Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by RussP, Feb 8, 2010.
Sounds like the OCers rights were violated.
If they think their rights were being violated then they're free to initiate a federal violation of civil rights lawsuit after the fact. I'm not familiar with Michigan laws, but if they really wanted to press the issue, one might argue that they were being detained in order to investigate a possible breach of the peace incident. Apparently they ultimately determined not to go with that charge (or any others) and everyone was released from the scene.
I would bet a month's pay that it was not an assault rifle. More like a semi-automatic rifle would be my guess.
Like was said earlier in the thread, it was an AR15, and to the public/media, that is an assault rifle.
This event started out as another social gathering attended by members of Michigan Open Carry. They meet regularly like many other open carry groups across the United States. This group in fact gathered at the Ponderosa before and had the owners permission to meet again.
One mistake the owner made was not asking when the group would visit the restaurant. That is critical with any large party affecting both wait staff and the kitchen and their ability to provide timely service to other small parties. That's a subject for other forums.
They were doing fine until the guy showed up with the AR slung on his back against a red garment. Was the black on red contrast on purpose? Did he want to stand out? The owner said in the interview on TV10 that all was fine until the AR guy appeared.
Taking AR-Guy out of the incident and we have no incident.
But, there is one fact noted at the end of the TV10 piece that no one is talking about on any of the forums I've read.
Why would people ignore talking about achieving their stated goal?
People, you achieved your goal!!! They put out a memo to all officers about the proper procedures for dealing with open carriers!!!!!!!!! You ****ing won!!!!
As to why 10 officers responded to the restaurant, I would bet the amusement and entertainment factor was high. The guy running the camera commented several times about seeing how Lansing tax dollars are being spent with all the LEOs around. Dude, you want as many there as possible for first hand experience in dealing with open carriers.
No, it seems an unstated goal of that group is to demean law enforcement.
Have there been repercussions? Yes. Executives of MOC have resigned. Open Carry dot Org has amended their rules on the focus of that forum:
The sad thing I read in other forums, and to some extent here on GT, people are focusing on the negative aspects of the incident. Some are even planning on replicating the Ponderosa incident in their towns and cities with people carrying rifles to social gatherings.
Russ... Maybe you've given your opinion on this matter and I missed it... but I know you're a big open carry advocate. What's your take on what the guy in Michigan did.
I think the meeting started out just like any other, there was a lapse in communication between the group and the owner, but that could have been resolved... then the guy w/ the AR15 showed up, and took it to a completely unnecessary level. The goal of open carry, is to desensitize, not intimidate.
filler filler filler filler filler
What color is the sky in your world?
Let me use my ninja moderator skills and break this up to make responding easier...
I believe the daughter of the owner said they thought it would occur on a slower day such as a Tuesday, indicating a specific date was not set. Do you have evidence that they did agree on that date and time?
My question is simply did he want to make the rifle more apparent as I asked in the following...
Not necessarily in all situations.
Actually, if the question is what actions could he have taken, the answer is he could have done "Any of the above".
So all the response you'd want from police when someone calls on the non-emergency number is a confirmation of the legality of open carrying a rifle? That's all? No matter when or where, that's all the response you'd ever, ever want from law enforcement?
My sincere apology if that offended you.
And that is the attitude I am talking about. No matter the outcome of an encounter, you just will not accept any positive resulting from the encounter. If no memo, which the news person said he held in his hand on the TV10 broadcast, was issued, you'd cry about inaction by law enforcement to correct how officers deal with open carriers in the future.
If you say so...
Where did I focus on the negative aspects of OCing?
I realize I am not the one who made that statement, or the one you are asking this question of, BUT:
In this specific case we have an assistant manager at a restaraunt that was expecting a group of people openly carrying firearms with one individual who had a rifle and not simply the expected handgun and a caller who apprently told the operator/dispatcher he did not want them to repond.
Considering all of those facts "10-12" officers showing up and holding everybody until a CO could come and chew them out.....doesn't seem to fit.
The knucklehead who OC'd an AR15 into the Ponderosa in Michigan. He was part of this group.
That doesn't answer my question.
I believe his actions were outside the stated objectives of MOC:
You nailed it. Calling the police without asking them to leave first was pretty lame. That said, carrying an assault rifle into a resturant was way out of line.
That's kind of generic, you didn't really say whether you agreed w/ him, just that his actions were outside the goals of MOC.
Also, I read in one of the threads, that before he did that, it was just open carry... they added handguns after the incident w/ the AR15. I'm not really that familiar w/ the groups bylaws to know if that is true or not.
You asked an irrelevant, leading question.
The answer, though I don't see how it is significant to this discussion, is no. If the time and place or other variables changed a different response may be wanted. But since those variables are known in this very specific incident....what's the point in asking that in your response?
I had not heard they changed the "Objectives".
Personally, I would not carry my AR to an open carry social gathering in a restaurant. It would not be wise for me to do, nor do I believe it would be productive in normalizing the carrying of firearms for self defense in Virginia.
You've been around long enough to know I believe the decision to carry a firearm for self defense requires you make a whole lot of little decisions. The choice of firearms is one of them. This gentleman chose the AR for that day and that event.
No, you're misunderstanding me Russ; I think the MI OC had the responsibility to be very specific on when they were going to show up and they did not fulfill that responsibility.
I think you're reading too much into it. After all, if he wanted it to really stand out he would have painted the tip orange.....
If you read my post, I listed several common things people would respond to that kind of situation with and asked which of the above happened. Let me add one more:
z) the manager did nothing because he was fully aware of the legality of OC.
That could possibly have been the response had the police simply given him the information that was requested (we'll never know now), but instead, the situation went south.
considering the effort it takes to look up the non-emergency number as opposed to simply pressing 9-1-1, I'd go ahead and make the leap that anyone calling on that line did not have an emergency that they wanted 5 squad cars showing up for. Did the manager request a police presence? Was he simply asking for information? etc etc. Based on what has been reported, then I certainly wouldn't want anything from that call besides the whole reason the call was placed to begin with.
None is necessary, it just makes your position weaker when using strong language.
I'm sorry...it's ok to trample constitutional rights every now and then if a memo is subsequently issued. I'm sure they feel very bad about it and it will never ever happen again.
And (for me personally) it's not "no matter the outcome, the police did bad". In fact I'd applaud the department if they simply outlined the law and left it up to the manager. Instead, they chose to overstep their bounds, overstay their welcome and instigated a negative contact with law-abiding citizens. Sorry if that upsets me.
The problem is that a fundamental right of citizens it being ignored by LE. The right to bear arms is clearly outlined in the MI constitution so it's not even necessarily a 2nd Amendment issue. And, I don't think the memo goes far enough. Maybe a citywide seminar for all Lansing LE outlining certain basic rights that citizens have would be good.
Then in your view what the "AR guy" did was positive?