Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin

[sawdust]

So how do you get to this new norm from the old one? Wait for the legislature to tell you it is OK? It's already legal. No, somebody with enough guts CARRIES THE RIFLE. Good on that guy, and shame on those who dump on him.

If one person carries an AK-47, legally or not, to a political rally (and he is not the keynote speaker or a highly recognized public figure), he is perceived to be insane/idiotic/unsafe. If 5 men carry them to a political rally, they are perceived to be suspicious/dangerous/unsafe. If 1,000 people, men and women, carry, it is likely to be perceived as a (safe) political statement, or even a political movement.

You get to the new norm by constantly applying pressure to our legistators and by cogent education to the public. The chances of success are greater if the "pushers" are not perceived to be singularly kooky/crazy/idiotic/evil/dangerous/grandstanding/?????? by those self-same legislators and public.

I assume that most of the visitors to this forum are already in the choir, so our chats are more about metholodogy than ideology.

If I am trying to assert my rights, as part of a larger group, I should take into account what effect my individual actions may have on that group. Yes, somtimes things need to be done in public, but creating antagonism to our version of a norm that is not yet fully embraced by our fellow Americans can be counter-productive. If the guy was trying to win over converts to the concealed/open-carry side, he failed miserably, in my opinion. And in the process, he may have pushed some fence-sitters back to the other side. At the moment, I believe Charles Cotton is more effective in his methodology.

[joe817]

Phew. Well said sawdust. About the only thing I can say is

[Oldgringo]

Well said sawdust Once again the voice of maturity has spoken with clear reason. Is anyone listening?

If anyone on this forum is old enough to remember the Dale Carneghie seminars of yesteryear, he taught, "you get more bees with honey than with vinegar". It was true then and it remains true today.

In the words of the late Richard Pryor, "...the cemeteries are full of smart young {you know}". If you're not old enough to remember the wit and wisdom of Richard Pryor, google him.

[joe817]

Well said sawdust Once again the voice of maturity has spoken with clear reason. Is anyone listening? If anyone on this forum is old enough to remember the Dale Carneghie seminars of yesteryear, he taught, "you get more bees with honey than with vinegar". It was true then and it remains true today.

Indeed Oldgringo, that's why I have what I say in my signature line.

[aardwolf]

So how do you get to this new norm from the old one? Wait for the legislature to tell you it is OK? It's already legal. No, somebody with enough guts CARRIES THE RIFLE. Good on that guy, and shame on those who dump on him.

If one person carries an AK-47, legally or not, to a political rally (and he is not the keynote speaker or a highly recognized public figure), he is perceived to be insane/idiotic/unsafe. If 5 men carry them to a political rally, they are perceived to be suspicious/dangerous/unsafe. If 1,000 people, men and women, carry, it is likely to be perceived as a (safe) political statement, or even a political movement.

Movements start small. It was one guy at this rally. Maybe it will be ten at the next, a hundred at the one after that, and finally a thousand or more gun owners exercising our civil rights in the light of day.

[srothstein]

I am going to chime in now with an unpopular opinion. I don't see anything wrong with what the man did carrying the AK to the tea Party Rally. As a matter of fact, I see it as the perfect place to do so and make that particular statement.

Now, I have to say i would not have done it because I agree that a good general chooses his battles wisely. And that may mean biding my time for certain battles, but this one is coming, and coming soon, whether we like it or not.

But consider what the man did. He performed a 100% legal behavior at a rally against oppressive government. That is the key point. Some of the people in the crowd are there to protest income taxes, some to protest health care bills, and some for other reasons. I have always seen the root cause in the Tea Party as a protest against oppressive government in general, with different people picking the part that marked the line in the sand for them. The big question on perceptions was not the media view of the man's acts, but the Tea Party crowd view. If they did not have a problem with his carrying, then he picked the right environment to do it. There may even have been one or two tea partiers who were nervous by it (and I am sure the media would find them and put them on TV), but they were clearly in the minority.

So, while I may not have been willing to do this, I must support the man's right to carry the rifle and the decision to do so while protesting the oppressive government.

And my comment on the battle coming is still true. We are going to have to keep fighting some battles over and over unless we move to the attacking side. We have legal carry in Texas, with a license, but we just had to fight a battle on securing a government building. We can keep fighting holding battles on where we can carry or we can go for small steps to advance our cause. Or we can go for big steps like repealing chapter 46 altogether (my end goal). My sense of strategy is to use small steps right now, but keeping an eye on the end goal is not a bad idea. And the occasional reminder to us is also not a bad idea.

[The Annoyed Man]

So, while I may not have been willing to do this, I must support the man's right to carry the rifle and the decision to do so while protesting the oppressive government.

Steve, I don't think anyone is questioning his right to do this, only the wisdom of doing it at this particular time or place, which is why I would not have been willing to do this either. So I guess my question to you is, why your own reluctance, if it were not for the questionable wisdom of the thing? Conversely, if it were not unwise, then why would you be reluctant? I ask because that is really the matter at the heart of the criticism.

And ELB, for the record, there is no shame in wisdom. None.

[denwego]

I am going to chime in now with an unpopular opinion. I don't see anything wrong with what the man did carrying the AK to the tea Party Rally. As a matter of fact, I see it as the perfect place to do so and make that particular statement.

...

And my comment on the battle coming is still true. We are going to have to keep fighting some battles over and over unless we move to the attacking side. We have legal carry in Texas, with a license, but we just had to fight a battle on securing a government building. We can keep fighting holding battles on where we can carry or we can go for small steps to advance our cause. Or we can go for big steps like repealing chapter 46 altogether (my end goal). My sense of strategy is to use small steps right now, but keeping an eye on the end goal is not a bad idea. And the occasional reminder to us is also not a bad idea.

I think openly carrying a rifle was a bold step by a brave person who chose a good location for it. A Tea Party might strike the popular mind as being about taxes and big government, but it is equally, and to me more importantly, about the continued ability of the American citizen to exercise his/her rights. So, no, carrying a rifle at a tax rally would not be productive, but he wasn't outside a H&R Block; he was outside the state capital of great state.

And srothstein brings up the crux of the issue for me... this is about small steps towards true, unfettered recognition of 2A rights. I lived in Virginia for two years before I came home to Texas this past fall, and Virginia just this past week had their bill signed legalizing concealed carry in alcohol-serving restaurants; we all had to openly carry in Chili's and the like, even if we had a CHP. That meant thousands of people who carried concealed 100% of the time on the street, the same ideologically-minded folk who refuse to put their guns in their cars for fear of it being stolen or who refuse to disarm themselves before they go to a certainly location, by necessity became part of an army of gun owners who forced the rest of the populace to see peaceful gun carry just about every time you went out to eat. And it brought genuine change! The public got used to it and came to accept it as commonplace in just a few years. And they saw how many people otherwise would have their guns hidden, and how many people were therefore armed all the time peacefully, all around them. Governor McDonnell stated to the press how it was already legal to openly carry in a restaurant, so it was idiotic to keep people from doing it concealed - and that got an infringement of a right stricken from the books.

One person openly carrying a rifle at a Tea Party rally might turn into one person openly carrying a rifle down the street. That could become two, or ten. It could become people in the general public thinking about how you can carry a rifle without paperwork, so why not a handgun? Or why should a CHP holder be required to always conceal if they are allowed to carry a gun anyways? I believe people will ignore an issue if not forced to confront it, even if that means not everyone will approach it without discomfort (even amongst us... there's a reason we argue about this on the forums quite a bit). Small steps will get the dialogue going, and that will bring a net gain of positive change if we keep at it, I think.

[Oldgringo]

So, while I may not have been willing to do this, I must support the man's right to carry the rifle and the decision to do so while protesting the oppressive government.

Steve, I don't think anyone is questioning his right to do this, only the wisdom of doing it at this particular time or place, which is why I would not have been willing to do this either. So I guess my question to you is, why your own reluctance, if it were not for the questionable wisdom of the thing? Conversely, if it were not unwise, then why would you be reluctant? I ask because that is really the matter at the heart of the criticism.

And ELB, for the record, there is no shame in wisdom. None.

FWIW, with TAM. My reservations are not about "rights", but are about judgement. This was not the time nor the place to be brandishing a so-called "assault rifle" in the face of an hostile media.

As denwego said above:

...I believe people will ignore an issue if not forced to confront it,...

[drjoker]

Dude, there was no "temporary city ordinance" not to arrest tea partiers with guns. As I've always said, if you're open carrying a LONG gun (not handgun), you WILL NOT get arrested if the CAMERAS are ROLLING. They do not want to create martyrs on camera. Remember, the civil rights movement of the 60's? Remember all those protesters who were shown on TV beaten and brutalized by cops? They've learned their lessons. If a lawfully carrying tea partier was shot and beaten on national TV, then he/she would've become a martyr and he/she would find hundreds of millions of outraged American sympathizers. That's the last thing the anti-liberty overlords want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA

Remember the anti-war reporters of the 60's? They now have non-disclosure agreements that reporters will have to sign before they are even allowed to set foot in Iraq. Then, they have all their footage censored and all their belongings searched and sniffed by dogs before they're allowed to remit people, material, or video back to the US from Iraq. They've learned their lesson from the 60's.

Protest is not working as quickly as in the 60's, but it will work. More of us just need to call in sick to work to protest. We need to call our friends and family and persuade them to come along to protest. I invite you to do this before it is too late.

It would've been inappropriate for the guy with the AK to carry if it was an anti-tax rally, but the tea party is not an anti-tax rally. The Tea Party is against big government taking away our rights. This includes taxation without representation as well as your 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is appropriate considering what the protest is all about. And, if that guy gets brutalized by cops, then it would actually work FOR us, not against us.

We are marginalized if one lone guy shows up with an AK47. However, what if ALL tea partiers did that? What if 1 MILLION people showed up in Austin did that? Then, we would be MAINSTREAM and our voices will HAVE TO BE HEARD. Quit being so chicken and cheap! It's OK to be chicken. Just be sure to get the info of the dude next to you holding a rifle and offer to bail him out and give him a couple of c notes for lawyer's fees if he gets arrested. Then, start videotaping! It's ok to be cheap, just don't be chicken, too! Grab a long gun and start marching. If any of our forum members get arrested doing LAWFUL protesting and a family member who could not afford to bail him out, post here then I will help bail him/her out. LAWFUL means long gun, not handgun. If you shoulder carried it with a sling and your hand was NOT on the weapon, then I WILL help bail you out! I may be chicken, but I'm certainly not cheap. Just like "Remember the Alamo!" was a battle cry, I'm saying, "Remember Obamacare!" as our peaceful protest cry. Finally, thanks for helping to keep the protest area clean by picking up the garbage after yourselves. I bet those hippies didn't do THAT in the 60's huh? We conservatives are a better bunch. Let's keep up the political pressure! Let's continue writing our legislators and organizing tea parties!

Pursuant to Local Government Code, §229.001, a municipality normally could not regulate the carrying of firearms to proclude them being loaded versus unloaded, etc.; legal under state law means legal everywhere. However! Subsection (b6) grants municipalities the ability to regulate or prohibit the carrying of firearms, other than concealed handguns carried under the authority of a CHL, at a very small list of places... and a "political rally" is one of those places. No doubt that was intended to keep the KKK and similar organizations from being armed as they met in public, but the Tea Party would certainly qualify nonetheless.

It doesn't prohibit it outright, just grants municipalities the power to regulate it if they so choose. Austin might have enacted a temporary order to prevent the carrying of loaded long arms just for this rally, but there's no permanent ordinance on the books for Austin in general. Citations for the win:

Code: Select all

229.001. Firearms; Explosives.
(a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keep- ing, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the author- ity a municipality has under another law to:
(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordi- nance, or regulations are not used to circumvent
the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not subject to regulation; or
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a per- son other than a person licensed to carry a con- cealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b) (6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

[ELB]

Srothstein made some excellent points, and denwego made an excellent followup. We need to keep pressing at all levels, with big and small steps. It is not choice of doing "radical" things like rifle carrying or doing it "Charles Cotton's" way (which I assume means legislative lobbying). We need both, plus pushing at every level. The left runs this country because they understand this, and they frankly earned the power to run this place into the ground because they were willing to make waves. Once upon a time, pornography was hidden and political speech was protected. Now even the raunchiest pornography is mainstream, and banning certain political ads against an incumbent within 60 days of an election is not only legal, but judged constitutional by the SCOTUS! That didn't just happen by itself. Srothstein is right we have to stay on the offensive, not just take a couple big wins and fail to followup. AK guy wasn't even trying to push the legal envelope -- he was just doing what is already legal. And the pushback comes from the gun crowd?

I don't know that I would have gumption to carry my AK by myself, but I am not going to dump on the one that does.The point of him carrying at a [pick one] anti-tax rally, picnic, backyard BBQ, walking down the street, etc is not that it is appropriate for that venue -- it is that it is not a big deal.

I will note that the AK-47 guy's "perception" and "wisdom" clearly exceeds that many on this board, since he accurately judged that he could excercise his legal rights without a problem. And for this he gets called "stupid," "idiotic," "redneck," and so forth. No wisdom there. Shame, yes. All these arguments against him boil down to catering to the anti-gun/MSM's caricatures of gunowners, and continuing the status quo. This guy said screw that, and the world did not end. For those of you who think somehow it's OK if dozens of people carry but not if only one does -- how do you propose to get from here to there? Hint. Follow this guy.

[Keith B]

While I agree we have to stand up for our rights, there are ways to and ways not to do it. IMO this is definitely NOT a way to do it. Perception is a large part of any political battle, which our fights for the 2nd Amendment is. Looking like a radical, gun toting redneck (perception of many) or a crazy guy with a so-called assault rifle on your shoulder will not help our cause with those that don't support it already. Appearing educated, civil and cool will do much more to promote us as 'one of them' and move us toward being accepted much quicker. How do you infiltrate any group? You become a friend and confidant. Once in the fold you can move the flock in the direction you need. Try to bully your way in and you will be shunned and rejected as an outsider and the wall will go up and not be able to be torn down.

Remember, just because something is legal and within your rights, doesn't mean it is the correct thing to do. A lot of people get seriously injured or killed in car wrecks each day taking their legal right-of-way.

[The Annoyed Man]

I will note that the AK-47 guy's "perception" and "wisdom" clearly exceeds that many on this board, since he accurately judged that he could excercise his legal rights without a problem.

And you are clearly missing the point. I for one never said it was not his right. I never said it was illegal. You are reading into what I and others have written what is not there, and then you call down shame us.

Please.

Looking like a radical, gun toting redneck (perception of many) or a crazy guy with a so-called assault rifle on your shoulder will not help our cause with those that don't support it already. Appearing educated, civil and cool will do much more to promote us as 'one of them' and move us toward being accepted much quicker.

That is part of my point. And note, I did not say he looks like a gun-toting redneck to me. I said that he would appear so to others, and those "others" are the people we are trying to convince of the rightness of our cause. There are better ways to handle it.

Remember, just because something is legal and within your rights, doesn't mean it is the correct thing to do. A lot of people get seriously injured or killed in car wrecks each day taking their legal right-of-way.

That is the other part of my point. To this very day, the "mainstream" media has never acknowledged that they were wrong about the alleged "racist with an assault rifle" at a Tea Party gathering a year ago, who in fact turned out to be a black man peaceably carrying, perfectly lawfully, his perfectly legal AR15. You and I both know the truth about that; but the problem is that a huge portion of the news-watching, largely firearms ignorant, fence-sitting, middle of the road, public still gets their information from CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN, and they don't read or follow alternative media such as gun-blogs.

By comparison, the NRA has roughly 4 million members. Even if you maximize the influence of that number by assuming one member for each family of 4, that is still only 16 million people who are directly informed by the NRA of what is happening with regard to their gun rights — this in a nation of approximately 300 million people.

Adopting in-your-face tactics may serve to fire up the troops — some of them, anyway — but it will do little or nothing to convince those who need to be convinced of the justice of the cause in order to get on board; and it will, in fact, turn a significant number of people against you.

But if you want to be a firebrand, go head on, brother. While you're doing that, I will be quietly trying to undo the damage by convincing, one person at a time, that expanding gun rights is the right thing to do.

Peace out.

[snorri]

One person openly carrying a rifle at a Tea Party rally might turn into one person openly carrying a rifle down the street. That could become two, or ten. It could become people in the general public thinking about how you can carry a rifle without paperwork, so why not a handgun? Or why should a CHP holder be required to always conceal if they are allowed to carry a gun anyways? I believe people will ignore an issue if not forced to confront it, even if that means not everyone will approach it without discomfort (even amongst us... there's a reason we argue about this on the forums quite a bit). Small steps will get the dialogue going, and that will bring a net gain of positive change if we keep at it, I think.

I think both methods together are more effective than either alone. Look at Gay Pride parades. The leather boys make a statement and that statement gets the public's attention, but that's not enough by itself. There are also gays who look like your CPA. One of them could even BE your CPA. It's easier to have a dialog with them, but that was minimally effective by itself. The combination is more effective than the sum of the parts. I think gun people could learn a few lessons in political activism from gay people.

[srothstein]

So, while I may not have been willing to do this, I must support the man's right to carry the rifle and the decision to do so while protesting the oppressive government.

Steve, I don't think anyone is questioning his right to do this, only the wisdom of doing it at this particular time or place, which is why I would not have been willing to do this either. So I guess my question to you is, why your own reluctance, if it were not for the questionable wisdom of the thing? Conversely, if it were not unwise, then why would you be reluctant? I ask because that is really the matter at the heart of the criticism.

And ELB, for the record, there is no shame in wisdom. None.

TAM, I agree that the question here has always been the judgment involved, not the right or legality of the action. The difference, and my reluctance is in how we each perceive the issue and the people. I see the Tea Party rallies as a protest against oppressive government, and a movement that is going to either lead to major changes or be co-opted by the current powers that be. I know some see it more as an anti-tax movement than an anti-current government movement. I believe that the movement is critical to our overall goal, freedom, if just by showing the possible numbers that support our basic concept.

But I also know the media is doing everything in its power to marginalize the protests and protesters. They will look for anything they can to show the protesters are lunatic fringe and not anywhere near mainstream. My choice on tactics is to work for small steps in the offices with the elected representatives, much as TSRA and NRA (to a slightly lesser extent than TSRA) have been doing with great success.

But each of us gets to make our own choice on tactics and strategy. I can fully understand someone else deciding that carrying a gun to a protest where the protesters would not object is a reasonable step. After all, he successfully demonstrated that the people were not terrorized and no one was killed or injured. I am confident that most of the Tea Party members are not against us, even if they are not full supporters yet. I am also confident that some of the protesters probably raised the same issue of "is that appropriate" that we are discussing here. If they do raise that issue, and think about it instead of just jumping to the conclusion it was wrong, then we might have made one or two more converts to the cause. I don't see that the man hurt the cause at all, and I do see where he could have helped us. While I may not have liked his tactics, I cannot argue with the results. This is similar to what i read about how the NRA felt about Heller - against it at first for the possible danger, then supporting it when it looked like it would work (note that I am not saying they did work this way, just that this is the popularly reported version).

Looking this over, I am not sure if I made myself clear, but it is basically a case of me recognizing that my tactics on how to fight the battle are not the only possible tactics to use.