Interesting

[baldeagle]

Welcome Home BE.

Thanks, Dadtodabone.

[Texasrpbrock]

Was interesting to hear about this story and see the youtube vids. But with all due respect, I absolutely believe in 2A rights but I can kind of see where this is might be crossing the line a little. As a Texas CHL holder I carry but conceal. I feel that is the polite/resectful thing to do for me to keep it under wraps as not to draw attention to it or put people who may not share my same beliefs in an uncomfortable setting. When I shoot my big black guns, they stay in my rifle bags until I am on my property or tract of land where I have the owners permission toI shoot or hunt. After looking at both sides, it seems there's more to the story.

In turn that keeps LEOs from having to respond to a bull disturbance call when they are already under staffed and have better things to do. If you're respectful to most LEOs in the State of Texas they usually will show you the same. I think the worst thing you can do is walk down the side of a public HWY holding a firearm in open view. I wished we still were able to hang a shotgun from the rear view pickup window like I did as a teenager in West Texas but we definitely live in a different world now. It's just my 2 cents but I feel it was a bad judgement call to push the limits.... Even in Texas. I'm in rural KY now and people here are very conservative but I'm pretty sure the event wouldn't have flown well here either. I wish the guy the best of luck and appreciate his service but hope this doesn't turn into more ammo for the other side to use against us. Right now is a time for all of supporters of 2A to show responsibility. Not a time to push the envelope. Then again, maybe I'm full of bull...

[K.Mooneyham]

While there is certainly such a thing as choosing your battles and using tact, there is also not just saying "Well, someone liberal-progressive moved to Texas, and they don't like whatever it is I'm doing, so I'll just bow to their wishes and stop doing it because it upsets them" (that is how political correctness gets established). If that is the way we are going to conduct business, then we are DONE! This is my last post on this because if I keep going, I'm going to make a lot of folks mad, real mad, and that is not my overall intention.

Edited to add info.

[jmra]

The officers responses were inappropriate and some were down right stupid. They obviously don't know the laws related to firearms or they don't care. That being said, this guy is a moron. More than likely, even carrying an AR, had he not been such a hothead he probably would have been on his way.

[SherwoodForest]

The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa I believe) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the excercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the POPO. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.

If you want TEXAS to turn into another KALIFORNIA - continue this touchy feely nonsense. The LAW is the LAW.

[baldeagle]

I know nothing of his service or medals nor does that concern me. I am glad he has helped you. If you are offended by what I said I'm not sorry though. I read a little then watched the video. I saw someone trying to create an incident and involving his son in it. I disagree with that. I also disagree with most of the open carry "educators" on YouTube as they only enforce stereotypes others have about gun enthusiasts. This guy is probably a great guy I just don't agree with this incident as a whole. I do think police handled it poorly at best but I believe he was trolling.
Brian

Your comments weren't offensive to me but I did find them alarming.

I don't think he was hunting. I think he was walking along roads (looking to start controversy). While it is legal to carry a rifle, it seems most that do do so to prove a point. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case here. He was too ready with camera to record it all and his responces were all about oh my god my rights are being violated. I don't agree with how it was handled but I also don't agree with carrying for a point. While it IS legal, all you do is make people nervous and dislike guns more. Whether or not you want to hear it, it is the truth. This guy went out to get attention and he got it. Then to make a site asking for donations immediately on his own?!?
Just my thoughts on this.
Brian

You admit that what he did was legal yet you don't like the way it was handled? What the officers did was wrong and abusive. His reasons for carrying the rifle are irrelevant. The law makes it legal for him to openly carry a long gun, and the police should know that. You may not like the people who look for confrontations (I think they're stupid too), but by what logic should we suppress the exercise of our rights to placate those who oppose us or are intimidated by that exercise? If someone was speaking in the park, and some found the words offensive, should the police arrest the speaker for "rudely exercising his rights"? Have we really descended to that point in America?

As for your comment, "Then to make a site asking for donations immediately on his own?!?" perhaps I shouldn't blame you for not having done your homework, but CJ is a highly decorated soldier who has been a guest of both President Bush and President Obama, both of whom recognized him for his blogging. He was the most popular milblogger in the world until the Army saw fit to harass him into submission because they didn't like what he wrote. He has thousands of followers from all over the world. Had he not setup the donation site, others would have.

Why do you have a problem with it anyway? He's not forcing anyone to donate, yet he's almost doubled his goal already.

We need men like CJ Grisham - men who refuse to back down no matter how much they are harassed - men who refuse to back down when their rights are violated - men who refuse to be cowed or to go along to get along.

[Dave2]

They obviously don't know the laws related to firearms or they don't care.

Actually, they seem to know the laws, but think they're above the laws. At 3:55, what's-his-name says to one of the officers, "You ain't exempt from the law", and the officer replies, "Yes we are".

[jmra]

They obviously don't know the laws related to firearms or they don't care.

Actually, they seem to know the laws, but think they're above the laws. At 3:55, what's-his-name says to one of the officers, "You ain't exempt from the law", and the officer replies, "Yes we are".

That would fall under the "or they don't care" portion of my statement.

[EEllis]

The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa I believe) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the excercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the POPO. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.

If you want TEXAS to turn into another KALIFORNIA - continue this touchy feely nonsense. The LAW is the LAW.

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs. Personally I get that his open carry was an exercise of his 1st amendment rights in support of the 2nd but exercising that right does not mean he can act anyway he wants or that police suddenly stop doing their jobs. I have little doubt the cops did a poor job handling this call but I also believe that he crossed the line and at the very least nged the versation from the legality of open carry to the examination of his actions in response to the police. If he had been calm, allowed them to secure his rifle when the police first arrived, calmly stating his piece then they should of satisfied themselves and he would've continued on his way. If not then I too would be condemning the police.

[jmra]

The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa I believe) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the excercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the POPO. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.

If you want TEXAS to turn into another KALIFORNIA - continue this touchy feely nonsense. The LAW is the LAW.

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs. Personally I get that his open carry was an exercise of his 1st amendment rights in support of the 2nd but exercising that right does not mean he can act anyway he wants or that police suddenly stop doing their jobs. I have little doubt the cops did a poor job handling this call but I also believe that he crossed the line and at the very least nged the versation from the legality of open carry to the examination of his actions in response to the police. If he had been calm, allowed them to secure his rifle when the police first arrived, calmly stating his piece then they should of satisfied themselves and he would've continued on his way. If not then I too would be condemning the police.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.

[baldeagle]

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause.

And the reasonable cause was? It can't be that he was carrying a rifle. That's lawful. Since he had it slung across his chest it can't be brandishing. So what was it? Or do you think police can simply make up reasonable cause and arrest/harass any one?

[SewTexas]

I'm not going to get into the blogging aspect of this...

what bugs me is that this guy was stopped because he was carrying a long gun, while on a hike with his son...now I've been reading stories about hogs that are not scared of humans, and rattlesnakes that are out like crazy right now and aren't buzzing anymore! I'm sorry, but if on a 10 mile hike that isn't paved (yeh, right ) I'm carrying me my EDC AND a cannon!!!!

personally, neither one of the men handled the situation properly after the officer stopped the guy, but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

[jmra]

neither one of the men handled the situation properly after the officer stopped the guy, but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

[EEllis]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.

And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.

We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that a person (not every person or most people just that a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.

[EEllis]

but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

Is it really so bad that the cop stopped someone walking with a rifle in an area where people don't normally carry? Heck they might of stopped to chat with someone who was just walking down the road for all we know. I will say that the officer needs to be able to articulate exactly what made this escalate from a citizen contact to a stop, but if he can then so be it.