News from NC.

Obviously we’re going to suggest no one take a firearm to a bus stop to pick up a child, but as far as criminal behavior, we can’t find a criminal violation,” said Chris Honeycutt with the Stanly County Sheriff’s Office.

Ignoring the question whether it was wise to carry a rifle to a bus stop, the Sheriff’s office made the right call here.  As we’ve seen before, North Carolina is an open carry state, and that includes any firearm.

I hope that North Carolina LEOs are finally learning this lesson.  It’s damn well taken long enough.

Our friend Timothy Harper with News Now OKC recently did a 2A audit in Mcloud, Oklahoma.

So there are a few things that need to be reinforced with the Mcloud PD.  First of all, there was no legal necessity for Mr. Harper to show his ID.  This wasn’t a “Terry Stop.”  You could not articulate suspicion of a crime.

Second, you had no right to order him off the street, and I’m glad he stood his ground.  Third, you couldn’t articulate any difference between flying a kite and Mr. Harper doing what he was doing, which is entirely legal, and yet you ordered him off the street.  So you looked stupid.

Finally, tell fat boy he needs to lose some weight if he wants to chase down the real bad guys.

I’m glad Mr. Harper is doing this.  It apparently is needful and I hope he keeps going.

Prince Law:

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 53 page majority opinion, a 2 page concurring decision by Justice Baer and a 16 page concurring opinion by Justice Dougherty which Justice Mundy joined, in the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, which addressed whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[ … ]

“Before this Court, the Commonwealth again advanced its “radical position,” Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1071, in the present iteration contending that police officers are not only entitled, but “duty bound” to seize and investigate the licensing status of every individual who carries a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania. Brief for Commonwealth at 11. We have little difficulty in again rejecting this proposition, because we conclude that the Robinson rule contravenes the Terry doctrine and, indeed, the fundamental guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.

Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.

If the consequence of our decision is that future courts afford meaningful Fourth Amendment protection to individuals engaged in other commonly licensed activities, that result is preferable to our allowance of governmental overreach that undermines the individual freedom that is essential to our way of life in this constitutional republic.

…

Crime and violence are ever-present threats in society, and it can be tempting to look to the government to provide protection from “dangerous” people with constant vigilance. However, the protections of the Fourth Amendment remain an essential bulwark against the overreaches and abuses of governmental authority over all individuals. Notwithstanding the dangers posed by the few, we must remain wary of the diminution of the core liberties that define our republic, even when the curtailment of individual liberty appears to serve an interest as paramount as public safety. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Consistent with the General Assembly’s reservation of the exclusive prerogative to regulate firearms in this Commonwealth, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, the additional requirement that an individual possess a license in order to carry a firearm openly within the City of Philadelphia is prescribed by statute, not by municipal ordinance. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108; see generally Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996).”

So the court did three things: [1] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm in a concealed manner isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (I would have to know the specifics of the case to be able to ascertain why this is important since if the firearm is concealed well, it wouldn’t be seen by anyone), [2] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm openly isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (apparently Pennsylvania has a permitted open carry system, and cops don’t have the right to stop someone who is openly carrying to ask about a permit), and [3] decreed that little tyrants in locales like cities or townships don’t have to right to upend this judgment.

Every once in a while someone gets it right.  I would think that after the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals viz. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, they would stop trying to argue that they have unlimited rights.

But also just as apparent is the fact that the police go from judge to judge, and court to court, until they find someone who agrees with them.

That’s the American way, yes?

Through Edmond Haifer Park.  Just a few of comments.  First, to the cop.  Stop pointing that rifle at people.  It’s stupid.

Second, do … not … ever … touch another man’s gun in a circumstance like this.  Ever.  It’s stupid.  A negligent discharge can occur, someone could get hurt, the weapon might have been modified and you wouldn’t know it, a round might be chambered and it might not be, you don’t know the configuration or status of that weapon, and so on.  Do not ever touch another man’s weapon.

Third, get educated.  Too many cops were looking on the idiot boxes (phones) to figure out if a barrel less than 16″ with a pistol brace is an SBR or a pistol.  Really.  Seek some education, read a little bit.

Prior: Oklahoma AR Pistol Walk

Apparently, some dude is taking his AR pistol for a walk in every Oklahoma city and recording the interactions with police.

News from Idaho:

Rep. Chad Christensen, R-Ammon, said he was in a group of five people eating at Bacon when owner John Berryhill told them their firearms were making customers and staff nervous, according to his Facebook post Saturday. He said Berryhill then closed a curtain around their booth.

Yes, establishments have a right to prohibit carry within their premises.  And anyone has a right to say anything about it, at any time, to anyone, and within any context.

Isn’t it interesting that there is a legislator in Idaho who identifies as a Three Percenter?  I didn’t know that.

News from Representative Chris Lee of Hawaii.

“The open carry states are ones where everybody gets shot so I think we have a very good record in Hawai’i for gun safety protection and and the fourth lowest gun violence in any state in the union.  It’s a combination of things but one of most important parts of it is that we have strict gun laws.”

Representative Lee says it could be years before the Young case is settled but the top priority for Hawai’i lawmakers is public safety.

“I’ve owned guns in the past; I don’t today but we have an obligation on our part in Hawai’i to make sure that we have the adequate legal protections in place to make sure that it’s not gonna be the wild, wild west …

Drama queen much, Ms. Lee?

From the comments, “The open carry states are ones where everybody gets shot.” Oh yeah, Vermont is a really dangerous state.

Texas too, huh?  Blood in the streets, it is.  Everybody is getting shot.  Everybody.  Because open carry, that’s why.  Everybody.

No exaggeration.  Everybody.  From open carry.

Asheville Citizen-Times:

Question: I know that you have to have a license to carry a concealed weapon in our area. But a friend told me that if you do not conceal the weapon and it is out in the open, with a few exceptions you can carry a weapon in public. Specifically, he said you can walk around downtown Asheville with a shotgun or a machete and it is legal. I’m having a hard time believing that. Could the Answer Man investigate and explain what the particulars of the law are? Where can and where can’t you carry a weapon openly in public? Is there any restriction on the type of weapon you can openly carry? Are there places you can’t carry a concealed weapon?

My answer: Nothing says “holiday cheer” like a question about open carry laws.

Real answer: This subject does get quite complicated, so the following is far from a comprehensive answer.

For starters, you can indeed openly carry a gun around in North Carolina, generally speaking.

“(The reader is) correct in that North Carolina generally allows the open carry of firearms, with a few exceptions,” said Asheville Police Department spokeswoman Christina Hallingse. “A private property owner may restrict the carrying of firearms on their property, whether they be concealed or carried openly. There are a number of statutes that could potentially apply, including ‘Going Armed to the Terror of the People.'”

In part that law says you’re guilty of this offense if you arm yourself “with an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of terrifying others,” and you go “about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to the people.” The North Carolina Supreme Court states that a gun meets the definition of an “unusual and dangerous weapon.”

All sorts of private businesses have restrictions on carrying guns, generally communicated by signs that state in words or pictures that guns and knives are not allowed.

As you can imagine, North Carolina has a lot of regulations about firearms. Hallingse provided a helpful link to “North Carolina Firearms Laws,” a 46-page document on the North Carolina Department of Justice site you can find here: https://bit.ly/2EbdqWr

Generally speaking, you can’t carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, into a bar or other places selling alcohol if you are consuming alcohol. You also can’t carry a gun into banks, schools or governmental buildings such as courthouses. Under the section subtitled “Areas Where Weapons Are Prohibited,” the documents also lists “Events occurring in public places,” and “Areas of emergency and riots.”

As far as weapons that are banned altogether, even for law enforcement officers (in most cases), the state law lays out a couple of pages of them under the section of the aforementioned North Carolina DOJ document called “Restricted and Prohibited Weapons.”

SEE ALSO: Asheville calls for assault weapons ban; mayor says she would go further

Among them are:

• Any spring-loaded projectile knife, a ballistic knife, or any weapon of similar character

• Weapons of mass destruction, including bombs of all sorts, grenades, rockets having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, a missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mines; and any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will expel a projectile using an explosive or other propellant, and which has a barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch.

• Any firearm capable of fully automatic fire.

• Any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or an overall length of
less than 26 inches.

• A rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or an overall length of less
than 26 inches.

• Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting a device
into any weapon described above, and from which a weapon of mass death and
destruction may readily be assembled.

• Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction

• Teflon-coated bullets

I think this is a bad commentary because it’s misleading and incomplete.  First of all, MG are not prohibited – it’s just that you must have ATF approval for a Class 3 weapon.  I know folks in NC who legally own MGs.  The same thing goes for SBRs (he implies that it’s illegal to own an SBR in North Carolina).  It isn’t, as long as you have a tax stamp.

As for his snark about “Nothing says “holiday cheer” like a question about open carry laws,” I quite agree.  Open carry makes me cheerful, as it should.  As I’ve said before, I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”

It would appear that from the questioner’s surprise, not enough North Carolinians are openly carrying.

News from Florida:

A group of open carry gun enthusiasts had a well-armed visit to Miami Beach on Saturday.

The group calling itself “Florida Carry” caused a disturbance when they showed up on the South Pointe Park Pier in June.

At that time, six members of the group startled fishermen and visitors, some of whom notified police.

Officers temporarily detained and disarmed the group, but determined that they were within their rights to carry weapons.

This time, the group announced it’s intention to show up at the pier on a Facebook page, and police were ready and accommodating.

The group walked to the pier and proceeded to fish, gathering several double-takes from other fishermen and tourists.

Open Carry Advocate Steven Merrette said, “This is our statement to come out here and try and educate not only the law enforcement officers but the general public as well. We are not the problem. We’re out here peacefully fishing, we’ve got our wives, our kids with us, we’re out here having a good time, nobody’s causing any problems.”

I support their efforts.  As I’ve said before, the shame must end.  I agree wholeheartedly with the notion of open carry to prove a point.  Other than that, we learn absolutely nothing interesting or actionable from this stupid report, except that the police are criminals.

It’s legal to open carry while fishing, and this wasn’t a Terry stop.  There was no suspicion of a crime, and the police didn’t need to detain the men and verify that they were within their rights.  Here’s a scoop, cops.  There is no law against it, so they were within their rights, just as much as walking down the street is within my rights, and you have no right to detain me for walking down the street.

As for disarming the men, I’ve pointed out before that this is the stupidest, most ridiculous, most unsafe act you can take.  Do … not .. touch .. another … man’s .. weapon.  If you do that, you are an imbecile, and your procedures are faulty.

So here’s a suggestion for the write of this silly article (” … and police were ready and accommodating”).  Find out and report for us what right the police had to detain and disarm the men, and give us the court precedents that support such action, if you can find any.  More to the point.  Give us court precedents that demonstrate that the police can detain you for no reason whatsoever?

Here’s another idea.  Give us the data on whether blood really runs in the streets like the wild, wild west in open carry states.  Or not.  Hey, “journalist.”  Do you even know how many states are open carry states?

Prior: Miami Beach Police Draw Down On, Detain, Disarm, And Throw Around Lawful Open Carriers

News from Delaware:

A Delaware judge has once again found that parts of the state’s latest attempt to regulate firearms on public lands are unconstitutional.

In a years-long legal battle, two Delaware sports groups and individual gun owners have repeatedly challenged the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Department of Agriculture’s regulations limiting weapons in state parks, forests and wildlife areas.

“We saw an agency … doing things we felt were not constitutional, and we called them on it,” said Jeffrey Hague, president of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association. “We were vindicated in a couple of court decisions … that what the agencies were doing was overreach.”

A Kent County Superior Court Judge’s ruling last week again supported claims that parts of a partial weapons ban were unlawful.

For decades, firearms — as well as slingshots and archery equipment — were banned in a slew of public places such as campgrounds, with the exception of areas used for hunting.

Gun advocates like Hague argued that meant people who wanted to camp in Delaware’s parks or visit the beach would have to give up their right to bear arms or find themselves breaking the law.

Late last year, the Delaware Supreme Court shot down those bans, ruling that they were unconstitutional. State agencies responded by issuing emergency regulations because without them, they argued, “firearms would essentially be unregulated.”

Shortly after that ruling, the state adopted revised versions of those emergency rules to prohibit the open carry of firearms in certain public places such as lodges and gathering spots within state parks or forests.

Gun advocates again turned to the courts to challenge the state’s authority and rulemaking, which had established “designated areas” within public lands where firearms were prohibited.

The agencies published maps of these areas, and included the caveat that people licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon and former or current police officers were exempt from the rule as long as they could prove their gun-bearing rights.

The lawsuit was filed by the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the local affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, and club member John Sylvester against the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the state Department of Agriculture and those agencies’ secretaries in late May. It also sought clarity on the new rules.

The plaintiffs contended in the lawsuit that the revised ban, which essentially sets designated gun-free zones in state parks, forests and wildlife areas, is at odds with both the Delaware and United States constitutions.

Kent County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey J. Clark’s ruling last week, based on a line-by-line review of the partial gun ban, concluded that certain aspects — including the need to show proof of the right to carry a weapon — were unlawful.

Clark invalidated the inclusion of camping areas and lodges within the designated areas that prohibit firearms, the requirement that former or current law enforcement and concealed carry permit holders show documented proof of their right, and the requirement to show proof of identification.

The remainder of the revised regulations on firearms and weapons in state parks, forests and wildlife areas will remain in effect.

Francis Pileggi, a Wilmington attorney who has been working this case since the first lawsuit was filed in 2015, said it was only challenging parts of the new rules, but they largely won their case.

He said the biggest issue was to ensure peoples’ right to bear arms in their dwelling — whether that be a home, vacation rental or, in this case, a campsite — is upheld.

He said this case also was helpful in providing the court’s interpretation of the rules, which he said were not easily understood in some cases. For instance, it seemed that the designated areas were full gun-free zones; the court interpreted them to mean open carry is not permitted in those areas.

Recall I said that “they will never upbraid another branch of government, law or regulation in front of the peasants?”  I guess I was wrong.  The judge could have gone further, but this is a big win for gun rights in Delaware.

Statist get slammed, statist find another way to control, statist gets slammed again.  But if history is any indication, they’ll have to go back to court again, or simply ignore the regulations.  Maybe it’s time for an open carry event in Delaware state parks, yes?