• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Please critique behavior of open carrier stop by police VIDEO

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

The board of commisioners meeting was scheduled for yesterday, but there wasn't a quorum. So, the meeting will be held on Feb 24, 2010. The legislation to ammend 11-602 is as follows:

bellemeadeordinance2010-2page1.jpg


bellemeadeordinance2010-2page2.jpg




As you can see they went the method of a complete ban. This is what the City of Brentwood TN, where my address is located, did March 22, 1993.

According to a TN supreme court ruling in glasscock v chattanooga in 1928 a city ordinance which completely bans handguns isunconstitutional.

Not only that, but TCA 39-17-1314(a) the preemption law will take effect because the law wasn't in effect bfore April 8, 1986.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

I'm not denying you're right on this, but could preemption be preempted (sorry) by the fact that the law itself is older than 1986, even though it is amended?
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

I don't think so because the law will have changed significantly and the terms of the amended ordinance were not in effect before April 8, 1986.

TCA 39-17-1314(a)

[align=justify]"Except as provided in § 39-17-1311(d), which allows counties and municipalities to prohibit the possession of handguns while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof, no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof; provided, that this section shall be prospective only and shall not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution lawfully enacted before April 8, 1986."[/align]
[align=justify][/align]
[align=justify]On top of that the new law is unconstitutional according to the 2nd amendment of the USA and the TN constitution, see glasscock v chattanoga 1928.[/align]
[align=justify][/align]
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
I'm just curious, kwikrnu, and you know I have supported you from the beginning. Once this new, obviously unenforceable and illegal ordinance takes effect, are you planning on open carrying in compliance with TN state law and the Constitution of TN to bring this new ordinance to court?
I'm going to wait until the radnor lake lawsuit and the belle meade lawsuits are over before I get arrested over this.
 

Blackburn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
43
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Rugerp345 wrote:
...help to paint OCers in a negative light.

I didn't have to do that. Kwik did it for you. http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/83486052.html?storySection=comments

I can see this forum really leans towards the extreme and radical, not just normal, regular, open carrying. Judging from all the responses on the news station website about the article, I am not alone in this belief.

If "open Carrying" is all about carrying assault rifles to the park and packing your assault rifle to a family restaurant on their busiest day, or seeing just how radical you can be without getting arrested, then I guess I had better go to the Brady campaign website and join up.



.
For a fellow gun-owner you certainly seem to use both hysterical anti-gunner rhetoric and buzzwords quite frequently.

Makes me wonder who might be the sleeper troll...
 

Blackburn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
43
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
I'm just curious, kwikrnu, and you know I have supported you from the beginning. Once this new, obviously unenforceable and illegal ordinance takes effect, are you planning on open carrying in compliance with TN state law and the Constitution of TN to bring this new ordinance to court?
I'm going to wait until the radnor lake lawsuit and the belle meade lawsuits are over before I get arrested over this.
I want a new sportbike anyway and feel like playing lawsuit lotto.

Might head over there at some point.
 

Dontchaknow?

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I didn't want this thread to be a discussion about the means of carry. I just wanted to get a critique of how the detainment was handled.

Yes, the ONLY legal manner to carry in that City is to carry an army or navy pistol openly in the hand. The section regarding weapons was last updated in 1987. So, about 23 years ago the City, and the residents choose to allow carry in that manner.

If anyone wants to comment aboutthe legalitylook up the thread in the Tennessee section.
I'll comment on how the detainment was handled.

If you hadn't gone looking to be detained, it wouldn't have been an issue. While you may technically within the law, and you apparently have read it, so kudos for that, what you did is purely retarded. You do more to harm the cause of lawful gun owners than Brady, VPC, and FSA combined. This may seem like an overstatement, but consider this: Those three organization use lies, distorted statistics, and irrational fears to attempt to get their point across. Your dumb ass uses stupidity and got it on video for them to use against us. They won't have to lie, they'll just refer to the video.

So congratulations on your crusade against gun rights. When mine is taken away, I'll be sure to thank you.

Damn mental midget.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
imported post

Festus_Hagen wrote:
Wow. Just ... wow. :?:?:?

No wonder some people are scared of guns. Now I realize why. They don't want nuts having them, I get it, and I have to agree.

I don't understand your post.

Can you elaborate?
 

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
imported post

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
Festus_Hagen wrote:
Wow. Just ... wow. :?:?:?

No wonder some people are scared of guns. Now I realize why. They don't want nuts having them, I get it, and I have to agree.

I don't understand your post.

Can you elaborate?

Not really. If you don't get it, I can't make you understand. Plus it's already been covered in the thread ....
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:
...and got it on video for them to use against us.
Use WHAT against us? How to obey the law?

He never discharged the gunpointed it at anything other than the ground.

He did not fight the police, just expressed his disapproval at being detained.

And why did they let him go. Because he DID NOTHING WRONG.

If he did it in a way YOU don't like, too bad.
 

Dontchaknow?

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
Dontchaknow? wrote:
...and got it on video for them to use against us.
Use WHAT against us? How to obey the law?

He never discharged the gunpointed it at anything other than the ground.

He did not fight the police, just expressed his disapproval at being detained.

And why did they let him go. Because he DID NOTHING WRONG.

If he did it in a way YOU don't like, too bad.
Yep. That's too bad. He's an attention seeking moron who does things, which as you pointed out, and I already agreed with, are technically within the law, but which he knows is going to result in confrontation.

I'm an advocate of open carry, concealed carry, however the hell you wanna carry. But you and he are ignoring the reality of the sensitive and fragile political climate in which we live. And in that climate these types of actions are not seen as "legal" or "illegal" by politicians who make laws that affect ALL OF US! This type of action is seen as a gun owner looking for trouble. It does absolutely nothing to help our cause.

In fact, it does quite the opposite. As pointed out, Belle Meade is now considering a law to make it illegal to carry openly in the hand. Strike one against gun owners. Next, slowrnu will probably carry 2 .44 magnums on his hips like some cowboy feeling a need to overcompensate, along with 2 more crossed in shoulder holsters and get open carry banned, period.

What folks like him fail to realize is that not everything that is legal is wise. And just because you are within your rights, doesn't mean you win. At least not in the long run. He's not only going to lose both of his lawsuits (I'll bet anyone on here anything you're willing to put up) but he's going to lend credence to anti-gun politicians' arguments about us all being a bunch of crazy hillbillies.

Thanks for nothin', douchebag.
 

EricTheMidget

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

If I were you, I'd do some digging into the Griffith Complaint. It seems to me there's something fishy about that call, in my opinion.

During the third video (0:46), the female officer makes a comment in regards to someone having 365 daysto prosecute you for carrying the weapon, if they felt threatened by your actions. Next thing you know, someone (Meredith Griffith) is calling the Belle Meade Police Department, makingthat exact claim mentioned by the female officer.

Because the call by Meredith Griffithwas made well after the confrontation with the LEO's, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this call was staged/encouraged.

The confrontation lasted several minutes, andenough time had passed for Corporal Bowens (sp) to finish the call and return to the police station. Why would someone who claims to have felt threatened by a man with a gun wait such an extended period of timebefore calling authorities?

I wouldn't worry about it too much, unless they arrest and charge with a crime, simply because Meredith Griffith felt theatened by your actions, that appear to be perfectly legal.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:
Yep. That's too bad. He's an attention seeking moron who does things, which as you pointed out, and I already agreed with, are technically within the law, but which he knows is going to result in confrontation.
Like every Open Carrier here, that abides by the law to the letter (California UOC anyone?) knows that it will cause them to be harassed, therefore they meet in numbers.

kwik does it by himself, and he is a "poopyhead".

Amirite?

"Attention seeking" my ass. If somebody is following the law, then it is completely on LEO or LEA as to how they respond.

Dontchaknow? wrote:
I'm an advocate of open carry, concealed carry, however the hell you wanna carry. But you and he are ignoring the reality of the sensitive and fragile political climate in which we live. And in that climate these types of actions are not seen as "legal" or "illegal" by politicians who make laws that affect ALL OF US! This type of action is seen as a gun owner looking for trouble. It does absolutely nothing to help our cause.
No you aren't. IF you were an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, you would realize what "in the end" it entails.

This type of action is a gun owner "looking for trouble" eh? I wonder if that's what all the African-Americans thought on Rosa Parks bus.

"Hey b*#$@ get to the back and shut up, you are stirring up a hornets nest by being a human being!". Right?

I got news for ya pal. Open Carry is considered to be "Gun owners looking for trouble". Concealed Carry is "gun owners looking for trouble". Just having an AR15 is "Gun Owners looking for trouble".

You don't need to help the antis out, because simply farting the word gun makes them piss their pants. Therefore, carry legally, and that's all anybody has a right to ask.

If your meeting of the "Neighborhood Geriatric and Liberal Foundation" has a problem with me carrying, frankly they can kiss my posterior. I will defend my family as I see fit.

Take your "social acceptable" and firmly place it where the sun doesn't shine! I do not carry, and I do not possess firearms to make YOU or anybody else feel comfortable. I carry because it's my RIGHT, and because MY FAMILY deserves protection.

If you're really concerned about what other people think, then STOP carrying, sell off your firearms, and join the Brady Campaign, as you have already offered. If you can't do this, then simply shut up about kwiks actions, because you are no "better".

Dontchaknow? wrote:
In fact, it does quite the opposite. As pointed out, Belle Meade is now considering a law to make it illegal to carry openly in the hand. Strike one against gun owners. Next, slowrnu will probably carry 2 .44 magnums on his hips like some cowboy feeling a need to overcompensate, along with 2 more crossed in shoulder holsters and get open carry banned, period.
Oh really.

So...

Carrying the only legal way, in a city that is very specific, is something you don't support, even though you claim to be an advocate for Open Carry? Getting rid of a specific law so that the city falls back on state law is "bad"?

You aren't thinking this through now, are you.

and...
OH NO NOT ONE, BUT TWO, TWWWOOO .44 MAGNUMS? Oh Dear Me!

You mean like the guy from Oregon City who had two revolvers on his hips and was harassed by law enforcement? You mean that like that guy, who was doing NOTHING WRONG, and got placed on the ground and had a AR15 pointed at him?

That's ok though because possessing two firearms is "shocking" right?

You sure you don't work for the Bradies?

Dontchaknow? wrote:
What folks like him fail to realize is that not everything that is legal is wise. And just because you are within your rights, doesn't mean you win. At least not in the long run. He's not only going to lose both of his lawsuits (I'll bet anyone on here anything you're willing to put up) but he's going to lend credence to anti-gun politicians' arguments about us all being a bunch of crazy hillbillies.

I get it:

"Despite being legal, and overall *right*, it is best to yield or give up your rights when it is not deemed socially acceptable"

Right?

Then take your firearm off your hip.
Put your concealed carry firearm away.
Take your guns and turn them in to the nearest law enforcement agency.

When you have done all this, then you can still not infringe on kwiks rights, because you think it may scare sheeple.

Sound good? Bellissimo!

You have a lot of critical thinking that you (and some others) need to apply to their lives before bashing other law abiding citizens.

Didn't you offer to go join the Brady bunch? What's holdin ya back?
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

There's some troll feeding going on here, I suggest we just let them lumber about until they get bored and look elsewhere for something to snack on.
 

Dontchaknow?

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post


Whooooooaaaaa. Easy there, Gun Powder. Settle down just a bit. And before you tell me to think, do a little bit yourself.

"Like every Open Carrier here, that abides by the law to the letter (California UOC anyone?) knows that it will cause them to be harassed, therefore they meet in numbers.

kwik does it by himself, and he is a "poopyhead"."

No, he's a poopyhead because he's going to make it harder to pass pro-gun legislation in this state. They're already using him as an example all over the state. You can open carry and make a positive statement like the folks in California at Starbucks, etc. or you can specifically go out trying to get a rise out of people.

"No you aren't. IF you were an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, you would realize what "in the end" it entails."

First, just because you said I'm not an advocate of open or concealed carry, doesn't make it so. I carry every single day. Everywhere it's legal. You don't know that because you don't know me. So, you're wrong. Sorry 'bout that.

I know exactly what it entails. But since you seem to know something I don't, I'm all ears. Please enlighten me on what I'm missing.

And slow IS an attention seeking asshat. Everyone in this area knows it. He was not simply exercising his rights, which I support, he was doing it knowing full well that it would end up in a confrontation. I support his right to do so, and the officers were wrong. But that doesn't mean he isn't an attention seeker. It doesn't mean he wasn't doing it with the intent to rub in the noses of LEO's his knowledge of the letter of the law. But being right on all counts doesn't mean you aren't looking for trouble.

And being right while you're being an asshat is not good for public opinion. Just because you're right, doesn't mean someone won't use it as ammunition to take that right away. That's my only concern, and it's the primary concern of the pro-gun community in the state of Tennessee. He's not helping us.

"This type of action is a gun owner "looking for trouble" eh? I wonder if that's what all the African-Americans thought on Rosa Parks bus.

"Hey b*#$@ get to the back and shut up, you are stirring up a hornets nest by being a human being!". Right?"

Wow. So now Lenny is the next Rosa Parks? Well at least you're not overstating it.

"Take your "social acceptable" and firmly place it where the sun doesn't shine!"

You're just full of folksy wisdom, aren't you? Does the term "e-thug" mean anything to you?

e-thug2.jpg


I didn't say anything about carrying being socially unacceptable and I stand by all my former statements. Don't try and put words in my mouth.

"OH NO NOT ONE, BUT TWO, TWWWOOO .44 MAGNUMS? Oh Dear Me!

You mean like the guy from Oregon City who had two revolvers on his hips and was harassed by law enforcement? You mean that like that guy, who was doing NOTHING WRONG, and got placed on the ground and had a AR15 pointed at him?"

No. Nothing like that. That guy wasn't going out with the express intent of rubbing in the noses of LEO's and the public his rights. He was simply chilling. In that example, and Lenny's, the LEO's were wrong. But the sad fact is, both sides can be wrong.

"Despite being legal, and overall *right*, it is best to yield or give up your rights when it is not deemed socially acceptable"

Right?

Then take your firearm off your hip.
Put your concealed carry firearm away.
Take your guns and turn them in to the nearest law enforcement agency.

When you have done all this, then you can still not infringe on kwiks rights, because you think it may scare sheeple.

Sound good? Bellissimo!

You have a lot of critical thinking that you (and some others) need to apply to their lives before bashing other law abiding citizens.

Didn't you offer to go join the Brady bunch? What's holdin ya back?"

Brilliant rebuttal. I see that argument and raise you an "I'm rubber you're glue." Top that!

And while you're at it, show me one time where I suggested he should give up his rights. Or that anyone should. Just one. Come on, you can do it, right?

The fact is, there is more at stake than one man's rights. And he is messing with mine, and I take offense at that. I really don't care who's scared and who's not. I carry regardless of whether somebody is scared. But I don't paint the tip of my AK orange so I can pretend it's a toy and take a stroll through the park and then act surprised, shocked, and offended when somebody freaks out. I know it's gonna happen. He knew it was gonna happen. You know it's gonna happen. It's like jumping off a 10 story building then acting surprised that there's a sudden stop at the bottom.

There's a not-so-fine line between being an advocate, and being a zealot. You and Lenny have both crossed that line, and I am trying to encourage you both to come back over. Or you can stay over there and counter arguments by telling my to shove something up my ass. Or maybe you'll step up your game a notch and make a penis reference, which is always a slam dunk, game-winning shot.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Interesting thread and circumstances, and yes, I did read the entire thread, watch the videos, etc. and have a couple of thoughts.

1) I think it would have been much wiser and more beneficial to "the cause" to have started this more softly as others suggested. Bringing the archaic ordinance to the notice of town officials would have been a better place to start. No reason to use a .44 mag when a flyswatter may be sufficient. If no action was forthcoming then escalating to a pointed display of the absurdity of the law may have been warranted.

2) Since kwik decided to start at the escalation, I give him credit for having the brass ones to actually do it and in his preparedness to know the ordinance and statutes chapter and verse.

As to the "confrontation" itself, in a "give 'em hell and stand up for your rights" sense, kwik did great. In a, "hey, I'm making a point about this stupid law and trying to get people on my side and the side of the 2A and OC movement" sense it was, to a great extent, a fail.

While there are some aspects of the cops reactions that can be criticized, especially the female LEO's obvious desire to find any reason to write a ticket and her obvious willingness to inconsistently enforce the law, overall they weren't too bad and not nearly as "jerky" as I expected having read many of the comments before watching the videos (although that whole Terry stop thing without RAS may rightfully burn their butts).

This could have been a more productive interaction I think (at least with the 2 male cops) if kwik's attitude had been a little different. Everything about kwik during the episode from tone, inflection, timber of voice to body language said "confrontation". Not aggressive physical confrontation but nervous, controlled, standing up to a bully sort of confrontation, only the cops didn't see themselves as bullies so didn't see that context. They saw someone doing something dangerous and stupid to troll for a lawsuit.

I think it would have been more productive if the thing had gone something more like,

Officer: "Why are you carrying that gun in your hand?"
Kwik: (Instead of saying "self-defense" and using a calm, sympathetic tone) Because the silly city ordinance [cite] says that is the only way I can carry legally. I don't like it any more than you do. I would rather be open carrying a modern semi-auto in a retention holster on my hip and not wasting your time and mine over some MWAG call over nothing but hey, we didn't write the law, right?
 

Blackburn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
43
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Are you even from Tennessee?

You have some awfully caustic words. I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to put your actual name to them, though.

And, since you won't do that, that relegates you to the status of "anonymous mud thrower, hiding behind his computer out of cowardice."

Go away, coward. :)
 

Dontchaknow?

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

Blackburn wrote:
Are you even from Tennessee?

You have some awfully caustic words. I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to put your actual name to them, though.

And, since you won't do that, that relegates you to the status of "anonymous mud thrower, hiding behind his computer out of cowardice."

Go away, coward. :)
Yawn! I notice your name isn't on your remark, so I'll take it for what it's worth. Oh, and see my previous comment about the term "e-thug."
 

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
1) I think it would have been much wiser and more beneficial to "the cause" to have started this more softly as others suggested.  Bringing the archaic ordinance to the notice of town officials would have been a better place to start. 

Agree 100%.

deepdiver wrote:
2)As to the "confrontation" itself, in a "give 'em hell and stand up for your rights" sense, kwik did great.  In a, "hey, I'm making a point about this stupid law and trying to get people on my side and the side of the 2A and OC movement" sense it was, to a great extent, a fail.

Again, agreed.

deepdiver wrote:
The cops reactions.... overall they weren't too bad and not nearly as "jerky" as I expected
Yep.

deepdiver wrote:
This could have been a more productive interaction I think (at least with the 2 male cops) if kwik's attitude had been a little different.  Everything about kwik during the episode from tone, inflection, timber of voice to body language said "confrontation".  Not aggressive physical confrontation but nervous, controlled, standing up to a bully sort of confrontation, only the cops didn't see themselves as bullies so didn't see that context.  They saw someone doing something dangerous and stupid to troll for a lawsuit.

Again. spot on.
deepdiver wrote:
I think it would have been more productive if the thing had gone something more like,

Officer: "Why are you carrying that gun in your hand?"
Kwik: (Instead of saying "self-defense" and using a calm, sympathetic tone) Because the silly city ordinance [cite] says that is the only way I can carry legally.  I don't like it any more than you do.  I would rather be open carrying a modern semi-auto in a retention holster on my hip and not wasting your time and mine over some MWAG call over nothing but hey, we didn't write the law, right?

That's waht I'm talkin about too.

If people can't understand that a man walking down the street with a pistol in his hand isn't "threatening" , then I can't make them believe it. Nobody can.

Bottom line is it makes gun owners look bad to do this crap. Stage a protest. Take it to the city council. Write a letter to the editor. Don't walk down the street with a gun in your hand, your asking to be shot.
 
Top