Man Detained, Questioned, and Arrested for Legally Open Carrying

This is the very reason I personally don’t want to open carry. I don’t want to draw attention to myself. Particularly police attention. I know the police do not like open gun carriers, and I know that someone would call the police when he saw me carrying a gun openly. I would be detained, harassed, interrogated, searched, and maybe arrested even though what I was doing was perfectly legal. And all that could be avoided if I instead opted for carrying a concealed handgun.

It should not be that way, but it is, and I don’t want to be in that position where I’m frequently having to call a family member to come and bail me out of jail.

However, I also know there are plenty of others who don’t seem to mind the harsh inconveniences of jail time. They even make videos of their encounters with police.

I think in our current backwards culture, open carrying a rifle is an unwise thing to do, because it unnecessarily puts you in a very risky situation. We all know how trigger-happy cops can be. We all know they can shoot and kill a person and claim that they were justified in doing so because they felt their “lives were threatened.” Open carriers are easy targets for police, and it would be easy for cops to claim that they felt threatened by someone who was walking around with a rifle.

Here’s an example of just such a person. His name is Mack Worley, and he’s an Air Force veteran. He was walking around in Vancouver, Washington with a semi-automatic rifle on his shoulder. The video shows his encounter with police and his subsequent arrest after he was initially let go:

Even though these sorts of thing are unwise, Mr. Worley is correct in stating that police must have probable cause, based on a reasonable suspicion, that he was committing or had already committed a crime. When one of the officers stated in the video that his gun “might be stolen,” that’s not good enough. Police may not just stop anyone anywhere to make sure they’re not committing any crimes. That’s exactly what the 4th Amendment prohibits. And that was Mr. Worley’s point. Unless they had probable cause, they had no legal justification to stop him in the first place.

Open carriers are trying to normalize open carrying. Compare open gun carriers to homosexual activists. What do they do to normalize their behavior? Just think of all the gross things they do in Gay Pride parades across the country. Out in the open. Think of how there are homosexual characters on every TV show and movie whom we’re supposed to sympathize with. Think of the domino effect that’s been the widespread acceptance of same-sex “marriages,” often involving a federal judge overruling a particular state’s majority decision not to allow them. Think of the LGBT laws that allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa. Think of the studies they commission showing that homosexual parents are actually better than their heterosexual counterparts.

So, how does the homosexual community try to normalize their behavior? They use intimidation tactics. They shove it in our faces. If that wasn’t bad enough, everyone has to love it being shoved in his face. Mere toleration isn’t good enough. You must affirm your complete and unconditional acceptance of their behavior and openly regard their every perverted act as being “perfectly natural” and beautiful. You must also mock and ridicule the idea of Biblical marriage and call all same-sex “marriage” opponents bigots and homophobes.

I’m all for normalizing open gun carrying. But we obviously can’t do it the same way the left normalizes their own beliefs. The irony is that the left accuses open gun carriers of shoving their beliefs down everyone else’s throats and using intimidation tactics; you know, all the things the left does. Yes, it’s a completely unfair game where the left makes all the rules, but we have to be aboveboard on this.

I think the best thing to do is to coordinate with your local police department. Yes, they can be trigger-happy, but if they knew you personally, I bet they wouldn’t be nearly as trigger-happy. So, get to know them. Allow them to know who you are and what you stand for. They’re not all going to be receptive to open carry. That’s just reality. When they stonewall your efforts to either open carry freely or to hold an open carry demonstration, don’t fight or argue with them. You and your friends will have to go to a more gun-friendly city or county until you find some police who share your beliefs.

When you find a good cop or a more receptive police department, start holding demonstrations after giving the police a heads-up. The more people see open carry demonstrations, and the larger the demonstrations are, the more people and the police will be receptive to those who wish to open carry freely.

Supporting local lawmakers who share your beliefs or who can be swayed to share your beliefs can also go a long way in changing our culture of fear. If we want these belligerent police encounters to stop, there has to be legal consequences to their actions. There is no doubt that what Mr. Worley did was perfectly legal. But the police would rather err on the side of tyranny than liberty. It needs to be difficult for the police to detain a person who’s simply open carrying a rifle. There needs to be consequences for the police who break the law, just like there were consequences for Mr. Worley who hadn’t broken the law.

We can’t use the strong-arm tactics that the police use to enforce their will on others (despite what the law says), and we can’t use the in-your-face intimidation that the left uses to normalize their perversion-of-choice. It’s definitely an uphill battle, but it’s one that’s worth fighting.



Posted in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, Law Enforcement, Police State Tagged with: ,
16 comments on “Man Detained, Questioned, and Arrested for Legally Open Carrying
  1. Ron says:

    Open carry may be legal, but not very bright. Every time someone reports seeing you with a weapon, the police must investigate.

    • Gold Stars says:

      While that is possibly true in some areas, it certainly is not true in most of the big cities. Unless you can tell them someone is being killed, then you can expect a response in the next half hour or so, if not, you are lucky if anyone actually ever shows up. :(
      Concealed carry does make more sense, from a tactical point however.
      the author has a good point however, demonstrations with police sanction would be a good idea in many places. At least if it is good enough for the far liberal left, it should be acceptable for them to see how the more rational people want to live also. :)

      I personally know a gentleman that was sitting in his own front yard with his AK-47 leaning next to his chair. No on was called, but an officer noticed it while driving by. This idiot officer almost was shot, because he drew his weapon and jumped over the fence, telling him he was under arrest. Not a good choice.
      Faster than he realized could happen, he was looking down the muzzle of that rifle, as he was being told he was trespassing and would soon be shot it he did not lower his pistol!

      Once the officer realized he was going to die if he did not comply, and lower his weapon and left the yard, then and only then did the conversation start.

      The officer was in the wrong, almost had himself shot, and for no other reason than he wanted to bully this person, whom no one had complained about. Nothing happened to the home owner, as he was in the right. The officer was told by his supervisor to not be so stupid next time!

      Not exactly open carry, but kind of close.

    • RETROBOB says:

      It’s mostly geographical. If you happen to live in a really red state, as I do, there are no problems whatsoever. Where I eat breakfast in the morning it’s not that unusual to see someone openly carrying a holstered sidearm. Most folks still carry concealed, but more are openly carrying. I do, however live in a city of only around 47,000 so I’m not in a large urban area, Thank God. We also only have a handful (2 or 3) of shootings a year which are almost entirely alcohol related.

      • MaxAR15 says:

        Retro, I wish I lived in your state or town as just the thought of guns will bring out both the LEO’s & the thought police. Jersey is to far left for me. Three to five years & we are moving to a very Gun friendly area.

  2. Paladin says:

    The cops had nothing so they made up a trumped up trespassing charge.

    THAT is ho wit works folks. Whether you lawfully carry open or concealed; if you run into the wrong cops, the charge will be trespassing, it will be jaywalking, it will be criminal mischief, whatever they can think of just to arrest you and confiscate your firearm.

  3. ADRoberts says:

    Grounds for a lawsuit. I hope he takes it.
    Notice how that it would appear that two of the three cops WERE immigrants. All they could do was parrot the talking points. And the latino with the shotgun would have LOVED to have killed him.
    Did you notice how they set this up. They warned him that although he had broken no laws, they perception of his “actions” would be used to treat him differently in the future. And that is exactly what they did.
    They had this scenerio set up prior to this incident.
    God help us.

    • ADRoberts says:

      Apparently JOse is going to get canned because he can’t type except in capitals.
      “For all of his ranting and claims that the open carrier was stupid and that the cops did not have ANY OTHER CHOICE, I will note that IT IS THE LAW. He is allowed to carry and the cops are breaking the law by arresting him.
      They literally created a fork where they did not care what he did. He was told to leave the parking lot where his car was. The cop demanded that he NOT walk toward him with a gun. WHY? No good reason. And if he just stood there, they would still have arrested him.
      This scenerio was planned ahead of time. They want to arrest him and staged this to give themselves a VERY sorry excuse TO DO SO.
      BAD COPS. One white, two latinos, and an oriental. My guess is that three out of four are immigrants.

  4. Sigmund says:

    The intimidation necessary to push open carry is to file suit against the LEOs and their commanders, and the jurisdiction they work for. It’s called push-back.

  5. Gringo Infidel says:

    Great servants of the peace. How is a made up charge different from any other gangster making up their own rules as they go along?

    Still carrying an AR in public is pretty provocative so the attention this carrier brought to himself should have been expected.

    Love officer Hernandez going all tactical with the shotgun – kinda hot.

  6. Dagwood says:

    Legally RIGHT, but ignorant

  7. Dagwood says:

    Im wondering if the gun-grabbers are setting up confrontations between LEO’s and carriers just to CAUSE friction. It’s the Obama way

  8. rockyvnvmc says:

    I don’t understand why some States and Municipalities have an unreasonable fear of open carry laws. I’m from Ohio, originally and we’ve had open carry on the books forever, with No Adverse problematic situations regularly occurring, as some Hoplophobes seem to fear.

    • Dagwood says:

      Hoplophobes???? gotta look that one up——————DID thank you for increasing my vocabulary

  9. Walt says:

    Mr. Worley was looking to get arrested. He apparently wanted some kind of confrontation and he got it. Just because you are entitled to carry a rifle down the street doesn’t mean it is a good idea. This is what gives gun owners a bad name.

Last Resistance Newsletter