Video of the Week: Open Carry Chicks Hassled by Power Hungry Cop & AR-15


20 survival items ebook cover

Like what you read?

Then you're gonna love my free PDF, 20 common survival items, 20 uncommon survival uses for each. That's 400 total uses for these innocent little items!

Just enter your primary e-mail below to get your link. This will also subscribe you to my newsletter so you stay up-to-date with everything: new articles, ebooks, products and more!

→    

Print Friendly

24 Comments

  1. ok. i’m gonna start the fight so here it is.

    open carry might be constitutionally protected but its tactically stupid, requires an alert level that i have yet to see anyone demonstrate while on these videos and just ensures that your name is flagged by NSA and local authorities.

    first lets talk about it being tactically stupid and no one demonstrates the alert level required to open carry. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYONE WITH A LEVEL 3 HOLSTER OPEN CARRYING? i haven’t. most of the time they’re using simple kydex holsters that have at best a retention screw and at worst they don’t even have that. did you check out the ladies in the vid? shopping bags, soft drinks etc…they’re not focused on their surroundings and a determined and motivated couple of unarmed guys could snatch those weapons before they knew what happened. remember the 21 foot rule? if you’re shopping, buying coffee etc…you’re putting yourself and a potential attacker much closer than that. SO OPEN CARRY DOESN”T MAKE SENSE TACTICALLY!!!

    this craze needs to stop in my opinion but to each his own. just don’t get your gun yanked if you do it.

  2. I thought the cop was respectful & efficient. He did his job. Bravo. I saw NO power trip.
    My question is why did the girls need to blatantly carry side weapons into Walmart shopping? They could have at least concealed them or left them in the car.

    What would they have done if a group of teen age boys quickly took them away from them? It seemed the girls were not aware of anything but shopping.
    I’m all for owning weapons but common sense was needed here.

  3. I agree that I that the cop was doing his job, may not have been as friendly as some would have liked. I don’t like to be filmed and here this cop was doing an investigation with several armed people, while being filmed by two people, knowing it will probably be put on the internet. I probably would not have been any better. The guy that bothered me was the nosy shopper.

  4. Rule number one: You do NOT have to show a cop ID if you have done nothing wrong and broke no law (open carrying or not). The cop had no right to demand ID from the people who didn’t even have guns.
    The cop had no right to run those IDs, since they were not breaking any laws.

  5. People who open carry where it is allowed don’t bother me, in fact more power to them in my opinion. What bothers me is that the vast majority of the general population is absolutely clueless about gun laws in their state. The police were called because someone wigged out over seeing a gun, like the nosy guy at the end of the video. Sigh… It’s no wonder we all call them sheep!

  6. Note that open carry proponents are in fact civil rights activist, and should be calling themselves as such. The civil rights movement in this country was fundamental to the growth of America and it’s work needs to be continued.

    I’m beginning to think that the police should be arresting anyone that call the police about someone carrying a firearm for “Disturbing the Peace”. After all if I am out walking to Walmart peacefully my peace is being disturbed and the officer donuts and coffee break are being disturbed by this caller. It use to be that they would arrest the the person carrying a fire arm for “Disturbing the Peace” or “Disorderly Conduct” If the police didn’t have to respond to this kind of call they could be shaking down grandma driving to church, Becky Sue Rotten Crouch driving to the mall, or someone driving to, or from Coother’s Gun-Liquor-Fireworks-Pawn Shop just off US 56 .
    If there is a legal right to carry a firearm, civil rights activist is well within his rights to carry under the first and second amendments.

  7. I have mixed feelings on the attached video. First off, I am a strong advocate of 2nd Amendment Rights. I also give wholehearted support to law enforcement. At least, at the local and state level. I am somewhat leery of the Feds. Being imperfect humans, we will have mistakes on both sides of the fence. Personally, I would not call the police because I saw several openly armed women walk into Walmart. I think the person that called the cops here was ignorant of firearms laws, paranoid or both. We did not hear the 911 tape, so we don’t know if the anti-gun crybaby exaggerated or lied about the armed women. Consequently, I won’t fault the police officer for showing up with the AR-15/M4. I don’t believe this cop was unprofessional. He was somewhat nervous being filmed. I know there are policemen/women out there that abuse power. We see videos on YouTube all the time. The Airman with the M4 in Texas is a good example. I also realize that politicians, doctors and lawyers can take weeks, even months, to make life and death decisions. A cop has a split second. Overall, I’d say “Discretion” is the key thought. I opt for concealed carry because I DON’T WANT ATTENTION. These open-carry groups need to understand that they can bring negative attention on us gun owners too. I am NOT saying that this family did anything wrong. I just predict that at some point, they’ll get the unprofessional, Constitutionally ignorant cop or Sheriff’s deputy that they’re looking to embarrass, and things won’t end so well. There will be a shootout, people will get killed and the Main Stream Media will vilify the NRA and American gun advocates. I am reminded of the YouTube video of the DUI Checkpoint, where the young man objected to providing identification, would not roll his window down, basically argued everything the cop said. The guy was right, the cop was wrong in EVERY aspect. But, in the end, his car was damaged and he got roughed up and abused. What became of it? Did his video spur changes in DUI Checkpoints? Did the ignorant, abusive policeman get fired? Are we as a society now more secure or protected from power-hungry cops? No, no and no. Again, discretion, and to an extent, a little common sense. Idealism, or reality?

  8. Good job ladies, Keep up the good work standing up for your rights! As a retired police officer I am disappointed with this officer. While he never broke the law he was stepping all over your rights without crossing the line. With no apparent reason, I never heard once an accusation of a crime having been committed ? What was his reasonable suspicion?

    Stick to your principles and do not be intimidated by the police, I know it’s hard but as long as you are polite, professional, and know what the law and your rights are you’ll do ok!

  9. Open carry is fine if your state allows it. Some states require a carry permit to carry a weapon period…open or concealed. In other words if your state allows open carry you can carry that weapon in plain view, but not concealed unless you have a conceal carry permit.

    The owner of any privately owned business has every right to ask you to leave if you are carrying a weapon. And yes, for those of you who don’t know it, places like Walmart, Target, Applebee’s ect…. ARE privately owned businesses.

    Once an Officer is called out with a complaint he has every right to get an ID from those who are involved…..it’s part of an investigation to the facts of what is going on. Each person this Officer asked for an ID from said they were there and part of the group that he had a complaint about. If this state allows open carry, maybe there was not a valid complaint, but still a compliant was made and his duty is to investigate.

    I agree that most people are uninformed about their state’s gun laws.

    As far as the Officer with the semi-auto…we have no idea what the call came in as……a person with a gun inside the store or a person being very disorderly with a gun inside the store.

  10. where is everyone getting the idea that they don’t have to present ID upon request from a LEO? if they detain you improperly then you have remedies legally (or you’re suppose to) but to think that if a cop approaches you and states that he needs to see your id, its not illegal. you’re well within your rights to ask whats going on, but you don’t have the right to refuse. in some localities, failure to provide ID is a crime. if you’re open carrying then the “asking”for an ID is well within his rights so that he can determine whether or not you’re a felon etc…

  11. Solomon,
    You are half right! Then again you are half wrong! The police can ask for anything they want, they can even demand almost anything. However you do not have to comply or answer. I accept we may be held to account for our decisions! However there is this little thing called the bill of rights!! And it’s very clear on your rights!,

    As for the idea of not showing ID I recommend you start with the 4th amendment, then taken a look at the US Supream court case, Terry vs Ohio, then take a Look into the Laws of the state you are in / carrying. Not all states have I’d laws. As for asking for I’d to determine if your a felon or not presumes you are guilty and you must prove you are innocent! This is not how our republic is set up! Best of luck

  12. Jm.

    if you’re open carrying then you can expect a few things to happen. one is to get all kinds of strange looks. the second might be to be asked to leave certain stores. the last should be that alarmed citizens will call police and that the police will at the very least CHECK TO SEE IF YOU’RE A FELON!!!!!

    it amazes me that people can’t see where this might go if left unchallenged (the open carry situation). if GUN PEOPLE get it enshrined that open carry is a constitutional right and that if you do it then no one can challenge, investigate whether you’re legal to carry etc…then WHO WILL START CARRYING OPENLY NEXT????? GANG BANGERS!!!!!

    once gangsters start open carrying then everyone will have a change of opinion real fast. but guess what. then we’ll be labled as racist. and almost rightfully so. if i expect to open carry without challenge from police then gang bangers will expect the same!

    the slippery slope on this is so large that its not worth the fight. at least with concealed carry permits you have safeguards to prevent felons from doing it. with open carry without the ability of police to do criminal checks on open carriers then you’re fried.

  13. Solomon,
    I agree with you that folks may receive strange looks, be asked to leave establishments, and even have the police called on them. However that doesn’t mean there committing a crime or should be treated as a criminal? For exercising their constitutional right!

    You raise some points that have absolutely no merit, and then you are mixing apples and oranges! Gun people to Gang Bangers, carry permits vs safeguards to prevent felons!

    I read through some of your post and was thinking perhaps you had a little bit
    of insight into firearms? The terms level III, 21 foot, Ect. Now eh? I think you are right you just want a fight, There is no slippery, be safe.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Benjamin Franklin

  14. my points were clear and i didn’t mix apples and oranges.

    1. if you open carry you should be expected to be stopped and a criminal background check ran on you.
    2. if we get to the point where if you open carry and don’t get stopped by LEO then gang bangers will see it and do it too.
    3. the 21 foot rule applies when facing a person with a knife (or even empty handed) when it comes to reacting to a threat and being able to unholster and fire.
    4. if you’re shopping you’re allowing everyone and their mother within that reaction zone.
    5. have you seen weapon take away practice by felons and gang bangers in california prisons? i have. these ladies wouldn’t stand a chance.

    so no. my objections are clear. this is another case where die hards are going to screw it up for everyone else. open carry is silly. serves no purpose. makes the person doing it a target. will eventually lead to an open carrier getting killed and his weapon taken. and will further lead the public to turn against gun owners.

  15. I like they way you formatted the response! So I’ll play a little devils advocate with the numbering system!

    1. If your not engaged in criminal activity you should expect to be free of government intrusion. even if your open carring! The Bill of Rights!

    2. We are already at that point! The criminals know the law better then most law abiding folks! It’s mostly the honest folks who are being taken to the cleaners.

    3. Nice to see you know the rule! But we shouldn’t confuse it with weapon retention.

    4. Again, a weapon retention that can only be answered at the time of contact.

    5. I have seen it! I have had it attempted on myself! Again only contact will tell! I personally know a women that I would have said the same thing about! She suprised us all and retained her weapon and shot the bad guy!,

    You are right! Your objections are clear, as long as it’s your way it’s ok!! So we shall continue to disagree !!! Again stay safe, to the ladies that generated this video, Keep up the good work!

  16. Nothing wrong here. It was a baiting trip.
    I respond to every GUN CALL with AR-15. What background information about 911 caller do you have? I bet the caller didn’t say ” a group of teenage girls are carring guns”.
    Police are not psychics. We don’t know what people’s intentions are.
    Before people go on shooting rampage the are pre existing incidents. The police were checking ID’s to decline that.
    Once 911 call comes in its officers duty to investigate. To all cop haters: learn what investigative detention is.
    The Police are here to protect your rights too. I do not expect police haters to change their mentality.

  17. Here is a rundown of your rights under the law. Please read all you Gun rights activists, cops that “know” the law and anti-gun rights people.

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): In justifying a particular search or seizure, a police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which…reasonably warrant the search. This could be a reasonable suspicion … that his safety or that of others was in danger, or that a specific crime was being committed.

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979): Mainly applies to vehicles, but says that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant has otherwise violated the law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Meaning, you can’t stop and search someone just to find out if they might be a criminal. You have to have a reason to think they are a criminal before you stop them. Applies to pedestrian traffic as well.

    Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979): When a police officer stops and demands identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity (reasonable suspicion) it is a violation of that person’s 4th Amendment rights and can’t be allowed. In sum, you’re not required to give your ID to a police officer unless he has an articulable reason to suspect you of committing a crime.

    U.S. v. DeBerry, 76 F.3d 884, 885 (7th Cir. 1996): This is not a supreme court case, but it essentially says that police are allowed to ask you any questions they want (just like any stranger on the street can ask you any questions they want), the police CAN’T, however, seize someone unless they have “a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that the person carrying the gun was violating the law.” Please read under a letter of Police may stop and ask questions, you are under no obligation to answer (consensual), you can not be detained with out reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

  18. playing street corner lawyer is one thing. reality is another. in almost half the states a stop and identify law is in effect. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, states that a police officer can briefly detain you and ask you to identify yourself.

    additionally stop and frisk (which is controversial in New York) is based on a suspicion that a person is armed. additionally the Terry case that you mention is specifically aimed at the belief that an officer has that a person MIGHT BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS.

    these ladies were obviously armed and possibly dangerous. hence the temporary detention and the identification. again. the officer was really very gentle in his conduct when approaching these ladies. since they were armed he could reasonably have taken their weapons (for officer safety), had them sit down (not stand by the wall) and if they continued to spout about their rights he could have handcuffed them since they outnumbered the responding officers. additionally he realistically should have called for back up since the suspects were all armed and outnumbered the LEOs that i could see.

    if just one of those ladies had evil intentions, unknown to the rest and started a fire fight then the officers would be in the ground.

  19. And everything you just stated has reasonable doubt.

    Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.

    Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a police officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that “identify himself” to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states have similar laws.

    Soloman, you must be a LEO and very unaware of Constitutional rights. And furthermore I believe you are on the absolute wrong side.

  20. actually i’m not. i just see a bad moon rising with this open carry stuff. a backlash against gun owners is coming because instead of this being actually about guns, this has morphed into something else.

    irritation with the federal govt has suddenly found a home in resistance to any guns laws and push the rights we have. thats both good and bad. sometimes you have to know when to say, ok. we won this round. but i see people pounding on law enforcement for something that i consider a no brainer.

    you can’t tell me that if a homeless looking guy was walking around your neighborhood with a gun on his hip that you wouldn’t call police to report a suspicious person. when the police arrived to question the guy you would stand up and applaud. you would thank the officers for stopping the guy and asking him where he was going, what he was doing in your neighborhood and to check to see if he legally carried that weapon.

    the same applies when an open carry person goes to a public place. you’re a strange person in a strange neighborhood. no one knows you, no one knows that you’re a good person and that you’re legally allowed to carry a weapon.

    police arrive to make sure that you’re legal and that you’re not about to do harm to others—i just don’t see the problem. besides being tactically stupid it also is a waste of police resources. i would rather my sheriff deputies chase meth heads and crack dealers and not have to worry about fellow citizens that are out to basically harass police. or worse, bait them into making a mistake so that some yahoo can post it on YouTube.

  21. If I was shopping at Wal-Mart (or any other store) and walked into an aisle with a man, woman or young person with an AK, AR or sidearm, I would be very alarmed. Several times a month there is some nut walking into a business, school or whatever and blowing people away. We do not know if the armed person is about to open fire and kill as many people as they can. When you open carry, just cause you can, you piss people off and damage the reputation of gun owners across America.

    The “open carry law” is NOT a constitutional right. It is a state law that is not in every state. I would venture to say that at some point, gun grabbers will use this open carry law against us to take our guns away. Maybe at the next shooting, witnesses or police will say that the gunman was just exercising the open carry law, and than he/she started shooting everyone.

    You have the right to drink a can of Draino or set yourself on fire. But don’t complain that the paramedics took too long come to your rescue or the fire department was slow. Do something to support gun ownership not alienate us from non-gunowners.

  22. This is one of those things that has me on the fence. I believe in the right to carry. Not sure if open carry is wise for many reasons, but it is not illegal. Police have a job to do. Not all Cops are the bad guys. We pay them to do a job. I don’t think this cop was power hungry, but I wonder what would have happened had they refused to show ID’s. If you have not committed a crime, you do not have to show an ID just because you are asked. Not sure if I would have readily handed him my ID with out a bit of conversation first on my legal right not to show it. Probably would show it in the end, depending on how much time I had:) That said, if the Officer had not asked for ID’s and a crime was later committed that was traced back to this group, he would have been in some pretty hot water. Police Officers are trained to do a job we pay them to do. They, in order to do their job, will push the limits if necessary, especially if you don’t know your rights (reasons we have lawyers for afterwards). Sometimes, I don’t think they even know all the laws. (I know that police in this area do not understand exactly what concealed carry is. A pistol in the pocket on the inside of your car door is not concealed. A concealed weapon (at least in Maine) is one that is on your person and not visible.) I understand why this video was made, I am just on the fence as to whether or not the police officer was wrong, not from a constitutional standpoint, but from the standpoint of a man trying to do his job and protect his community. It is a pretty tricky situation. The odd thing was, to me anyway, is that anyone was concerned with a visible gun (seriously, if your planning on doing anything, are you gonna advertise it!!!), when they have no idea who is carrying concealed, legal or not, in the same store!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*