Oath Keepers Turn Up at Ferguson

[DaveTN]

A new twist. Interesting comments.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/oath-keepers-turn-michael-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri-n407696

[btq96r]

I can't see the presence of the Oath Keepers as doing anything but exacerbating the situation.  Protecting the infowars staff doesn't pass the sniff test.

[DaveTN]

Protecting the infowars staff doesn't pass the sniff test.

The Oath Keepers are protecting the Tin Foils Hats?

[runco]

I'm torn, agree Ferguson does not need anymore gasoline.  There is a time and place for the Oath Keepers and alike, this is not one of them in my opinion. 

[Pain103]

 More people looking for attention.

[btq96r]

The Oath Keepers are protecting the Tin Foils Hats?

 

With Jade Helm 15 going on, there isn't much tin foil left to make more hats, so that makes as much sense as anything.

[CommsNBombs]

With Jade Helm 15 going on, there isn't much tin foil left to make more hats, so that makes as much sense as anything.

We'll just start issuing copper hats and car batteries to attach to them, instead!

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Fourtyfive]

Hmmmm.... , very interesting , so you can open carry a loaded rifle in that state ?

[Oh Shoot]

Hmmmm.... , very interesting , so you can open carry a loaded rifle in that state ?

 

If you'd read the article, eh? ;)

 

But the statue that allows it is very odd, regarding the issue date of permits -- I guess that means it's being phased out of the law?

 

Also the "briefly"

 

might be pretty "brief" indeed depending on the DA.

 

"Open display of firearm permitted, when.

571.037. Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.

    (L. 2012 H.B. 1647, A.L. 2013 S.B. 75)"

 

- OS

[Fourtyfive]

If you'd read the article, eh? ;)

But the statue that allows it is very odd, regarding the issue date of permits -- I guess that means it's being phased out of the law?

Also the "briefly"

might be pretty "brief" indeed depending on the DA.

"Open display of firearm permitted, when.
571.037. Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
(L. 2012 H.B. 1647, A.L. 2013 S.B. 75)"

- OS

So I'm a speed reader ... :)

[Omega]

If you'd read the article, eh? ;)
 
But the statue that allows it is very odd, regarding the issue date of permits -- I guess that means it's being phased out of the law?
 
Also the "briefly"
 
might be pretty "brief" indeed depending on the DA.
 
"Open display of firearm permitted, when.
571.037. Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
    (L. 2012 H.B. 1647, A.L. 2013 S.B. 75)"
 
- OS

Sounds like an effort to keep a concealed carry permit holder from being arrested for brandishing if the gun "peeks" from under their clothes.

[Oh Shoot]

Sounds like an effort to keep a concealed carry permit holder from being arrested for brandishing if the gun "peeks" from under their clothes.

 
Yep, and I bet the DA they're running it by tells them tomorrow that their "briefly" is well over.

 

Never mind on the other thing I mentioned, I read statute too quickly, apparently they had an "endorsement" on license or something in past,  but now a regular carry permit suffices.

 

But wait! Seems that open carry for permit holders has been legal since about six months ago, with state preemption. Can't seem to find if that applies to long guns though, but guess it must or these guys wouldn't even have tried it, surely they looked into legalities. MO, like TN, honors all other states' permits, too.

 

Assuming that's right, this mentioned statute is non-sequitur in the first place, should have expected that with any initial news coverage regarding firearms or firearms law.

 
- OS

Edited August 12, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[TNWNGR]

Never mind on one part,  I was misreading the statute itself, apparently they had an "endorsement" on license or something, but now a regular carry permit suffices.

 

But I bet the DA they're running it by tells them tomorrow that their "briefly" is over.

 

- OS

No bet, their parades either been rained on or is being rained on. Its only my opinion mind you but this wasn't one of the brightest of moves to have made. I've mentioned before here the vicarious liability involved in participating in the voluntary security endeavors. You don't just risk possible legal issues you risk civil litigation. There's no municipal agency umbrella of coverage, its all on you. This means you and your family can lose everything.

[Oh Shoot]

No bet, their parades either been rained on or is being rained on. Its only my opinion mind you but this wasn't one of the brightest of moves to have made. I've mentioned before here the vicarious liability involved in participating in the voluntary security endeavors. You don't just risk possible legal issues you risk civil litigation. There's no municipal agency umbrella of coverage, its all on you. This means you and your family can lose everything.

 

Agree about the liability part for sure, but note I edited my post, looks like open carry of firearms with a permit is legal in MO now, with state preemption, so at least the "legal" part of doing it seems okay as per state preemption.

 

OpenCarry.org, btw, has not been updated in a long time, info really unreliable there, maps and etc.

 

- OS

Edited August 12, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[E4 No More]

 
Yep, and I bet the DA they're running it by tells them tomorrow that their "briefly" is well over.

 

Never mind on the other thing I mentioned, I read statute too quickly, apparently they had an "endorsement" on license or something in past,  but now a regular carry permit suffices.

 

But wait! Seems that open carry for permit holders has been legal since about six months ago, with state preemption. Can't seem to find if that applies to long guns though, but guess it must or these guys wouldn't even have tried it, surely they looked into legalities. MO, like TN, honors all other states' permits, too.

 

Assuming that's right, this mentioned statute is non-sequitur in the first place, should have expected that with any initial news coverage regarding firearms or firearms law.

 
- OS

When I was a Missouri cop in the early 90's open carry wasn't regulated at all except within the city limits of Kansas City.

[bersaguy]

I'm now confused. At what point did Oath Keepers become Mercenaries or hired gun contractors? From all I have read and learned about them they claim to be a Militia Organization dedicated to upholding the Constitution and protecting the American people against a tyrannical Government?    What did I miss? :shrug: :shrug:

[TNWNGR]

I'm now confused. At what point did Oath Keepers become Mercenaries or hired gun contractors? From all I have read and learned about them they claim to be a Militia Organization dedicated to upholding the Constitution and protecting the American people against a tyrannical Government?    What did I miss? :shrug: :shrug:

 

Apropos of nothing but there certainly seems to be an outgrowth of Walter Mitty Rambo-ish attention seekers in the media of late. Now as to the who and how of the Oath Keepers group(s). Were I involved with such I'd seriously consider distancing myself and finding other entertainments. I fully believe initial intents were good but see it becoming an OC focus group aimed at garnering media(s) negative attention. I'm also skeptical enough to know to be very leery of other agendas involved.  

[btq96r]

I want the government to see citizens, especially armed citizens, willing to take a stand.  We need more of that I think.  I'm fine with a group coming together to take that stand, protest, or otherwise exercise their rights, but I would like there to be some purpose and sense of thought behind it to put their actions in perspective.  I'm not seeing that from the Oath Keepers in this case.

[10-Ring]

I'm torn, agree Ferguson does not need anymore gasoline.  There is a time and place for the Oath Keepers and alike, this is not one of them in my opinion.

I disagree, I think Ferguson needs a lot more gasoline and a match.