Open Carry Firearms at Political Events -- Misuse of Tools

[MineralMan]

I'm gonna get flamed, I know, but here goes:

When Chris Broughton carried a pistol and an AR-15 on a sling to a Phoenix-area town hall where President Obama was to appear, it started a discussion about his right to do so and whether he should have been disarmed by police, at a minimum, or even arrested.

As the 2nd Amendment folks often say when people criticize firearms ownership, firearms are tools. That's a true statement. I'm a firearms owner and I consider them to be tools, too. Like other tools, they have a particular function, and should be used for that function and not used for other functions.

When asked why he was carrying two firearms to a political event, Broughton said that it was to demonstrate his right to do so. He was not fearful of being attacked at the event. He did not plan to hunt animals at the event. He carried the firearms, fully loaded, of course, to make the point that he had the right to do so.

He didn't foresee having a need for those firearms at the event. I doubt he carries them on a regular basis in public. So, he had no intention of using them in the way they were designed to be used. In fact, in that particular situation, had he unslung his AR-15 or unholstered his pistol, he would have either been arrested or killed by the law enforcement people near him. He was making a statement with his firearms, not using them for their designed purpose.

That's a misuse of tools. It's also a misunderstanding of which amendment he was celebrating. It was not the 2nd Amendment he was demonstrating, but the 1st Amendment. He was communicating, a right guaranteed to him by the 1st Amendment. Wrong tools for the job. Firearms are not communications tools. They are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity to kill something. Signs are communications tools. Our voices are communications tools. Firearms are not communications tools.

I have a neighbor who used to have permission to borrow tools from my garage. Used to. One time, I saw him using my lawnmower, which he had borrowed, to mulch tree trimmings and small branches. The lawnmower was struggling with this job...a job it wasn't designed to do. I went over immediately and stopped him. He was using a tool designed for one job to do a different job...a job that would damage the tool. He no longer has permission to borrow my tools. He misuses them.

That's what happens when you misuse tools. You end up losing access to them. I don't want that to happen with firearms.

[xchrom]

1. is it a misuse of this 'tool' to use it to intimidate? nt

[MineralMan]

2. Of course it is. That is not the function of firearms.

It does happen that some people are intimidated by them, and they are sometimes used that way. Intimidation may have also been part of his intentions at that event, although he'd never say so.

In every jurisdiction I know of, brandishing a firearm can cost you your CCW permit. Brandishing a firearm is using it to intimidate. Not only is it not a proper use of the tool, it is a violation of the law.

It is one of the rules of firearms handling that you do not point your firearm at anything you do not intend to kill. In this instance, the man was simply carrying the firearms, though. His primary goal was to communicate something. Some people may have been intimidated by this, but that was a response. I can't say what his intent was.

[Pangolin2]

4. Are state laws on 'brandishing' consistent? I suspect they aren't.

To me it's a little like obscenity...I can't define it but I know it when I see it. So to speak. In any case wouldn't any legitimate law need to include something like "exhibiting in a reckless or threatening manner"?

[Statistical]

5. Brandishing usually requires drawing the firearm.

I am not aware of any state allows you to be charged with brandishing for legally carrying a firearm.

[MineralMan]

12. That's correct. There was no brandishing of firearms at Phoenix.

I think the laws are pretty uniform, although just opening your jacket to display a concealed pistol can be considered brandishing in Minnesota. It's all in the intent.

[slackmaster]

15. Intimidation IS a valid use for firearms IF you are threatened

Using them for political intimidation is not a legitimate use.

[MineralMan]

16. Is it? That depends on the laws in your state.

Pulling your concealed weapon and pointing it at someone you consider a threat, but who is not actively a threat is brandishment in Minnesota and can get your license pulled. Laws vary from state to state.

It's a difficult call. A guy's got to be careful about pulling a concealed firearm. It's not a casual act.

[slackmaster]

20. You display the weapon only when you are prepared to fire it

If the sight of the weapon is enough to dissuade your attacker from attacking you, that's a good thing. Shooting someone would suck really badly.

[Caliman73]

22. Yes it is...

In fact it is a crime to use a firearm in order to intimidate unless you are directly threatened. The idiot at the rally was riding the line. He did not commit a crime, but he certainly was not using his firearm properly. The purpose of the firearm is for self defense, hunting and recreational shooting in approved settings, and for military purposes. His stupidity and that of others carrying at rallies makes it more difficult for people who own and use firearms responsibly.

[derby378]

3. Good observation

Thanks for sharing! :hi:

[ret5hd]

6. Can I borrow your juicer?

[MineralMan]

10. Not a chance. You'd probably just misuse it and try to juice a

chicken or something. No way! :bounce:

[Old Codger]

7. Another side to

Actually not a side really just a comment on the level of stupidity he indicated, I guarantee that at every second he was there he had at least 2 snipers zeroed in on him, one false move and he was a dead man, if he had made any indication of unslinging that rifle or pulling his handgun he would probably been put down fast. Secret service does not play games with those types of situations believe me.

[MineralMan]

14. Correct. That's why his carrying was useless in terms of

the function of a firearm. He could not have used either of them for any purpose, due to his being watched so closely. So, he was using them for a purpose for which they were not intended.

[Old Codger]

31. A point

I am sure, or at least I hope he understood what danger he was in at that time. I really would not care a lot about him personally, if he was dumb enough to do what he did he belongs in the running for a Darwin award. My real concern is what would happen from here on out if they did have to shoot one of these idiots,hmmmmmmm maybe that is part of their plan, if someone dies because of all that the whole thing could come apart fast... At that point who knows what direction this "debate" (LOL) would take.

[MineralMan]

35. Excellent point. I certainly don't want that to happen, but it

could. Another reason I'm for banning arms from such gatherings in general.

[Javaman]

8. I'm bringing my skill saw to the next event...

Because it's my right as an American. And just incase I'm attacked by some angry pieces of wood.

[KittyWampus]

9. I just read your post several times and laughed at loud! It's actually a funny idea....

People should bring odd tools and implements to Town Hall Meetings... because they can.

[MineralMan]

11. Is it one of those rechargeable ones? I don't think there are

outlets at most of these events. You could use it to cut the sticks on signs people wave at you...

[Javaman]

17. Ooooo Good one!! :) lol nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Feel free.

[Javaman]

42. Um okay.

:shrug:

[michreject]

13. I would like to point out that gun grabbers

Have been crying against hidden and loaded guns. They say don't be a coward and carry a concealed gun. Carry it in the open so everybody can see it. When gun owners do so, the grabbers cry still. No pleasing them.

[Ron Green]

18. Yeah, some "gun-grabbers" can be pleased. How about just growing up?

When I was active duty US Army I carried and fired weapons plenty of times. When I became a civilian again I had gotten it out of my system; not just the shooting part but the carrying part. When I see people in their 40's or 50's, or even older, still playing with guns without an occupational reason to do so, I'm both saddened and frightened by this Second Amendment worship. I want those who carry firearms in public to be accountable to citizens - police, military - you know, people who work for us, not guys who never got their gun fix when they were growing up.

[Pangolin2]

19. So you've abandoned the oath you took?

", (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

---------------------------
Support and defend...what?

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

21. I took that same oath, and I still abide by it.

Our Constitution is doing just fine. We're still having all the regular elections specified in it. Congress is still legislating, the Executive Branch is still functioning, and the Judicial Branch is still keeping a lid on both of them.

What do you think is not happening according to the Constitution? A guy can still go to a Presidential event with a couple of firearms carried openly, even if I think it's a bad idea. Nobody's confiscating firearms as the wackos said they would.

What's the problem?

I'll tell you what is a problem. It's the right wing wanting to do away with things like the freedom not to worship the way the right wing wants you to worship. It's the wacko nutcases wanting to kill all the Muslims in the country or throw them out. It's the religious right wanting to tell women that they aren't in control of their own reproductive cycle.

Those are the enemies of our Constitutional Republic. They're the ones who want to destroy that amazing document. You're spewing freeper talking points here. Why?

[Pangolin2]

25. Waitaminute...defending the Constitution is a freeper talking point?

Now I'm SURE I am in the wrong place. Jeezuschrist...
:eyes:

[MineralMan]

26. So, tell us what part of the Constitution you're defending, OK?

See, I just named a bunch of parts of the Constitution that are doing just fine. Which part of it are you worried about, there?

"Defending the Constitution" is one of those phrases the freepers are trying to hijack. So, be clear about what part you think isn't being defended.

Don't play games with me. I don't have time.

[Pangolin2]

28. Bye. I have no time for it either.

...

[MineralMan]

29. That's just what I figured...

[Ron Green]

23. Yeah, that's the oath I took in 1966. But by 1969 I was done with playing with guns,

and starting to understand that our domestic enemies were at least as dangerous as our foreign ones, and required much more effective and adult defense of our Constitution from them.

[Pangolin2]

27. But you're essentially saying that since YOU decided to eschew guns and the 2nd

Amendment so should everyone else. Some of us --- no, MANY of us have embraced all of the Bill of Rights for I suspect more years than you've lived. I have had guns for 59 years...since long before I was in the military and after that time frame saw no reason to change my allegiance to the Constitution. I took the same oath you did...and I still honor it.

[Ron Green]

30. The oath we took when we entered the military is for the purpose of serving in the military.

It's not an oath for citizenship, adulthood, employment or any other purpose. My allegiance to the Constitution as a civilian doesn't depend on my military oath to defend it, and my own choice as an adult is to find ways other than playing with guns to support and honor the Constitution. You of course have the Constitutional right to "bear arms," but my allegiance to the document and its spirit has nothing to do with an oath I took as a soldier.

[billh58]

32. Please!

You are misrepresenting an Oath that many of us took, and laid our lives on the line for. As has been stated, the Constitution of the United States of America is doing just fine, and needs no further protection from a wannabe "militia" member. There is no requirement to carry a gun in order to be both a patriot, AND a citizen of these United States of America.

How is "eschewing guns" even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment? ALL rights are double-edged swords, and include the "right" to NOT exercise any particular right. Just because I don't shout and scream in public, doesn't mean that I have given up the right to freedom of speech. Just because someone doesn't vote, doesn't mean that they have given up the right to vote.

You are using nonsensical, neoconservative, right-wing, talking-points to defend a non-issue. No one is telling you that you can't carry a fucking gun! By the same token, you can't tell anyone else that they need to carry a gun. See how that works...?

[michreject]

24. I'm 56

I shoot about 2,000 rounds a month. I shoot IDPA. It's like cops and robbers with real guns. :).

(Shooter is not me)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfd0tGL1XKQ

I carry a gun every place I go. Concealed means concealed.

[Old Codger]

37. Ok

I am 68 and also carry almost everywhere I go, do not shoot competition but do about 2 to 3000 a month,(or did till the hoarders took all the ammo away) BUT I would probably leave it in the truck if I went to a rally like that... I like living and do not plan on putting myself in that type of situation , accidents happen sometimes even the pros can slip up... Good friend in Minn. shoots for smith.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Very true.

[benEzra]

33. I believe they were playing to the MSM obsession with guns

as a means to knock Obama's message off the air, and shift the discussion away from health care reform. It was a publicity stunt played for the MSM, not the general public, and the MSM obliged.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, how many news stories, editorials, and forum threads have you seen discussing what the President said at that event, compared to the number you have seen discussing a few protesters with an unloaded .22 centerfire and a few holstered pistols? You think that wasn't the intended outcome?

The media is drawn to ZOMG SCAWY GUN!! stories like moths to a light bulb, and the protesters were well aware of it.

[billh58]

34. I understand, and

agree with your point about the wing-nuts using smoke and mirrors, but there is another perspective as well.

While it is not unusual for a politician to attend a public gathering, it is so far out of the ordinary (in most US localities) to see otherwise ordinary citizens openly carrying weapons to a public gathering, that the nation as a whole finds it totally fascinating. And, that is what makes these idiots newsworthy.

The potentially sinister implications of their actions are impossible to ignore, regardless of what their true intentions may be.

[ladywnch]

36. I think these clowns bringing their AK-47s and such is purely bait

they are praying they'll get arrested. Then they can go on tv and scream "see, we told you Obama will take away our guns, our right to bear arms, SEEEEEE!!!!!" And to Obama's credit, they havent' risen to the bait. I just hope he doesn't live to regret it.

[Tim01]

39. Most gun guys think this should be legal, but is just a bad idea. nt

[Canuckistanian]

41. Unfortunately, intimidation is another use for these "tools"

And one that even the NRA endorses when it comes to self-defence.

It's just that certain people have taken "self-defence" WAY out of context.

[aikoaiko]

43. Would you have stopped your neighbor from cutting the trimmings/branches with his own mower?

I doubt you would because it is at his discretion, within the bounds of the law, to use it or misuse it as he sees fit. Unlike your analogy, our government has no say in our usage of firearms as long as we use them within the bounds of the law.

If someone wants to use a legally possessed and carried firearm to make a statement about something then he or she can (as long as he or she acts within the bounds of the law).

You concept of communication tools is narrow.