AR carry at Atlanta airport

[Monkeyman2500]

I totally agree!! Wow, is this a gun owner's website or the discussion area of media matters?!

We/you should be applauding this guy, because he obviously has bigger cajones than all of you. How many of you actually open carry, since it is legal in TN? For years we have been pushing legislation in FL to try to obtain the right to open carry in FL. So far we have not been successful.

A few of you mention that just because it's legal doesn't make it right...so...are you saying gubm'nt should remove his ability to carry an AR in public?! Are you siding with all those people that think gubm'nt should prohibit carrying any firearm...or for that matter, owning a firearm?!

What good is a right if we don't exercise it?

More importantly, if you don't exercise your rights WE WILL LOOSE THEM!

He could have just as well carried a pistol, or even had an AR pistol strapped to his side, but instead he chose a tactical sling with 100rd drum. You think this is a positive step for helping the cause? More like it's going to get people scrambling to figure out how to ban them from the airport at the very least. This is my favorite quote from the article
"People think that if you're simply carrying your firearm, regardless of how you're carrying it, you're a bad person," he told the News Wednesday morning. "But if you're not carrying it in a menacing or threatening manner, it should be no cause for concern for anybody."
So dressing in black and carrying an AR in a tactical front sling with 100rd drum is not threatening? It's not that he did it I have a problem with, it's how he did it. Also I bet dollars to doughnuts he doesn't walk around all day everyday with that strapped to his chest. He was looking for personal attention, not exercising his rights for a just cause.

[nightrunner]

Actually it seems he may be Voldemort's cousin...

[Ron_TN]

This may be OFF topic while we are on the subject about abusing carrying a gun.  Would you not guess that most all of the bikers in that Waco,Texas brawl where carrying a gun. And I wonder how many of them who fired their weapons had a carry permit. 

[nightrunner]

This may be OFF topic while we are on the subject about abusing carrying a gun. Would you not guess that most all of the bikers in that Waco,Texas brawl where carrying a gun. And I wonder how many of them who fired their weapons had a carry permit.

I would guess that most of them did unless they were felons. A lot of gangs, not just bikers, are having their members get their carry permit if they can to avoid police hassle of just one more thing.

[Dolomite_supafly]

First off if he was separated from service after 13 months he likely cannot legally own a firearm. I can guarantee he did not receive an honorable discharge and more than likely he was separated under less than honorable conditions which precludes him from firearm ownership. So here we have someone who is likely no legally allowed to own firearms and we have gun owners applauding him for breaking the law.

 

Being from the windy city I can guarantee he is a liberal with an agenda. People do not spend their entire life living, breathing the liberal kool aid then change their spots. I have yet to meet someone from one of the many nanny states who isn't a liberal to some degree and at the top of the liberal hate is guns. And because he has an agenda he does not represent the vast majority of gun owners and we should not be applauding his efforts. I suspect a lot of these open carry people are not gun owners but are liberals who are working towards their goal of a gun free country. And this guy has done exactly what he wants to do which is divide us gun owners in smaller groups within the gun community. The easiest way to tear any group down is to create distrust within that group.

 

As much as I have wrote to our representatives about legalizing rifle carry I know the second it happens hundreds of immature people are going to grab their rifles and run to the nearest Walmart in order scare people. For them it is not about exercising their rights but about some sort of misguided feeling of authority or respect they think they get. I have watched dozens of videos and the overwhelming majority of them have people taking pleasure in the fear they cause. In my last round of letters, where I begged for legal rifle carry, I said conceal carry would be a great option to keep stuff like this from happening. But even so someone will mold a Kydex in the shape of an AK or AR and walk around the places they think will get the biggest rise. I know if they legalized rifle carry here I would not carry a rifle in the open because people will not get used to it, ever, and after so many moms call the representatives we will loose the ability to carry our rifles, and maybe even other firearms, despite the fact we were doing it all the time.

 

robnfl, I can see you are passionate about this but let me give you a few words of caution. Do not allow your passion turn into aggression towards other members here. We all make our own choices in how we want to live so do not attack other members because they do not live by your standard of living. And while I am at it I will say that the vast majority of places these open carry types actually carry has nothing to do with exercising their rights under the second amendment or the protections from the government. Anyone's right to keep and bear arms can be limited on private property and the government can, and does, limit those rights on behalf of other private entities. The open carry types are not protected by the second amendment when they carry in Walmart, Starbucks or any other retailer just like they have no legal right to free speech at those places. And those places can actually put conditions on who, how, when and what they carry. They can dictate that the only "weapons" allowed on their property are Nerf weapons and there is NOTHING anyone can do other than abide by it or leave the property. So their thinking that open carrying a rifle on private property is exercising second amendment is misguided at best and idiotic at worst.

[Trekbike]

First off if he was separated from service after 13 months he likely cannot legally own a firearm. I can guarantee he did not receive an honorable discharge and more than likely he was separated under less than honorable conditions which precludes him from firearm ownership. So here we have someone who is likely no legally allowed to own firearms and we have gun owners applauding him for breaking the law.

 

 

 

This is more of a question than a disagreement since I know very little about the laws on this matter.    I was under the impression that you had to have a full dishonorable discharge to preclude ownership.  You mentioned "less than honorable conditions" also precluding ownership so that was confusing to me.   I'm not ex-military so I know jack squat about those things.   I'm just trying to learn.   

[NextExit]

 How many of you actually open carry, since it is legal in TN?

Not me.  I don't care to advertize.  Personal choice.

 

This is more of a question than a disagreement since I know very little about the laws on this matter.    I was under the impression that you had to have a full dishonorable discharge to preclude ownership.  You mentioned "less than honorable conditions" also precluding ownership so that was confusing to me.   I'm not ex-military so I know jack squat about those things.   I'm just trying to learn.   

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on the form you fill out when buying a gun, there's a question that asks if you served in the military, did you receive an honorable discharge.  It doesn't ask what condition your discharge was.  Let me go buy another gun so I can see what it asks. ;)

[crossfire]

This may be OFF topic while we are on the subject about abusing carrying a gun.  Would you not guess that most all of the bikers in that Waco,Texas brawl where carrying a gun. And I wonder how many of them who fired their weapons had a carry permit. 

Why bring Waco into this?

[DaveTN]

This is more of a question than a disagreement since I know very little about the laws on this matter.    I was under the impression that you had to have a full dishonorable discharge to preclude ownership.  You mentioned "less than honorable conditions" also precluding ownership so that was confusing to me.   I'm not ex-military so I know jack squat about those things.   I'm just trying to learn.

The federal law (Gun Control Act of 1968) specifically states “who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions”.

Most people with problems would get a General, “Other than Honorable”, or a “Bad Conduct Discharge”. A dishonorable discharge requires a General Court Martial and is generally for the most serious offenses.

I don’t know if there is case law on it; but the wording of the law seems to only ban those with a dishonorable discharge.

[DaveTN]

Not me.  I don't care to advertize.  Personal choice.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on the form you fill out when buying a gun, there's a question that asks if you served in the military, did you receive an honorable discharge.  It doesn't ask what condition your discharge was.  Let me go buy another gun so I can see what it asks. ;)

It asks:
Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

And the PDF I looked at on ATF.gov had dishonorable in bold.

 

[JayC]

Completely wrong...  Lets go over some of the ways you can be discharged under honorable conditions in less than 13 months back in the 90's.

 

1. Injury during the first couple months of service, and received a medical discharge.

2. Pre-existing medical issue discovered after enlistment, that once found barred him from service.

3. ELS - Entry level separation - as long as the separation was started within 180 days of enlistment.

4. This was at the height of the cold war draw down, so a RIF - Reduction in force - is possible.

5. Dependency or Hardship Discharge - illness is spouse, child or family member, etc.

 

Those are just the one's off the top of my head...  you're right it's likely something else was wrong...  but the fact he was discharged as a PFC and not a Private would lead me to believe it wasn't some behavior issue.

 

 

First off if he was separated from service after 13 months he likely cannot legally own a firearm. I can guarantee he did not receive an honorable discharge and more than likely he was separated under less than honorable conditions which precludes him from firearm ownership. So here we have someone who is likely no legally allowed to own firearms and we have gun owners applauding him for breaking the law.

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

I could have sworn I read a 4473 that asks if you were discharged under "less than honorable" conditions. I guess I read it wrong. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I still believe the idiot is a liberal doing his best to support the liberal agenda. Why else would he do all of that then send it to a news agency?

 

 

This is more of a question than a disagreement since I know very little about the laws on this matter.    I was under the impression that you had to have a full dishonorable discharge to preclude ownership.  You mentioned "less than honorable conditions" also precluding ownership so that was confusing to me.   I'm not ex-military so I know jack squat about those things.   I'm just trying to learn.   

 

Completely wrong...  Lets go over some of the ways you can be discharged under honorable conditions in less than 13 months back in the 90's.

 

1. Injury during the first couple months of service, and received a medical discharge.

2. Pre-existing medical issue discovered after enlistment, that once found barred him from service.

3. ELS - Entry level separation - as long as the separation was started within 180 days of enlistment.

4. This was at the height of the cold war draw down, so a RIF - Reduction in force - is possible.

5. Dependency or Hardship Discharge - illness is spouse, child or family member, etc.

 

Those are just the one's off the top of my head...  you're right it's likely something else was wrong...  but the fact he was discharged as a PFC and not a Private would lead me to believe it wasn't some behavior issue.

[NextExit]

It asks:
Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

And the PDF I looked at on ATF.gov had dishonorable in bold.

Thanks for the correction. :up:

[Pete123]

Several folks have posted support for what this guy did.  The problem with what he did is that he is sticking a sleeping pitbull in the eye with a stick.

 

Can you do it?  Sure.  Should you do it?  Well, not so much.  

 

People like this guy give the gun control folks more to work with.  

[Hozzie]

I still believe the idiot is a liberal doing his best to support the liberal agenda. Why else would he do all of that then send it to a news agency?

 

If I could only wish he was smart enough to do that.  Unfortunately, he is the exact type that makes a Liberals job easy.  Why go to the trouble of looking like an idiot in disguise when you can get the real thing without lifting a finger.

[btq96r]

Most people with problems would get a General, “Other than Honorable”, or a “Bad Conduct Discharge”. A dishonorable discharge requires a General Court Martial and is generally for the most serious offenses.

 

A dishonorable discharge is also the hardest to get approved because of all the legal procedure, paperwork, approval, and appeals involved. 

 

Plenty of ragtag Soldiers separated for misconduct are bounced in the fastest way possible to get the bad influence out of the unit.  They'll get a reenlistment code that would keep them from coming back in, however they often still get a "General (Under Honorable Conditions)," or "Other Than Honorable (OTH)" unless they had a court martial before they were kicked out.  Then they can appeal it after discharge and get it upgraded, but after they were out processed, they weren't our problem anymore.

 

The 4473 only asks if you have ever had a Dishonorable discharge.  Buying a firearm is allowed with every other type, so people who couldn't handle military service, but didn't hit the level worth a court marshal may very well have a legal firearm.

 

My bet is, this guy was either a troublemaker who was bounced fast under admin procedure, or was injured and took a quick discharge.

[robnfl]

robnfl, I can see you are passionate about this but let me give you a few words of caution. Do not allow your passion turn into aggression towards other members here. We all make our own choices in how we want to live so do not attack other members because they do not live by your standard of living. And while I am at it I will say that the vast majority of places these open carry types actually carry has nothing to do with exercising their rights under the second amendment or the protections from the government. Anyone's right to keep and bear arms can be limited on private property and the government can, and does, limit those rights on behalf of other private entities. The open carry types are not protected by the second amendment when they carry in Walmart, Starbucks or any other retailer just like they have no legal right to free speech at those places. And those places can actually put conditions on who, how, when and what they carry. They can dictate that the only "weapons" allowed on their property are Nerf weapons and there is NOTHING anyone can do other than abide by it or leave the property. So their thinking that open carrying a rifle on private property is exercising second amendment is misguided at best and idiotic at worst.

 

Sir, I meant no disparagement toward anyone on this forum, but yes I am passionate about our constitutional rights. All too often I see and hear people complain about how someone else exercises their rights. All I'm saying is thank God we still have those rights, and if we don't exercise them, they will be taken away from us. 

 

If I thought one dumba$$ had any effect on the continuous onslaught from the gun control nuts, I might be more inclined to chastise him for his actions. What I believe is more important to our maintaining our rights, is that WE actually exercise those rights. If everyone of us, who could legally do so, open carried daily, the public perception would gradually change to accept it. Would there be an uproar initially? Probably so, but once the public realizes that those of us who carry guns are law abiding citizens, and are doing so to protect ourselves and our loved ones, they will no longer see us as "nut-case gun owners"!

 

Yes, you are correct that private companies can limit what we do and say on their property. That is up to the individual company, and they will have to live with their decisions. By that I mean if they restrict a customer's perceived or actual liberties, they stand the chance of loosing that customer's business. A pissed off customer base could cause severe hardship to a company. But, what if the government restricted those rights? If a private entity wanted to allow those rights, they would not be able to, because it is illegal. This is why the Constitution is important. If a private company limits rights, they possibly loose revenue, if the government takes our rights they are gone EVERYWHERE! 

 

First they came for the assault rifles, and I did not speak out—

Because I did not use an assault rifle.

Then they came for the rifles, and I did not speak out—

Because I did not hunt.

Then they came for the handguns, and I did not speak out—

Because the government assured us we were safe.

Then they came for OUR freedom, and we COULD not speak out—

Because we were disarmed.

 

My version of  Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem. 

[Oh Shoot]

....... All I'm saying is thank God we still have those rights, and if we don't exercise them, they will be taken away from us. 

 

Just a note: I don't know about FL, but once you get to TN, you already do not have the right to carry a loaded AR on your person in general public here.

 

- OS

Edited June 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

And during the initial uproar is when all the knee jerk legislation gets passed. No amount of open carry will change everyone's minds and all it takes is a few dozen calls by some worried moms for our legislators to act. Not to mention when LE has to deal with s rash of 911 calls because of it they will push for a change.

[robnfl]

Just a note: I don't know about FL, but once you get to TN, you already do not have the right to carry a loaded AR on your person in general public here.

 

- OS

 

You are not correct my friend. In the United States WE have the right to "bear arms" as stated in the Bill of Rights.

 

Yes, it may be illegal to carry a loaded AR in public, but you are confusing "laws" with "rights." We still maintain the right, but our government chooses to overstep it's boundaries by conveniently ignoring or re-interpreting the Constitution.

 

In the strict sense these laws are unconstitutional. Man cannot remove a God given right.

 

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

 

Rob

[robnfl]

And during the initial uproar is when all the knee jerk legislation gets passed. No amount of open carry will change everyone's minds and all it takes is a few dozen calls by some worried moms for our legislators to act. Not to mention when LE has to deal with s rash of 911 calls because of it they will push for a change.

 

This is funny and a little sad!!

 

I was living in MD around 2010 when VA tried to pass a law to allow conceal carry of firearms in drinking establishments. The progressives used almost the same argument to persuade the public and the government to vote against the proposed law. Well, the proposed law was passed and the governor signed it into law the next year.

 

A year later I read an article that mentioned that all the "horrible" results of such an irresponsible law never transpired...in fact shooting crimes decreased for that year.

 

But, I also have to ask...if everyone is afraid to open carry as the law permits, then what does it matter if we even have the law?

 

This goes back to my original statement, if we don't exercise our rights, we will lose them!

 

Rob

[Oh Shoot]

You are not correct my friend. In the United States WE have the right to "bear arms" as stated in the Bill of Rights.

 

Yes, it may be illegal to carry a loaded AR in public, but you are confusing "laws" with "rights." We still maintain the right, but our government chooses to overstep it's boundaries by conveniently ignoring or re-interpreting the Constitution.

 

In the strict sense these laws are unconstitutional. Man cannot remove a God given right.

 

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

 

Rob

 

Yes, that's an often espoused sentiment, full of all the noble thoughts and words. However, I'm a realist -- if you can't exercise a "right" without punishment, you don't have it.

 

....This goes back to my original statement, if we don't exercise our rights, we will lose them! 

 

But you just said, we still have them, whether we can freely exercise them or not, given by this God feller you speak of.

 

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

Ok, the right to self defense is a God given right. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a God given right unless the founding fathers were gods. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right that is guaranteed forever and is not absolute like the right to self defense is. And just like you cannot say whatever you want wherever you want you cannot carry whatever you want wherever you want. Now anywhere you find yourself you still have the God given right to protect yourself but you sure as hell can be told what tools you are allowed to use when defending yourself.

 

I am speaking in how things are and not how we want them to be.

 

I am very pro second amendment but I also recognize the fact that my rights should not interfere with others rights, especially outside of my own property. My right to carry, either rifle or pistol, does not trump someone else's rights on their own property.

 

You have no clue how many emails I have wrote and phone calls I have made trying to get rifle carry passed here in Tennessee. Anyone who has been on the board for any amount of time knows I have a real need to have as much firepower as I can have. But after seeing what all is happening in other states that have open rifle carry I had a change of heart. I would love nothing more than to tote a rifle around wherever I go but in the end I would rather be able to carry a pistol on my side, and have my rifle in my vehicle, than take a chance on loosing both by carrying a rifle openly. I will gladly leave a rifle in my vehicle in order to have a handgun on my side. Having a bunch of immature idiots walk around with rifles slung in order to scare people will do nothing but cause the majority of people demand a change and those changes in firearms laws might prevent me from carrying ANY firearms, including rifles. Ideally I wish everyone tolerated everything all the time but we, as humans, are intolerant of things we do not like. And no matter how often one might do it those that do not like it will continue to not like it. And when we force people to do something they do not like they will take action and in the case of carrying rifles the action taken might affect more than those who are the ones carrying rifles.

 

We, in Tennessee, are allowed to carry openly or concealed and the vast majority of people are OK with that. But carrying a rifle, which hasn't been in favor since the invention of a pistol, is not something people will ever get accustomed to. And while I embrace their enthusiasm it would be better served talking to people about it than scaring the same people that will eventually take that right away from them.

 

I have probably watched hundreds of hours of these rifle chuckleheads and in the vast majority you can see they enjoy making people uncomfortable or enjoy the conflicts they create. Then afterwards they often revel in the joy it brought them when they think they have won but they do not realize what risks they are putting other gun owners in. I have yet to hear of a single positive thing come out of those that open carry, a lot of negatives but no positives. Imagine, for a second, that open carry of rifles were outlawed in places they are allowed. Do you honestly think those that open carry rifles would not find another way to grief others? I know they will because those bent on causing grief to others will find any means possible to grief others.

 

And as other have said, just because you have a right to do something does not mean you should.

 

And what do you think is going to happen because of this guys antics? Think people are going to embrace it or even tolerate it? No, the average person is going to see what he has done, get scared and demand the laws be changed. Then what will be left is yet another place people cannot protect themselves from criminals.

[Dolomite_supafly]

And before anyone gets confused. I respect their right to carry a rifle so long as it doesn't jeopardize my right to carry a firearm. When their actions jeopardize my right that is when I will condemn them every chance I get.

[300winmag]

You can't openly carry a loaded rifle in this state, except under certain circumstances.  You could put your loaded rifle in a gun rack in your truck and be in compliance.

 

I don't believe people carrying rifles on foot in the Dallas area helped the 2nd amendment cause a couple of years ago. 

 

You only get so many chances as far as trying to improve carry laws because the legislature does not want to spend a lot of time on gun issues.  I'd rather use my political capital on a few solid bills related to cutting restrictions on handgun carry permits than being able to carry a rifle around in public.  The legislature here seems to like the handgun carry permit system and the money it brings in.  I carry when I work but can't openly carry (don't want others knowing), so cutting the restrictions helps me a lot.

 

I kind of assume that the attention seekers openly carrying rifles in public places rarely, if ever, carry a handgun for protection.  They would rather be able to strap on the rifle twice a year and take pictures at Wal Mart than to be able to legally conceal say in a school with a permit.

Edited June 8, 2015 by 300winmag