Long gun Carry

[bohman]

And your point is?

Some posters recommended not demonstrating in this fashion because it would point out to anti-gun legislators another right to take away. My point is that if you can't exercise the right for fear of losing it, it's already gone.

You won't see me slinging a rifle over my back and taking a stroll, partly because I don't think it would produce positive results, and partly because I don't need to lose my clearance over weapons-related charges. Just pointing out that the right in question is already gone.

 

[Norton]

most of the argument stems from a SINGLE person doing this. A single person is vulnerable to prosecution even while following the law. A "demonstration" or group of people is a different story, especially if you inform local LEO what is going to occur. The risk of being detained as a group (20+) is unlikely. A single person can be used as an example by politicians....

As a group, it would be a blatant violation of the law as already cited above.

 

[Norton]

Here's the point folks, shit or get off the pot.

This academic rountable of people endlessly championing this course of action while simultaneously ignoring every caution being pointed out by other is tiresome at this point.

Either do it, or don't do it, but let's stop this endless circular discussion.

 

[jpo183]

As a group, it would be a blatant violation of the law as already cited above.

I thought someone already posted / checked that "a trash pick up day" is not a demonstration?

 

[jpo183]

Here's the point folks, shit or get off the pot.

This academic rountable of people endlessly championing this course of action while simultaneously ignoring every caution being pointed out by other is tiresome at this point.

Either do it, or don't do it, but let's stop this endless circular discussion.

Disagree it is not as simple as shit or get off the pot. Its trying to figure out where to poop. Poop in the wrong place and your in a cell. Most people will NOT (including myself) do this by themselves, because whether it is legal or not, you will most likely be thrown in jail.

 

[Norton]

I thought someone already posted / checked that "a trash pick up day" is not a demonstration?

Do you feel confident enough to tell that to a jury?

If so, please go out later this afternoon and proceed.

 

[Norton]

Disagree it is not as simple as shit or get off the pot. Its trying to figure out where to poop. Poop in the wrong place and your in a cell. Most people will NOT (including myself) do this by themselves, because whether it is legal or not, you will most likely be thrown in jail.

Sure it is. Repeatedly, it's been explained that the "buts" in the AG opinion all but nullify any meaningful action as far as open carrying a long gun as making statement.

Regardless, numerous people insist that it's perfectly legal and start trotting out the "battered gun owners" meme against those that advocate caution in interpreting this opinion. Meanwhile, these same people aren't moving forward on it either but don't find talking a good game.

Been listenting to this back and forth for years now. I'll say it again....either do it or be quiet about it and stop brow beating those that are trying to say that this is a losing strategy.

 

[Merlin]

Sure it is. Repeatedly, it's been explained that the "buts" in the AG opinion all but nullify any meaningful action as far as open carrying a long gun as making statement.

Regardless, numerous people insist that it's perfectly legal and start trotting out the "battered gun owners" meme against those that advocate caution in interpreting this opinion. Meanwhile, these same people aren't moving forward on it either but don't find talking a good game.

Been listenting to this back and forth for years now. I'll say it again....either do it or be quiet about it and stop brow beating those that are trying to say that this is a losing strategy.

I'm with you 100% Norton. I think this does not help our 2A fight one little bit. If anything it shows how ridicules we can be.

 

[Elliotte]

They have a simple out....

Pass a law banning this,

On the one hand, if the state goes and bans long-gun open carry that might actually be helpful to those of us that want concealed carry. In past court cases states that banned open and concealed carry were effectively told by the courts "pick one" open carry or concealed carry. In his Woollard arguments the AG keeps putting out this claim that there is legal long-gun open carry in MD, so therefore the general public has the opportunity to carry firearms for their defense and there is no need to move away from G&S on handgun permits. If MD passed a long-gun open carry ban that might help things on the G&S and concealed front.

But it is never good tactics to advocate getting one right banned (however limited it may be) in the hopes of reducing the restrictions on a different right.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

I am ready.
Trying to figure the correct time for this to be done.

We have April 8th end of the GA session
April 15th SCOTUS stuff.

Its just a question of the date to do it.
Before, after?
between the two?

 

[Merlin]

I am ready.
Trying to figure the correct time for this to be done.

We have April 8th end of the GA session
April 15th SCOTUS stuff.

Its just a question of the date to do it.
Before, after?
between the two?

Question:

When done, do you think your end result will be bringing good press or bad press to all pro 2A supporters?

Do you think your partisapation in this display will be helpful for our 2A fight or harmful?

 

[Merlin]

In his Woollard arguments the AG keeps putting out this claim that there is legal long-gun open carry in MD, so therefore the general public has the opportunity to carry firearms for their defense and there is no need to move away from G&S on handgun permits.

The SA just put this out their for this 3 judge panel at the 4th to hide behind. All three of thous judges know people of Maryland can't walk down the street without getting stopped by LEO's

 

[GTOGUNNER]

The SA just put this out their for this 3 judge panel at the 4th to hide behind. All three of thous judges know people of Maryland can't walk down the street without getting stopped by LEO's

There is absolutely no reason to be stopped. Any stop would be a violation of rights and subject to a lawsuit.
However I do expect to be stopped. It will be unlawful and I will file suit. Maryland has plenty of money with all the fee and tax increases they have approved.

A law enforcement officer would have ZERO probable cause to initiate a stop.
Forgiving that the 7-11 just got robbed by a long gun toting individual.

Won't be today,, heading to Annapolis!

 

[swinokur]

They can make up a reason if they want to initiate a non consenual encounter.

 

[Inigoes]

Did this thread start because of my thread in the Water Cooler?

No, because Gansler said it was okay in the Woollard case.

 

[jimbobborg]

No, because Gansler said it was okay in the Woollard case.

My bad, misread the start date. It will be interesting how the reaction differences would be between where I did it and Maryland.

 

[fidelity]

I am ready.
Trying to figure the correct time for this to be done.

We have April 8th end of the GA session
April 15th SCOTUS stuff.

Its just a question of the date to do it.
Before, after?
between the two?

This is the important point (although there may be later court dates to also consider). As you are implying, there are short, mid, and even long term games to consider.

Short term -

We need to hold the line and push back where possible on the current MD legislation (and thank you for making the trip to Annapolis today). I don’t think that open carry long gun stories that make the news at this point will sway the political argument, and may only embolden those against us.

We have very little political leverage and antis in control of the House, Senate, and Governor's office. Laws that have passed (or are soon to) in NY, Colorado, and Connecticut are odious. We have a stink bomb emerging in Maryland. Points where the legislature seems sensitive include preserving rights of veterans (not that they have forcefully acted to ensure these as then they make concessions to all) and forcing individuals to get fingerprinted and licensed. I don't think that any opposition in the House or Senate can get rid of the licensing aspect of the bill (and if it remains, it is a fat target for the fight in the courts) as O'Malley wants to show his resolve in matching/exceeding what other states are doing to infringe on 2A rights, but the fingerprinting makes a lot of legislators uncomfortable. It's a great topic to bring up in conversation with their staffers and ask why are they forcing you (assuming that you have a clean, law abiding record) to be fingerprinted.

Another aspect of the bill that we might have leverage on, because of recent news reports and the shameful actions of House committees before Easter weekend, is putting more teeth in criminal restrictions in the so-called safety act. Otherwise, this is a great tactic to keep hitting them on as it exposes them for the hypocrites they are.

Mid term -

Here's where there might be leverage created by open long gun carry. If new anti-2A legislation is passed in Maryland, our battles, on different fronts, are really in the courts. It's possible that active restriction of person's attempting to exert their long gun carry rights (in a respectful, law abiding manner) in the state while enhance our arguments in the courts. It also would go toward showing the hypocrisy in the Maryland AG's contention. Does it need to be as carefully planned and coordinated as the Rosa Parks incident (such that we select the individual and time, place, circumstance, such that we know a visible arrest of a sympathetic figure will occur), or is it something that initially should proceed organically? Don't know.

Long term -

Changes hearts and minds, even in blue states. People's exposure to firearms and firearms related activities is diminishing, such that the major exposure is indirect, through Call of Duty type games, sensationalized news reports, and Hollywood movies. Other than news reporting on the topics, I have no beef with these other venues of exposure, but they paint an incomplete picture. There was a time where one respected firearms. They were used as tools or otherwise, and there was much more direct exposure to them (growing up with them, through scouting, etc). Now a large segment of the population is fearful, and increasingly in urbanized settings. Children grow up with these fears pounded into them by society and become antis. Will a bunch of us carrying long guns openly, getting arrested, and being shown on the news, help things? It's really hard to predict how these things will play out.

By contrast, as many appreciate, the single most effective way to rid people of these fears is through exposure to firearms. Knowledge is empowering. The more people become familiar with firearms, the less they fear them, and the more they realize that the number of restrictions that we have in exercising our 2A rights in Maryland are awful and likely unlawful. If participants on this web board could introduce 5-10 people in a year to firearms related activities, it would have a huge influence on the intrastate political debate.

 

[rem87062597]

Can US v Black have any bearing on this? Sorry for the formatting, I copy pasted from the decision.

"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to
openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more,
cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a
justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections
for lawfully armed individuals in those states. United States
v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, Troupe’s
lawful display of his lawfully possessed firearm cannot be the
justification for Troupe’s detention. See St. John v. McColley,
653 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D.N.M. 2009) (finding no
reasonable suspicion where the plaintiff arrived at a movie
theater openly carrying a holstered handgun, an act which is
legal in the State of New Mexico.) That the officer had never
seen anyone in this particular division openly carry a weapon
also fails to justify reasonable suspicion. From our
understanding of the laws of North Carolina, its laws apply
uniformly and without exception in every single division, and
every part of the state. Thus, the officer’s observation is
irrational and fails to give rise to reasonable suspicion. To
hold otherwise would be to give the judicial imprimatur to the
dichotomy in the intrusion of constitutional protections."

PDF warning.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

 

[Merlin]

There is absolutely no reason to be stopped. Any stop would be a violation of rights and subject to a lawsuit.
However I do expect to be stopped. It will be unlawful and I will file suit. Maryland has plenty of money with all the fee and tax increases they have approved.

A law enforcement officer would have ZERO probable cause to initiate a stop.
Forgiving that the 7-11 just got robbed by a long gun toting individual.

Won't be today,, heading to Annapolis!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but probable cause is nothing more then their opinion sometimes correct? If you look like you may be up to no good to them, isn't that probable cause? I think in many cases it would be your opinion they don't and their opinion they do.

 

[Name Taken]

Before you plan on making you millions on a lawsuit you might want to speak with an attorney and brush up on your basic law 101 courses.

Police do not need Probable Cause to detain you. Good luck with your mega suit.