Man arrested for (legally) open carrying AK47, scaring people.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question: Is brandishing a crime in and of itself in Alabama? Or is it simply a sentence multiplier type of charge?

If it is a crime on its own, and since the guy wasn't charged with it, that would likely mean the rifle was slung and not carried "menacingly." The second article did say the mag wasn't inserted though, so it doesn't sound like he was playing Rambo or something on the streets either way.

And who knows what did the paper left out of the story. Is there a range nearby which he was traveling to or from? Or perhaps a gun shop/smith where he got something on it fixed or modded? Did he goto a buddy's place a few houses down to show off his rifle? While it may be odd to see someone with a Kalashnikopy in an everyday situation these days, any of the above would change things a bit. Especially if it slung safely over his shoulder.
 
I don't think Alabama has any laws against brandishing. I could be wrong. The closest I could find, and what some people were charged with for "Brandishing" was "menacing", which is described as:

A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
Click to expand...

This would not apply to the situation in this thread.
 
Art - "I don't think a bunch of name-calling on the guy's neighbors is called for."

Calling the ak owner names is okay? Talk about low road. It is a wonder there is any members of the High Road under the age of 40 on here. Any thread that deals with a young gun owner on here invariably takes the tone that he is nothing more than a punk. I'd bet "folding money" that most of the people that are siding with the police and neighbors here are over the age of 50 and have a general contempt for our younger generations.

I examined my copy of the constitution a little further and found the footnote at the end of the second amendment. I went to the bottom and found it to say that "shall not be infringed" applies so long as 100%, not 99.9% felt that your right to bear arms fell into the "societal norm". You people make me sick.

This guy did nothing illegal. If he were even remotely thinking about being menacing to those around him, the police would have at the least made this guy eat an asphalt sandwich and more likely made swiss cheese out of him. Rather than any of you assume his innocence, you've already convicted him of a crime that he didn't commit. I hope none of you ever try to jump in my foxhole if the S ever HTF.
 
dare i try to walk down the southside with my AK now...

mag out, slung over back, muzzle pointed at ground... i betya ill get popped. even tho its 100% legal
 
As far as i'm concerned, the endgame of our nationwide struggle must be the free and unfettered exercise of Second Amendment rights in any traditional forum that is open to the public.
 
This thread is very revealing isn't it. On one hand we have those who believe the 2nd amendment actually means something, on the other we have those who believe your rights stop at the limits of their opinions and personal fears or prejudice.

Bottom line is that the guy did nothing wrong. It might have been out of the ordinary. It might have warranted scrutiny. It might have even prompted a conversation with the accused to find out what he's up to. Yo Dude! Cool gun, been out stump shootin? You'd learn pretty quickly if the guy was a threat or just going home by the response.

BGs will use whatever is available to do bad deeds. The gun is a tool just like a hammer, screwdriver or anything else that might be multi-purposed for evil, but when we buy into the fear mongering created by the antis and the media, we support their cause.

It's BS if your belief is that 2A only applies to you and you are the only one who is mature or responsible enough to bear arms of any kind.

There is nothing reported about this guys behavior that warranted to crap that has come from it. Someone should give him a transcript of this thread so he can see what other gun owners think. It would scare the crap out of him.

By the way, I'm sure the antis are doing cartwheels after reading much of this this thread. How's the irony in that?:banghead:
 
Age?

hornadylnl (Quote) "I'd bet "folding money" that most of the people that are siding with the police and neighbors here are over the age of 50 and have a general contempt for our younger generations."


I just turned 64 'n I'm the one who originally argued that this guy did nothing wrong. (Regardless of age)

as for JohnBT: None of us were 'there' John... but can you read? Do you understand what 'Disorderly Conduct' entails LEGALLY? Do you understand the legitimate parameters of 'Warrantless Entry' & 'Search and Siezure' within' a private dwelling? Do you understand 'hearsay' testimony from a witness to a 'disorderly' charge? The police in this instance had no justifcation to enter the home or arrest anyone... or sieze anything. They could have knocked on the door 'n made an inquiry. "Hi... We got a call... 'you just scared the crap outta Joe the gardener... carryin' that gun on the street' 'Are you the legal owner...?' Then... you proceed with the rest of it. Most likely... you'd call it in as a "D" David' (Investigated... no action required.) Go back 'n see Joe the gardner 'n explain that it's legal in Alabama to do that 'n go back on patrol. Ya mite want'a check if Joe the Gardener is an illegal alien... but that's another story. Ya see... this is the way it works: You must have evidence that a crime has been commited and that a certain person or persons committed it. Disorderly Conduct is (in my experience) is observed by the arresting officer. If this cop simply asked the defendant if he did in fact walk down the street with a slung AK... 'n the response was 'Yes'... that's not a legitimate cause for arrest. The arresting officer made an arbitrary decision based on his own 'fears'... Not the LAW. He may not even be aware that the law includes ALL rifles.

'Couple of guys were arrested inna Starbucks back in '05 (Alexandria, VA) for carrying weapons openly (holstered). One was 19 'n the other was 21. They had .22 cal and 9mm on them. The State of Virginia had just passed that law the previous day. The Alexandria Police Chief called these guys... apologized... They came to his office and their weapons were returned to them. (Dunno if they sued for false arrest or not... but they should have) Did the MSM or Newspapers announce this change in VA law? Hell no! Ya think the Washington Post or WTOP would announce this? Even the cops were ignorant of the 'LAW'.

You 'ever been a cop John? 'Got any background in Law Enforcement... What you can legally arrest folks for or not. Ever testify in court in a criminal case John? I have 734 arrests... 60% felonies... 94% conviction rate for my 3.5 years on the Baltimore 'street'. This was a bad judgement call on the part of the cop. A bad bust... and what's known in the trade as a 'humble'. Ya think some cops don't have their own phobias... predjudices? 'Sure do. Id love to see if this ever goes to Court. The States Atty should do a Nulle Proc 'n have the weapon returned before the kid sues their collective buns off.

Do you happen to own an AK? I kind'a doubt it.

Picknlittle got it right as well. (quote) "This thread is very revealing isn't it. On one hand we have those who believe the 2nd amendment actually means something, on the other we have those who believe your rights stop at the limits of their opinions and personal fears or prejudice."

On the subject of 'Arms'. Gettin' a CCW in Maryland is an exercise in futility. I had a case where an older fella (70 year old black man) was a used car salesman retuning home one nite... and is accosted by two knife wielding thugs on his sidewalk. Well... 'can't carry a gun for self defense... so he carried a 'Katana' (Samurai sword). One of the thugs lost his arm above the wrist 'n the other was sliced to the point where he collapsed nearby. The old guy was not charged with anything... Clear case of self defense. Unusual weapon... Sure. Nuthin' about carryin' swords from your car to your house on the verboten list... Not at that time anyway.
 
JohnBT, how can you ask "You were there" and insinuate that we can't draw conclusions to what happened when you are doing exactly the same thing?

Here is a fact for you John. If this 19 year old man carrying the ak was acting in a dangerous manner, the cops would have at a minimum given him an asphalt sandwich but would have more likely unloaded several high capacity magazines into him. If he had been a threat, he would have been arrested on the scene. It is amazing to see you with such a stalinist attitude towards another fellow gun owner. How old are you John? Are you one of the older gentlemen who I referenced earlier that has a great disdain for the younger generations? Or are you just too proud to change your opinion on this case. The second story was even more in the ak owners favor.
 
Great example of what the MSM has accomplished subliminally over the years isn't it? If this can affect a gun owner... imagine how it affects the 'anti-'s'.


AK... BAD gun... Pit Bull... BAD dog. 19 year old... BAD punk... ALL ASSUMPTIONS. Why? 'cause we've been subjected to this kind'a agitation propaganda and disinformation for the better part of the past 40 years.

Chuckie Shumer(D-NY) in front of the cameras with a 7.62x39mm round in his hand... "That's the BIGGEST bullet I've ever seen!" Chuckie must not get out much. OR... it's deliberate dis-information. That's the stock in trade of the anti's and all 'Commie-Lite' liberals. It appeals to EMOTION rather than FACT or REASON. When the Theory doesn't support the Facts... dismiss the Facts.
The idiology of the theory must remain omnipotent.

The primary difference between a so-called 'assault rifle' 'n anything else is magazine capacity and egonomic design. Pistol grips are lethal... 'Can't have any bayonet lugs... Drive-by bayonnetings are killing our children.

People are sheep... All to ready and willing to accept on emotion what the masses have been conditioned to percieve as a threat... where there is NO threat... and totally ignore the REAL threats. 'Baaaa!'
 
If this 19 year old man carrying the ak was acting in a dangerous manner, the cops would have at a minimum given him an asphalt sandwich but would have more likely unloaded several high capacity magazines into him. If he had been a threat, he would have been arrested on the scene.
Click to expand...
You are basing this, I presume, on some first hand knowledge of law enforcement? JohnBT is right. You weren't there. You don't know anybody involved. I don't either. I do know this: No matter what may have been done x-number of years ago, and no matter what they may do in small-town North Dakota, throughout most of the US_especially urban and suburban areas_only an exhibitionistic assclown walks the streets carrying an AK-clone. After reading through the locked thread and re-reading this one, that's what I've come to the conclusion is at the heart of this matter. You can holler about it being a right, which it is, but the real, deeper reason for wanting to walk around in public carrying an AK-clone is exhibitionism. Those who do this kind of thing do it for the same reason other kinds of exhibitionists do their thing. It's to shock and provoke. If your response is to tell me (again) about what it's your right to do, I'd just as soon you didn't bother. If you can't give me a better explanation of the "why" at the base of this, I'll just skip over your post.
 
JohnBT is insinuating that because I wasn't there, I'm not allowed to make assumptions as to what actually transpired with the ak owner. JohnBT has exactly the same thing as I do. Assumptions. Only my assumptions are backed up with that pesky little clause that goes something like this - "Innocent until proven guilty". I have a basis for my assumption, Joe and John do not.

Again, Art, why did you specifically defend the neighbors in your warning about name calling but leave out the ak owner? I see this bias time and time again with the moderation of these forums. In Joe Demko's last post, he calls the ak owner an assclown.

Joe, you have no proof that this guy was being an exhibitionist in his actions. For all you know, he was walking home from his neighbors house after a trip to the range. Again, that pesky little "innocent until proven guilty" thing gets in the way. Again, if he were acting in a provoking manner, why wasn't he man handled by the police?

Joe, again, you are trying to trump the second amendment with what you feel is normal behavior and what isn't. I'm glad you aren't king.

To use your line of thinking on the second amendment, do you think the best way to protect our 1st amendment is to keep silent so as not to offend anyone and give them the desire to strip us of our freedom of speech?

The leftists and liberals of this country have bastardized our constituion so much so that the act of deficating on the American flag is speech. I know leftists and liberals have had their heads so firmly implanted into their posteriors for so long that deficating and speaking have become one and the same. Yet these same leftists and liberals have take the absolute opposite position on the second. They expand the first and do every thing they can to limit the second.
 
Exercising a right isn't automatically good. When the American Nazis, KKK, and other hate groups spew their tripe, it is their right to do so. What they have to say is poison and does nobody any good...but it is their right to publicly vomit that filth. It is the right of the NAMBLA membership to talk about diddling kids. Is it a positive thing when they exercise that right? It is our right to keep and bear arms. It's possible to exercise that right in a puerile, offensive matter that_while it is not illegal_is also not exercising that right in what could be described as a positive manner.
 
Joe, are you seriously likening carrying an ak slung over your shoulder to someone talking about molesting kids or spewing hatred? If so, I need to go pound some sand. It would be more productive than debating with you. I can't for a single minute see how exposing uneducated Americans to guns is a bad thing. If we all keep our guns locked in our safes, how are we supposed to expose the ignorant to the gun culture. If someone sees you carrying and makes an ignorant comment, use that oppurtunity to educate them. If they are anti, carrying or not won't affect their already concrete opinion of us.

Not exorcising a right for fear of what others might think of you is automatically bad. Yes, a KKK member has the right to spew what he wants just like I have a right to ignore what he says. If said KKK member were to confine me so that I'm forced to hear his trash, then he has infringed on my rights and he and I will have a problem. The worst thing you can do is help his cause by bringing unneeded attention to him. If everyone were to ignore him, he'd get tired of hearing himself talk.
 
Demko... Spoken like the true Jack-Booted Thug you present yourself to be in your profile.

Yeah Demko.... I DO have first hand knowledge of law enforcement. Maybe he was comin' from a friend's house in the neighborhood? What's the difference between carrying an AK and a bolt action long rifle? LOOKS

The right to keep and bear arms doesn't discriminate... Arms is ARMS! (Except perhaps in California)
 
You are basing this, I presume, on some first hand knowledge of law enforcement?
Click to expand...

Well, I know some cops. And I know that if someone were acting threatening with a gun they'd have their guns out, and would arrest the guy ASAP. They wouldn't just try to confiscate his gun and arrest him later, allowing him on the streets in the meantime...
 
Comparing someone exercising their Second Amendment rights to Nazi's, or KKK is a straw argument, and is deplorable. Even if the person doing it is doing so just in the name of Second Amendment activism. One is about freedom, the other two are about racism and oppression.

I've said it before. Amerika doesn't want it's constitution.
 
Joe Demko sez:
but the real, deeper reason for wanting to walk around in public carrying an AK-clone is exhibitionism. Those who do this kind of thing do it for the same reason other kinds of exhibitionists do their thing. It's to shock and provoke.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of judgmental BS that fosters the very fear mongering I've been talking about. I'm 54. I have never owned an AK but if I'd had access to one as a 19 year old I might have. It's cooler than my old Rem .22 tin can plinker.

There is nothing in any written account to suggest that he was doing anything other than carrying a slung or perhaps not, ak from point A to point B. If he were an exhibitionist, I think there would have been a behavior identified that might have been threatening. No such behavior is noted by those who were there. This is gross over reaction by all parties. It may well be that he purchased a rifle and has not yet saved the money for a proper case. Does this mean he shouldn't be able to transport it by his available means to and from a place to shoot?

Right! I wasn't there. I have to depend on the accounts of those who are writing about the incident. All I can tell you if it had been me that this had happened to, I'd be shoving a boat load of crap up somebody's nose. I have a new truck, all the guns I want and a nice little nest egg!

Until someone can show some real evidence that this fella actually did anything wrong, I'm firmly in his corner on principle. Those who want to rationalize "what ifs" without the presence of evidence can kiss my grits!

2A is what it is for me, you and him. Period.
 
Almost inevitably, it is those members of society who are marginalized or stigmatized and face discrimination who are most likely to be tortured, mistreated, unjustly imprisoned or killed.

The right be free from discrimination is not only vital in its own right, but also a critical lynch-pin to the enjoyment of other basic rights. As long as discrimination flourishes, other violations are bound to continue.
 
Demko

What they have to say is poison and does nobody any good...but it is their right to publicly vomit that filth.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the reasons the right is protected is so that we can hear what these people think and have an opportunity to refute it. Even if it is only with our children.

As to what is or is not
not exercising that right in what could be described as a positive manner
Click to expand...
, while we have a right to state our opinion; that opinion will always be less than valid compared to that of the personwho is exercising the right.

That is particularly so in relation to 2A rights. Frankly, when a man is doing something lawful, it is none of our business why he is doing it.
 
Demko... Spoken like the true Jack-Booted Thug you present yourself to be in your profile.
Click to expand...

Personal attacks are not warranted. You can disagree with someone's position, without having to then attack them personally.
 
Great example of what the MSM has accomplished subliminally over the years isn't it? If this can affect a gun owner... imagine how it affects the 'anti-'s'.
Click to expand...

Agree completely, this is why I'm in favor of open carry and buy guns from walmart--people in the mainstream need to see them.

'Else you'll end up with "I though only police can own pistols" and "Automatic handguns? Why do you need a machine gun?" and "You don't need an AK to go hunting".

Feh--don't exercise rights that are controversial? C'mon...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
"But I'm a super-citizen!" - NJ cop arrested for AW possession
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MarkDido
MarkDido
J
  • Locked
"Bullets sprayed but standoff ends" - Mobile, AL
Replies
5
Views
1K
mbs357
M
G
  • Locked
Man arrested for toting rifle.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
6K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
T
  • Locked
This is why the sheep fear guns!!
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
DoubleTapDrew
D
S
  • Locked
Man Gets 10 Years for Sword Assault
Replies
6
Views
1K
sadlsor
S
Back
Top