public space. As a reaction the open carry movement was developed.

These individuals now will go into public spaces like libraries, parks, and stores openly carrying weapons. The idea is to have someone call the police and confront them, so they can subsequently go to court to have a judge reaffirm their right to keep and bear arms. While some view open carry advocates as annoying distractions who needlessly scare the public, others see this as a method to maintain the Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Usually some form of accommodation is reached. For example if you don't want to allow someone to carry a handgun inside your location, provide a safe place for them to store it under lock and key while inside the building.

While you can respect their dedication to protecting freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with that said sometimes those guys are really a pain to deal with. But it's also part of the price we pay to live in a republic.

[Neil]

I wish the UK people had a right to Bear arms:

http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.com/772000/772056_d6ca_625x1000.jpg

:(
Why? When have you even thought it might be advantageous?

Now balance that argument against every numpty, psycho, druggy, criminal, chav and suicidal school kid having far easier access to guns... Imagine what that would mean to the poor police, yet alone us civilians!

[Danny]

About ten years ago a few businesses and local governments began installing "no firearms allowed" signs here in the United States. It wasn't legal, just an arbitrary decision in certain cities to restrict the use of public space. As a reaction the open carry movement was developed.

These individuals now will go into public spaces like libraries, parks, and stores openly carrying weapons. The idea is to have someone call the police and confront them, so they can subsequently go to court to have a judge reaffirm their right to keep and bear arms. While some view open carry advocates as annoying distractions who needlessly scare the public, others see this as a method to maintain the Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Usually some form of accommodation is reached. For example if you don't want to allow someone to carry a handgun inside your location, provide a safe place for them to store it under lock and key while inside the building.

While you can respect their dedication to protecting freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with that said sometimes those guys are really a pain to deal with. But it's also part of the price we pay to live in a republic.

i think thats flawed thinking, if your in there house its there rules so to speak, murder is still illegal, bearing arms aint but its there place so you need to abide by what they want. there nothing wrong with taking your shirt off, but you dont because its not your home. having a no guns sign is the same as no smoking or suits only no jeans or something. Its no infringement of rights if its a store policy or local councils decisions for simple safety or just what they think is socially appropriate for the location.

[brer]

What is a right? If it cannot be used because of the fear of government action, it is no longer a right, and the excercise of other rights may then be restricted.

Depending on the state, local laws concerning firearms are preempted by the state. A local council has no rights to restrict carry of a weapon on public property if it is legal elsewhere. It is not their house, it is your house also. The council did not buy or fund the public area by itself. It used public funds to do so. There are restrictions on carrying in a public building, while I consider it unconstitutional, the government does not under the strict scrutiny concept.

A privately owned facility can restrict the right to carry in most places provided they provide signs. Even then, the most that can be asked is that the person carrying a weapon leave.

There have been quite a few incidents where open carry of a long arm has attracted police attention. The usual result from LEO is to arrest the person for disturbing the peace if he has broken no laws. The end result is that the case is usually thrown out due to the law the person is charged with is excessively broad and it subjects the local law enforcement to a really nice lawsuit for civil rights violation.

Local councils do not reign supreme. They are not gods. If in the interests of public safety, they decided to quarter some of their law enforcement people in your home, would that be OK? Or If they decided to restrict members of the religion of peace from malls?

The second amendment is a very dangerous sentence. It was meant to be. Then again, freedom itself is dangerous. You cannot have both freedom and absolute safety. Given that choice, our founding fathers chose freedom.

[JDFP]

i think thats flawed thinking, if your in there house its there rules so to speak, murder is still illegal, bearing arms aint but its there place so you need to abide by what they want. there nothing wrong with taking your shirt off, but you dont because its not your home. having a no guns sign is the same as no smoking or suits only no jeans or something. Its no infringement of rights if its a store policy or local councils decisions for simple safety or just what they think is socially appropriate for the location.

That's a slippery slope though. Being in someone's residence is one thing -- being in a public place (even if a privately held public place like a restaurant or a barber's shop) is something different though. People are constitutionally protected for bearing of firearms. Likewise, people are constitutionally protected for equal rights as well. A restaurant can't decide on whim: "Yeah, we're just not going to serve Atheists here" because that would be unconstitutional as opposed to someone saying: "I'm not serving Atheists to dinner in my house" which is a completely different matter. Likewise, it's one thing to not want someone to have a gun in your private residence which is perfectly understandable and shouldn't be done -- but there's a difference between this and someone being allowed to have their gun in a restaurant.

As far as social appropriateness -- that's a thin line between acceptable and unconstitutional as well. Where's the line between "No one without a jacket on in the restaurant" (social custom) as opposed to "NO one with German blood in my restaurant" (social discrimination).

As far as smoking in a bar/restaurant -- thankfully in the state of TN you can still smoke cigarettes in bars as long as they don't serve anyone under 21. And good too -- because it's bullshit for me to not be able to enjoy a cigarette in the company of my bar. I could see an argument for restaurants/etc around kids -- but fuck you all if you want to take away my ability to have a cigarette with my beer -- if you have a problem with it stay in your "Non-Smoking Section" which has worked fine the last 250+ years or don't come into a damn bar.

j.p.

[Andy]

Im confused as to what the actual news story is about, isnt it mandatory that you have a gun on you at all times in america?

[JDFP]

Im confused as to what the actual news story is about, isnt it mandatory that you have a gun on you at all times in america?

Only in the state of Texas, Andy. Just Texas. :D:p

j.p.

[LouCipherr]

While you can respect their dedication to protecting freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with that said sometimes those guys are really a pain to deal with. But it's also part of the price we pay to live in a republic.

Well, well.. I've come across someone who actually agrees with somethinig I've been saying for over a decade - we do NOT live in a "democracy" in the United States. This is a Republic, plain and simple. Good call, eyebiter.



What is a right? If it cannot be used because of the fear of government action, it is no longer a right, and the excercise of other rights may then be restricted.

This.


Only in the state of Texas, Andy. Just Texas. :D:p

...and this. :lol: :lol:

[slickwilly13]

Only in the state of Texas, Andy. Just Texas. :D:p

j.p.

Damn fucking straight.

[Mr. Clean]

Only in the state of Texas, Andy. Just Texas. :D:p

j.p.

and they'll arrest Willie Nelson for pot. *Shakes his head*

[Danny]

and they'll arrest Willie Nelson for pot. *Shakes his head*

actually i would think tis for the taco bell ads.

[Publius]

About ten years ago a few businesses and local governments began installing "no firearms allowed" signs here in the United States. It wasn't legal, just an arbitrary decision in certain cities to restrict the use of public space. As a reaction the open carry movement was developed.

I think open carry is more commonly a reaction to concealed carry laws that are considered too restrictive by those who practice open carry. I rarely see open carry supporters argue that private property owners should not be able to control their own property. So as far as businesses go, they can set whatever restrictions they want. The debate is more over the restrictions set by state and local governments.

[brer]

Publius is right

If a store or private business is posted "No firearms", people licensed to carry a firearm will not go in there. They will not give the business their commerce. They will tell their friends not to shop there, and they will make sure their friend's friends do not shop there.

Their store, their rules. If a business owner feels that way, he does not need my money. I will instead shop with his nearest competitor.

Overwhelmingly people licensed to carry are a peaceable lot. They have to be in order to get the license.

Most people would be surprised to find that it is perfectly legal to walk around with an unloaded firearm in many, if not most states.

What most of the carry advocates fight over and win an amazing amount of the time is a local government arbitrarily making new gun laws or making certain areas off limits to firearms. Unless the local government is backed by state law, it is usually illegal for them to do so. It's called state preemption.

The open carry movement is also involved and they get their fair share of flack in their fight. After all, what use is a right if you cannot use it?

[Danny]

What most of the carry advocates fight over and win an amazing amount of the time is a local government arbitrarily making new gun laws or making certain areas off limits to firearms. Unless the local government is backed by state law, it is usually illegal for them to do so. It's called state preemption.

The open carry movement is also involved and they get their fair share of flack in their fight. After all, what use is a right if you cannot use it?


What if its a pre school or something? I mean i get americans have a love of firearms that borders on fetishism, its part of your individualistic nature, but its not the western frontier anymore its not even a thing about the gun owner really just the idea that 'accidents can happen' and there are certain locations a weapon should not be even unarmed, because like the guy in the original news story he knew the gun was unloaded- the stupid thing was assuming everyone else would know or at least assume that. He could have caused a panic, someone else with a loaded gun could have decided it was his time to 'be the hero', theres any number of things that occurred because the guy was doing something stupid.

I mean be honest, you see a guy with a large gun and hes not in hunting gear but street clothes what is your first instinct on that guy?, his mindset and why hes walking down mainstreet with a handcannon y'know?

[blind2d]

That's why we need to make more "Gun Unloaded: Don't Worry About It" signs. For people like this, you know.

[brer]

What if its a pre school or something?

Do you know how many people walk close to a school lawfully carrying concealed already? Something like 1% of the adult population in my area has the license. The only difference is that a long arm is visible.


He could have caused a panic, someone else with a loaded gun could have decided it was his time to 'be the hero', theres any number of things that occurred because the guy was doing something stupid.

If someone decides to be a hero and use his own carry weapon, odds are he has gone through a ccw course and knows what is legal carry and what is not. We do have a death chamber for those that shoot people unlawfully. That tends to cut down on a lot of the wild west stuff.


I mean i get americans have a love of firearms that borders on fetishism, its part of your individualistic nature, but its not the western frontier anymore its not even a thing about the gun owner really just the idea that 'accidents can happen' and there are certain locations a weapon should not be even unarmed, because like the guy in the original news story he knew the gun was unloaded- the stupid thing was assuming everyone else would know or at least assume that.

If it were not for the ownership of private firearms in the U.S. in all likelihood we would still be British. Right from our inception we had a healthy suspicion of government and when considering that well over a 100 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century, it is not really fetishism.

I can remember a story from the early 1900's about some well armed anarchists that set a bomb off in London. The police were unarmed except for billy clubs so they had to borrow firearms from passerbys to stop them. It's not that we are the ones holding onto our guns. It's more on the order that much of the world has allowed themselves to be disarmed by their governments.

Speaking of the guy in the article, if it was legal to open carry a long arm, the guy carrying is not the one with the problem. The police dispatcher should reasonably have known enough about the law to decide if the man carrying was breaking it before officers were dispatched. One of the goals of the open carry movement is to train police officers, much like training a puppy not to go bathroom inside, to know the law. If the guy is not breaking the law, being repeatedly detained and questioned by law enforcement becomes harassment and can be settled with a lawsuit against the city or state for damages.

If I see a man carrying a long arm on the street, I am not going to get too worried unless he is carrying it either ready for use or obviously has a magazine inserted.