Legal Actions Become Illegal If People Say They Are Alarmed

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, the lousy gun control bliss-a-ninnies will be happy; they've managed to convince some people that any carrying of a weapon is criminal. And now, we have situations where it is completely legal to carry a gun around - except where if someone calls police and says they feel threatened.

The fellow carrying the gun can have it slung over his shoulder, not point it at anyone, just be walking down the road minding his own business. But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act. They just say the person is 'disturbing the peace'. Heaven forbid, then, that you do anything unusual that could disturb someone.

This doesn't just affect gun rights - think of how certain speech could be labeled hate speech and be made illegal if it offended someone in some way.

http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...l=3&thispage=1

Mobile police said they plan to arrest a man today who scared people Friday evening as he walked through a Spring Hill neighborhood with a loaded, semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

Officers confiscated the rifle Friday but could not take the man into custody until they had a warrant signed by both a magistrate and the man who made the complaint, Mobile police spokesman Officer Eric Gallichant said.

Gallichant said that on Monday, a magistrate signed a warrant for a charge of disorderly conduct, and officers expected to obtain the signature of one of the witnesses today. Once that is done, the man will be arrested, he said.

Gallichant said, however, that he would not release the man's name Monday because officers had not yet obtained the second signature needed to activate the warrant.

While it is not illegal to carry an assault rifle, it is against the law to use the gun to alarm people, Gallichant said.

"I think it is important that people understand that although he may not be specifically charged with carrying a weapon out in the open like that, just the act of doing so can cause public alarm, which is covered by disorderly conduct," Gallichant said.

Of course, he wasn't using the gun to alarm people. Pointing at people or threatening them would be one thing, but now you can break the law without doing anything wrong because other people don't like it.

CR

[Lemur]

But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act.

You're stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. We have to eliminate every risk, even imaginary ones. Especially imaginary ones. That gun might inspire terror. Get it? Terror? Yeah, that's right, terrorist.

[Csargo]

Number one:Why was he carrying around an AK-47 in the first place? What is the point? And at night no less.

While it is not illegal to carry an assault rifle, it is against the law to use the gun to alarm people, Gallichant said.

That's funny. Carrying around an assualt rifle in plain sight is going to alarm most people.

[Privateerkev]

Hell, I'm alarmed after hearing that story and I don't even live around there.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Number one:Why was he carrying around an AK-47 in the first place? What is the point?

When must people explain to the government why they choose to exercise a right?
Did you miss the part that said it was legal?

Carrying around an assualt rifle in plain sight is going to alarm most people.

So what? Some people are alarmed by religion, or signs saying speak in English. Should an idiot's feelings make me a criminal?

Crazed Rabbit

[Gregoshi]

More information regarding the circumstances would be nice, but I have to wonder at the necessity of walking down a neighborhood street with a loaded AK-47. From a safety aspect, why would such a gun have to be loaded?

The premise that people being "alarmed" makes something illegal, is ridiculous. However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention. Gun owners should expect this an be prepared to deal with it. Heck, even I have to pause and give thought to what I'm photographing in this post-9/11 world...I could be a terrorist taking photos to scout out security of a government building, you know. Post-9/11 fallout can be a real pain in the butt.

CR, you make a good point, but, on the surface, this particular story is not the best example to support it.

[Privateerkev]

The premise that people being "alarmed" makes something illegal, is ridiculous. However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention. Gun owners should expect this an be prepared to deal with it. Heck, even I have to pause and give thought to what I'm photographing in this post-9/11 world...I could be a terrorist taking photos to scout out security of a government building, you know. Post-9/11 fallout can be a real pain in the butt.

I know what you mean. I'm a rail-fan and the government takes a slightly different view of men standing by train tracks with cameras these days...

[Csargo]

When must people explain to the government why they choose to exercise a right?
Did you miss the part that said it was legal?



So what? Some people are alarmed by religion, or signs saying speak in English. Should an idiot's feelings make me a criminal?

Crazed Rabbit

He didn't have to explain it to anyone, until his actions alarmed another person, which made his action illegal. I never questioned whether it was legal or not, but what the point of his actions were. To me it seems pretty senseless to carry around AK-47 in plain sight or at all for that matter.

Yeah CR I haven't heard of anyone being killed from speaking English lately, have you? Speaking English=not life threatening, gunshot wounds hmm yeah I think it's safe to say they're life threatening.

So seriously what was the point? Or was there not one. I guess I'll never know.

[Strike For The South]

There is no need for a man to carry a semi auto rifle in plain sight on a street. This isnt Somila its America. This guy is a grade A idoit

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention.

I could completely understand a cop coming up and talking to him - but arresting him for a legal act is not simply 'extra attention'.

He didn't have to explain it to anyone, until his actions alarmed another person, which made his action illegal.

Um...no. Did you again miss the bit about his walking down the street with the rifle being legal?

You're missing the big picture: the government has made legal actions illegal because of how another feels about those actions.

gunshot wounds hmm yeah I think it's safe to say they're life threatening.

Gee, did he even point the gun at anyone? No.

It seems like no one has respect for Jefferson's advice anymore.

EDIT: Strike - since when has need ever had to do with rights?

CR

[Strike For The South]

Oh Em Gee. CR carrying a loaded semi auto rifle in the street is idociy. He is lucky he didnt get shot himslef. Im just as scared of hippies and minorites as the next man but when the goverment decides to go crazy its not going to just happen. You aernt going to leave for work one day and think "Thank God I brought the kalashnikov with me today or that goverment coup would've snuck up me". COMMON SENSE FOR GODS sake

[Gregoshi]

I could completely understand a cop coming up and talking to him - but arresting him for a legal act is not simply 'extra attention'.

Perhaps I should have put a little more emphasis on it, but I am agreeing with you CR. Extra attention - yes. Arrest - no...at least not based on the information in the article. Smart thing to do - definitely not.

[Csargo]

Um...no. Did you again miss the bit about his walking down the street with the rifle being legal?

No CR, did you miss the part where it said you can't use the gun to alarm people? And from the article it doesn't say what the man was doing other than walking. Though I can think of few things he could have done with that loaded AK-47, which aren't legal.

You're missing the big picture: the government has made legal actions illegal because of how another feels about those actions.

Uh sure CR it's a horrible horrible injustice. It should be changed to "until they start shooting into the air and at other people" It's a precaution to protect the people.

Gee, did he even point the gun at anyone? No.

It seems like no one has respect for Jefferson's advice anymore.

CR

Edited out. But still he had no point of walking down the street with a loaded AK-47. I would rather have a man going to jail because of how someone "feels" rather than reading a news report that says x number of people killed today because a gun wielding idiot went crazy with his AK-47 and started shooting innocent people.

Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I don't see walking around with a LOADED AK-47 to be a rational act.

[Ice]

Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I don't see walking around with a LOADED AK-47 to be a rational act.

I'm going to have to agree with you. I'm surprised there isn't a law against this already.

But, remember guys, we all have to watch for those every day threats that an AK-47 is needed for ;).

[seireikhaan]

There is no need for a man to carry a semi auto rifle in plain sight on a street. This isnt Somila its America. This guy is a grade A idoit

I agree 100% with Strike here. CR, I do get your point on the issue, and I would usually side with you on a similar issue. I don't think the guy should be convicted of anything, other than being an idiot. I just don't see why a person, in America, should be carrying around an AK for. I mean really, what is a person going to do with a loaded AK in suburban neigborhood? He sure ain't hunting with it. I mean, what is the point of carrying the thing around when all an average person needs for self defence is a concealed handgun. Toting a loaded assault rifle around is asking for it, if you ask me.

[Husar]

So what if the mafia wants some money from you and because you don't pay decide to just walk around in front of you house with loaded weapons on their backs? Or if you find the mafia too unrealistic, how about the crazy ex of your girlfriend? Should the police wait until he shot you on your front lawn when you tried to go to the supermarket? Well, the only reason they have to arrest him before that would be, well, that you feel threatened by him.

And think about the fact that two Texans are opposing you the most.

[Moros]

Why would you want to carry a gun with you if you can't even use it anyway?
That's like bringing some drugs with you all the time but not selling or using it. That's Illegal, right?

Also even if you feel more secured by carrying a gun, at least don't show it. But if you have one and show it to everyone and play with it a bit, most people and me included would get the picture you'd plan on using it. Also a gun is a gun but AK-47 that's not just a gun. Hell if someone's walking around with a machinegun it definately looks more that that person is planning on killing persons. Also AK-47's get associated to terrorists, even the biggest fool knows that. So either that guy was a complete retard or he wanted to get others feeling alarmed.

In a sense the law is stupid however, without this law I could walk around with a gun and point it at persons and scare the **** out of them without doing something illegal. Cause as long as I don't shoot anyone...

I still don't understand why persons should be carrying guns in public in the first place. Oh well, I never will. And I'd like to keep it that way too.

[Spetulhu]

"Gallichant said that on Monday, a magistrate signed a warrant for a charge of disorderly conduct, and officers expected to obtain the signature of one of the witnesses today. Once that is done, the man will be arrested, he said."

Disorderly conduct? That's not quite the same as "carrying guns is illegal even when legal", is it? Walking around the neighborhood with a loaded rifle might not be illegal but you do disturb the peace. Same as your vaunted Free Speech, it too can be used to disturb the peace even if you have the full right to say what you want. Misdemeanor, punishment fines or community service.

[Ronin]

certainly walking around in the middle of a neighborhood with a loaded assault weapon is an intimidation move...

not surprised it is illegal...

this guy has to be some kind of loony.....

[Beirut]

The fellow carrying the gun can have it slung over his shoulder, not point it at anyone, just be walking down the road minding his own business.

Someone walking down the road of my neighbourhood with a loaded AK-47 is definitely not minding his own business. He's a nutbar and a threat to public safety. It's also legal to bring all your guns out on to your front lawn and clean them while the elementary school across the street is having recess, but that is also a really bad idea, and I'd expect the cops to be at that person's doorstep in seconds.

But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act.
CR

That moron would be me. I'd dial 911 so fast m fingers would be a blur.

Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean it's a good idea - just as something being illegal does not necessarily mean it's bad. (I have to go to work in twenty minutes. That's legal and it's also a really bad idea.)

This is not a gun control issue. This is a common sense issue. I've owned dozens of rifles and handguns and never did it occur to me that walking down the street with my Galil over my shoulder was either a good idea, legal, or an exercise in personal liberties. It would be insanity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An assault rifle, or even a semi-auto of that nature is an offensive weapon, the fact that carrying such in an urban area is legal to begin with is questionable, it's not a hunting weapon.

That fact that it was loaded? Well that should qualify him for prison on the grounds that he is a danger to those around him.

[Adrian II]

Ahoy, you lads 'ave no idear what makes me hearty tick. Like e'ery old sea dog, the Rabbit be married t'his gun!

[Don Corleone]

I think CR's point is the legality of the matter. He's making a stand on principle. In principle, I have to agree with him.

But I technically have the legal right to crap in my pants in public, right? Does anybody think that's a good idea? Does anybody really think the police wouldn't be giving me the hairy eyeball, walking around the mall with a load in my pants?

Seriously, if you don't want the government to have to legislate a mandate for common sense, then we're all going to have to exercise some on our own and not stretch the boundaries of what's technically allowable. Brandishing a firearm is a crime in most states, and for a good reason. It ratchets up everyone's tension and threat level, especially as Lemur pointed out, in the post-911 world. If some guy was pacing up and down my street with an assault rifle strapped to his back, damn skippy I'd call the cops (after I loaded a few rounds into my own home defense plan).

[Milovan]

I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.

If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?

[Don Corleone]

I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.

If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?

The reason the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are compared so frequently is that they come from the same place. Theoretically, if the Bill of Rights is a 'living breathing document' that needs to be changed on the fly to account for modern weaponry, then it's just as easily alterable at a whim to account for modern communication. Call it a 'slippery slope' argument, but one with a lot of merit.

When you come right down to it, forget the 2nd ammendment for a second, all the original 'rights' conferred in the original Bill of Rights have been watered down and/or corrupted to a point that they no longer serve their intended purpose. You CAN be searched at a whim. You CAN be forced to house/support occupying troops. Our army DOES get called out to clean up civil disturbances.

[HoreTore]

So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?

Interesting....

[Don Corleone]

So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?

Interesting....

It's this qualifying line that changes the entire reaction, Hore Tore. What if it was...

So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree target shooting - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?

Interesting....

I'm playing devil's advocate, by the way. I've already agreed with you in practice on this particular issue. I just don't think it's proof positive that gun ownership rights need to be discontinued, which appears to be where you're headed.

[Lord Winter]

I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.

If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?

The idea of the second admendment, with the founders being the extremely parinoid people that they were, was to stop the government from trying to remove opposition from being armed thus leaving the said opposition open to a greater degree of control. In short it serves as the final and most terriable check on our government and gurrentees the right to rebellion in event that the social contract is broken.

[HoreTore]

It's this qualifying line that changes the entire reaction, Hore Tore. What if it was...



I'm playing devil's advocate, by the way. I've already agreed with you in practice on this particular issue. I just don't think it's proof positive that gun ownership rights need to be discontinued, which appears to be where you're headed.

Well, I said I was going to a target shooting, but in reality, my targets were humans at a mall. However, nobody knows this but me.

You'll still support me?

[Husar]

But I technically have the legal right to crap in my pants in public, right? Does anybody think that's a good idea? Does anybody really think the police wouldn't be giving me the hairy eyeball, walking around the mall with a load in my pants?

Loaded Pants sounds like a good movie title if you ask me.