KAGSTV.com:

In the first panicked hours following the ambush on Dallas police officers, the department released a photo of a man carrying a long gun as a person of interest.

But he was the wrong guy—and one who never broke any laws by carrying that gun.

“I also don’t fault Dallas police for immediately listing that person as a person of interest,” said Ray Hunt with the Houston Police Officers Union. “Just like anybody else that had guns on the scene, they would be considered persons of interest. That’s just called clues in police work.”

The worklist for police has gotten longer as more people will be sporting pistols and handguns through the state’s open carry law, which took effect this year. And at any scene, it may require more resources.

“It may take another officer to be there to watch that person to make sure that person is not part of the problem,” Hunt said.

But the Houston Police Officers Union is more concerned about the public.

“The number of people who were gonna be calling, because they’re not used to seeing that,” Hunt said.

So far, it hasn’t seemed too problematic.

Since January, the Houston Police Department says out of the tens of thousands of calls a month, only 62 were weapon related.

And out of those, only 19 were actual open-carry situations.

Considering the shootings we have seen around the country, it’s possible people are hypersensitive to weapons. So for now, police can only hope that dispatchers will determine how serious the threat is.

“If we find out that someone is carrying and they’re allowed to be carrying we are allowed to disarm them during the investigation,” Hunt said. “And then give them their weapon back at the end.”

So I reckon the sky isn’t falling and the bodies aren’t stacking up in the morgue because of open carry.  So much for the hyper-dramatic hysteria by the gun controllers.

But on to something the article said about LEO interactions.  “If we find out that someone is carrying and they’re allowed to be carrying we are allowed to disarm them during the investigation,” Hunt said. “And then give them their weapon back at the end.”

You … have … got … to … be … kidding … me?  Is the Houston police department really doing this?  Seriously?  Previously I had said this about the practice of LEOs unholstering weapons from innocent citizens.

If you’re a LEO and you actually touch another man’s gun in the process of a stop, or you have a partner touch his gun, much less unholster it, “secure” it or anything else you think you are doing to it, let me be as clear as I can be.  You … are … an … idiot.  If your procedures have you doing this, then your procedures were written by idiots.  You can tell them I said so and send them this article.

You have no business risking NDs or taking possession of property that isn’t yours, even temporarily, and especially since you don’t know of modifications that may have been made to the firearm that would make it unfamiliar to you.

Don’t do it.  Just say no.  I wouldn’t walk up and presume to take possession of another man’s gun at a range or while in his home.  You have no business doing that either.  It’s weird, creepy, and unsafe.

It makes no one safer, and it makes everyone less safe.  So in light of this, I have two questions for the Houston PD.

1. What basis in law gives you the authority to touch another man’s weapon if he isn’t being charged with any crime?
2. Given that there is a step change downward in safety if you touch another man’s weapon like this, why do your procedures have your officers doing such a stupid thing?

Submitted.

News from Cleveland:

“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN. “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”

So-called “open carry” gun laws in Ohio allow for licensed firearm owners to wear their weapons in public. With the exception of a small “secure zone” inside and around the Quicken Loans Arena, residents, delegates and protesters are legally permitted to walk around the city — including within its 1.7 square mile regulated “event zone” — with any firearm not explicitly banned by the state.

Kasich, responding to the request, said: “Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested.”

That’s interesting, yes?  It isn’t what you expect to hear from a cop.  Oh, they may think it about any number of issues, that is, not caring whether something is constitutional.  But you don’t expect to hear them say it.

This reference to the easy executive order Loomis is talking about might just be indicative of a changed perspective of having lived nearly eight years under a federal executive who couldn’t have cared less what the law said and issued dictatorial decrees as they saw fit to press their agenda.

It changes the expectations of people, huh?  Reeducation of the ignorant and valueless masses through lawlessness by the federal executive.  It’s a sorry-ass world isn’t it?

The Dallas Morning News:

When rifle shots rang out in downtown Dallas during Thursday night’s protest, some of the demonstrators were also carrying rifles.

In the ensuing chaos, one of them was labeled a “person of interest” after police released a photo of him carrying an AR-15 rifle. Others were stopped and questioned by police.

It was not immediately clear Saturday whether any of those who were legally armed delayed or hampered the police response to the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, of Mesquite. Dallas police did not respond to questions.

But Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said: “It’s logical to say that in a shooting situation, open carry can be detrimental to the safety of individuals.”

No Mayor, that’s not logical at all.  How is carry of a gun, concealed or open, a detriment to safety?  Please explain yourself.

Rawlings said Dallas police Chief David Brown told him that people running through the shooting scene with rifles and body armor required officers to track them down and bring them to the police department. Whether that was time that could have been spent trying to find and stop the shooter is something police will have to comment on, Rawlings said.

So let me get this straight.  So you assertion is that if open carry wasn’t legal, the shooter would have shot cops, continued to open carry for all to see, and that would have made it easier to find him, as opposed to say, a concealed carrier shooting, concealing his weapon, and making it harder for the cops to find him?

“There was also the challenge of sorting out witnesses from potential suspects,” Geron said. “Texas is an open carry state, and there were a number of armed demonstrators taking part. There was confusion on the radio about the description of the suspects and whether or not one or more was in custody.”

Okay look, you’re just trying to find someone to blame for this being chaotic rather than clinical, but such things are always chaotic rather than clinical, and open carriers didn’t cause anything or impede any investigation.  If an open carrier had been at the scene he could have helped to handle the situation, but apparently no one was at the scene who had access to weapons (concealed or open).

At least initially the shooter was in a standoff position, and frankly if he had wanted to maintain his effectiveness he would have maintained that standoff position and ensured means of egress.  He chose to engage in CQB and thus he showed himself.  I’ve told you guys time and time again, the most dangerous situation of a sniper’s hide with a “shooter’s rifle,” a scoped bolt action rifle that will shoot  << MOA.

That kind of weapon can be pre-deployed in a sniper’s hide with proper planning.  You’re thinking too small by focusing on guys running around the street and open carriers.  You need to expand your thought framework.

Mass Transit:

During the 2016 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Bus & Paratransit Conference there was an open discussion hosted on concealed and open carry firearm laws. Firearm carry laws differ from state to state, but the biggest highlight was educating operators on those laws — to ensure that they properly address the situation.

Sgt. Charles Rappleyea, the police liaison for Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) said that Charlotte has a no carry law for all public transit. When they do get a call about someone with a weapon he said that they rarely have a problem.

“When we do, they’re often criminals,” said Rappleyea. “Everyone that we’ve encountered with a concealed permit, we haven’t had a problem.”

Whereas in Dallas, Texas, they have an open carry law. James Spiller, the chief of police and emergency management for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), explained for people with open carry licenses — their gun must be in a holster. With the law it was important to educate the public on the rules.

“In Texas, if they are open carry, as a police officer I can’t just walk up and ask them if they have a licence without probable cause,” explained Spiller.

Which raises the question, how do transit operators determine if the person boarding their bus or train with a firearm is legally authorized to do so?

“They have a button, if they’re uncomfortable they can press the button to show ‘hey someone has boarded with a gun’.”

Sorry folks, but feeling “uncomfortable” isn’t a good enough reason.  And contrary to the cited article, it’s not only the police in Texas that cannot just walk up to someone without probable cause.  All stops must be valid “Terry stops.”

As we’ve noted before, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a rebuke to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department in the case of United States Versus Black.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity.  In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present.  When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave.  Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon.  Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.  Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him.  His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

The upshot of this ruling means that the conduct of an action that is perfectly legal doesn’t and can never constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.  And yet apparently the Charlotte Mecklenburg police are still stopping people who are in the process of open carry and asking for concealed handgun permits, contrary to both established law (since N.C. is a traditional open carry state) and court decision.

Why is this happening?  What possible excuse can CMPD have for this behavior?  Moreover, I think Sgt. Charles Rappleyea isn’t being forthcoming.  I think he’s mistaken, or not telling the truth.  I think the CMPD has no data on how many stops they have made on mass transit for open carry (stops which are contrary to or not in accordance with the law) and how many of those stops involved concealed handgun permit holders (besides, one doesn’t need a CHP to legally openly carry in N.C.).  And I think he’s not being honest about the judgment that while CHP holders aren’t a problem, there are actual criminals who are openly carrying firearms in mass transit situations.  In fact, I doubt that the CMPD has had any documented stops of criminals openly carrying on board bus or rail.  Is the CMPD “fabulating” for the benefit of the conference?

If so, the CMPD can correct me here, but in the absence of such correction, I’ll stick to my guns – pardon the pun.

KVUE.com:

Nearly six months ago, licensed open carry-gun owners in Texas were granted the privilege to carry their guns on their hip. Before the legislation’s passing, gun opponents feared it would cause problems for law enforcement.

So, has the public flooded law enforcement with complaints?

“As it turned out, we didn’t get any,” said Roger Wade, the spokesperson for the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.

In preparation of open carry, the Travis County created a special code to track complaints, but hasn’t had any calls to start using it.

Oooo!  A special code for open carriers.  Because it’s so special and everything.

“People were scared of people walking up carrying guns. What they don’t realize is, is that there are a lot of people carry guns, you have no idea are carrying guns,” said Wade.

The KVUE Defenders checked with some of the largest law enforcement agencies in Texas: Austin and Dallas Police Departments, and sheriff’s offices in Hays County, Williamson County, Bastrop County, Bexar County and Harris County. All of the agencies report little to no complaints from the public.

“When the Texas legislature was getting ready to pass open carry last year, we heard a lot of claims from the gun control crowd saying it was going to turn into the wild, wild west, and that just hasn’t happened here,” said Lars Dalseide, spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.

It’s too early to determine if open carry has influenced violent crime in Texas. According to crime reports though, Oklahoma (-3.97 percent) and Tennessee (-3.92 percent) both saw violent crime slightly decrease after open carry became legal.

“These people are safe, responsible gun owners and they go through a lot of trouble to make sure they get the proper licensing from the state,” said Dalseide.

Gun rights groups say they’re not done. They plan to push lawmakers to pass legislation making gun ownership a constitutional right, which would allow owners to own a gun without a license.

Yes, constitutional carry.  This is a good next step.  As for the notion that the wild, wild West hasn’t obtained, I think someone said exactly that and predicted exactly what has come to pass.

Again, as a citizen of a traditional open carry state, I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen here.  Nothing.  That’s right, nothing.  Life will continue in the lone star state unabated, and the doomsday predictions of law enforcement and the progressives will go down as a monument to their hatred of the common man.

I’ll send the bill for my consultative services tomorrow.

Via reporter Mack, opinion from Virginia:

The comments are a hoot.  Well Kimberly, it ain’t no skin off of my back.  I’ve said before many times that I would prefer to open carry simply because of the level of comfort having to do with carrying OWB versus IWB.  It is my understanding that two centuries ago it was considered dishonorable to conceal a weapon anyway.  Honorable men displayed weapons for all to see.

But the problem is this.  Suppose we stipulate that such a law wouldn’t infringe upon a right (a point I do not grant, by the way, but stipulate for the sake of argument).  Making this law doesn’t lead to observance of that law, the deadly weakness of all such progressive social planning.  Setting the regulation in place does nothing to effect compliance, because … ahem … the weapon would be concealed, not openly displayed.

In other words, such a law would only affect peaceable, law abiding men, not criminals who were never going to obey the law regardless of what it says.  So you see Kimberly, your proposed law does no more than the opposite proposal does for the folks who fear the public carrying of weapons.  Yes, that’s right, Kimberly.  Some people want to prohibit what you want to encourage.

They want to prohibit open carry because the law forces hiding the weapon, and since it is out of sight they can pretend that it doesn’t exist.  You want to force open carry by law so that you can pretend that concealed weapons don’t exist.  In either case, this is a psychological problem, one which you ought to take up with your pastor or church counselor rather than the state legislature.

News from Georgia:

So this report is confusing, and I doubt that anything about the store manager’s reaction was well thought out or deliberate.  It needed to be.  First of all, open carry isn’t the same thing as concealed carry, and the patron was openly carrying.  When he returned without his weapon, the sign in the door referred to firearms not being welcome, as opposed to open carry.

Second, if you do a search of the Cracker Barrel web site, you’ll find nothing there that even hints of a formal corporate policy concerning firearms.  They also don’t seem to me to make it easy to contact them.  Third, if you do a Google search of Cracker Barrel firearms policy, you’ll get everything from all firearms being banned to only open carry being banned.  And of course as I said, there is no formal published policy, and there are never any postings from what I can recall from being in that store.

So here is the deal, Cracker Barrel.  Man up.  Make your decision regarding carry of weapons, concealed and/or open, publish the policy decision on your web site, and post your stores in a manner consistent with your policy.  Don’t play games with patrons – that’s rude and ill mannered.  Tell us what you want, and we can then make our decisions according to our own beliefs in light of your corporate policy.

Is that such a difficult thing to do?

NBC10.com:

If you see an armed jogger in Mount Airy, Pennsylvania, these days, it’s not a “run-by” in progress.

He’s trying to make a point.

News From Oklahoma:

The Oklahoma House Thursday overwhelmingly adopted legislation that would permit gun owners to carry their weapons openly without a state-issued license.

House members voted 73-15 for House Bill 3098, the so-called “constitutional open carry” measure, and sent it to the state Senate for debate and a vote.

The measure’s author, Republican Rep. Jeff Coody of Grandfield, said it is similar to open carry laws in more than 30 other states and would allow gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms openly, such is in a holster, without having to comply with existing state government licensing requirements.

Coody said persons who want to carry a concealed weapon would still be required to obtain a state permit.

“It’s the ultimate freedom bill regarding open carry,” Coody said. Coody and other supporters said citizens who are qualified to own a handgun should not be required to ask the government for permission and pay a fee to openly carry it.

“It’s our God-given right to defend our self,” said Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw.

But opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.

The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.

Seldom do you see it in such stark words.  Recognizing God-given rights will lead to the rejection of state-granted rights, thus leading to less power by the state, and fewer jobs at the feeding trough of public wealth.  Therefore, the statists are against recognizing God-given rights.

So there you have it.  I believe some of these grievances are similar to those that were enumerated by the colonists against King George.  Yes, now that I think about it, I’m sure of it.  “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Jeremy Bryant makes a 420 mile trip through Oregon to his grandfather’s funeral open carrying a .357 Magnum, hitchhiking all the way.  This is well worth watching in its entirety.  And Jeremy has given me a brand new expression which I will shamelessly parrot until I no longer have breath.  “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”