Vet, Arrested for "Rudely Displaying Rifle", Gets Surprise from Black Rain Ordnance!

It makes sense... I would just like to offer the option.

 

No, he doesn't, because it's a goddamn lie.

 

Do you have any proof of that ?

 

It is largely irrelevant.

We already have background checks for new or used firearms purchases from a gun dealer.

The numbers come from polls. I've participated in quite a number of polls and the questions are very leading.
"The law states that there must be a background check run when a firearm is purchased. Do you support this?"

I don't know of many people that would say no.

But what is being proposed is the expansion of the current law to cover background checks on private party transfers. We already have that in California, but in most "free" states, you can meet a person in the Wal Mart parking lot and buy a gun from them.

This is what is called "the gun show loophole"
Tables at gun shows are not cheap, so someone will buy a table, and rent space to others who have one or two guns they want to sell.
Within federal law, and within the laws of the state the show is in, this is no different than meeting in a parking lot... but it provides a safer location, with a better selection of buyers and sellers.

A person can NOT legally go to a gun show in a different state and buy a gun from a resident of that state. That falls under Federal law and requires a dealer to make the interstate transfer (and background check).

The problem with expanding background checks on the Federal level is that the Federal government has no authority over private party transactions of non-restricted items. That is an issue for the states to decide.
Congress knows this. Passing mandatory background checks on private party transfers would be tossed by the SCOTUS.

 

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him carrying "just because he wanted to".
Many single point slings for an AR are most comfortable across the chest in a relaxed, downward pointing position which affords one the ability of bringing the weapon to battery simply by raising your arms. This would afford you quick protection if needed while being non-threatening when not raised.
There was an incident here where the local cops jumped a citizen open carrying while eating his lunch. The guy frequented this establishment and opened carried there with no complaint from the management. One day an off duty cop took offense and called in for back up because he was ignorant of our state being an open carry state. It only got worse from there. They approached him and restrained him without warning or cause, then stripped his weapon from him. The whole lot should have been fired.

 

So would you say that the majority of NRA members would be in support of background checks to close the gun show loophole ?

 

No, and the polling numbers would reflect that if the questions were asked clearly and honestly, rather than being written to elicit the responses that support the opinion of the group paying for the poll.

The problem with implementing such a program, like we have in California, is that it adds to the cost and inconvenience.
All gun transfers except for C&R long guns must be transferred through a gun shop.
The good part is a background check is done. The bad part is the additional $35 cost.
That amounts to basically an additional 5-10% "tax" on most handguns.
It also applies the state's 10 day waiting period... which is pointless for someone who is already a gun owner.

But the main problem with the "plan" is that it will do nothing to reduce the population of criminals in possession of guns.
Prohibited persons all over California have guns, and they sure as hell didn't pass a background check to get them.
They're going to be breaking the law by being a felon in possession.... they don't care if they break another law by purchasing a handgun on the black market and bypassing the required background check and waiting period.

 

did you watch the video? the guy acted like a complete jerk. regardless of if the cops were right or wrong (they were wrong as well), when the cop was gonna arrest him he should have shut his mouth and complied and taken it to court. going on a rant about rights and acting like a moron is only going to make the situation worse. idiots like him are the people who give the people who really believe in the 2a a bad name.

unless of course you were being sarcastic, in which case my sarcasm meter has been broken for a long time and i will believe anything you say

 

I do.

 

Do we get to see it ?

 

What do you think?

 

You always give a detailed , well thought out response Rich

 

I think yes

Waiting .....

 

The fact this happened in Texas, a state where guns are everywhere, is indicative of the change thats happening nationwide. The guy may have had the "right" to carry, but the public has a right to feel safe and the cops were doing their job. No one open carries without taking a chance of being stopped and questioned. Carryiing an AR15 does and should carry a much higher level of scrutiny from the cops.

He got his 15 seconds of fame and a free AR and he'll probably get his gun back. His son has now learned that using common sense and being a dumbass runs in the family.

 

So why should one persons "right to feel safe" (which is about personal feelings, not actual safety) trump someone else's right to bear arms?
Carrying an AR in a sling is no threat to anyone, so if seeing a gun makes you feel unsafe-To bad, so sad- but there are a LOT more actual dangerous things in the world.

 

I am a Texas peace officer. I am required to investigate if I get a call. I am going to disarm anyone with a weapon of any kind for officer safety once I arrive. I am the MOST pro gun rights person you will ever meet. I would have tossed that dude on the ground for refusing to follow my commands to allow me to disarmed him while I determined wtf was going on. The firearm would be confiscated as evidence pending his resisting charge. Did you guys not seethe guy say he would comply while not letting the officer pull his hands back to cuff? Oh hell no...

If I rolled up on him and saw him walking... I'd have asked him what he was doing and then told him to have a nice day.

 

Ill never understand why gun rights folks defend morons like this. You won't see the NRA take a huge public position on this -- they know it hurts the cause. Beck does it cause he knows his franchise is now limited to wackadoodles and he needs all the publicity he can get. Its like liquor manufacturers defending binge drinking -- its not illegal to binge drink but it shows poor judgement.

As for the right to feel safe, here is the preamble to the Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Your "right" to carry an AR 15 or any weapon isn't mentioned here at all -- but "domestic tranquility" is. Even the 2nd Amendment does not specifically provide for it and SCOTUS has maintained that reasonable regulations are allowed.

In this case, the guy pushed the bounds of what is common sense. He wanted to get arrested to make a point or he's suffering from PTSD. Either way, the right of the public to feel safe will always trump an individual's rights. The law is pretty sound on that point. He'll get his gun back and he might get an apology but it does nothing to help the cause of establishing common sense guidelines to guns in this country.

Remember gay marriage? The gun control issue will go through a similar process and ultimately, things like universal background checks will happen. Its just a matter of time.

 

Reasonable regulations and an assault by gov't agents are two different things. He was abiding by the reasonable regulations when, for no reason, he asserts the police attempted to forcibly disarm him. If someone randomly grabbed you, cop or otherwise, I'm going to guess you'd be unhappy about it too. That's when that video starts.

The problem is not that his actions were being investigated but HOW it was done.

 

Should take his son away from him aswell

 

LMAO-For what exactly?