Wow. Police state much?

I love how that asshole says "you people" in reference to pro-2A open carriers.

Redacted.  My information was incorrect.

See topic Reply # 36

 

Terry, 230RN

I love how that asshole says "you people" in reference to pro-2A open carriers.

Those people are not friends of 2A if you ask me.  Now I am not talking about people who open carry legally but "those types" that you generally see on youtube.  They are not there for 2A rights.  Most have little knowledge, or in depth interest in firearms, but are more focused on the attention that they get.  The terms "attention whore" and "idiot" comes to mind.

Those people are not friends of 2A if you ask me.  Now I am not talking about people who open carry legally but "those types" that you generally see on youtube.  They are not there for 2A rights.  Most have little knowledge, or in depth interest in firearms, but are more focused on the attention that they get.  The terms "attention whore" and "idiot" comes to mind.

+1

I can't stand these idiots.

I wish there was once a month "pimp slap" that LEO's were allowed to give without repercussions.

+1

I can't stand these idiots.

I wish there was once a month "pimp slap" that LEO's were allowed to give without repercussions.

Haha first thing I thought about when I saw "pimp slap"

What this guy is doing really does not have much to do with the 2nd amendment but more-so our rights in general. I applaud him for doing this. Also I was happy to see that the officers did not forcefully disarm him after stating he does not submit to any search or surrender.

To say it is illegal to take a photo from the street. Of anything. Is a bullshit law, and you all know it. Was he out just to make a video to post on youtube? clearly. But if you are not using your rights you might as well kiss them goodbye.

I gots news for you.

1.  The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.

2. It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.

Can you post your source for that? 

Everything i know of says it's NOT illegal and protected under the Constitution.  Only IF you are recording audio (depending on jurisdiction) or interfering in the performance of security personnel duties are you in the wrong.

Please correct me if that is inaccurate. 

Thanks.

Wow. Did someone actually saw it's illegal to take a picture of a federal building? That's 100% horsecrap. I can go down to Alakea Street and take photo after photo of the courthouse, and it's absolutely legal for me to do so. The man was on a PUBLIC street snapping photos, which is NOT against the law. Now, if you had said it's illegal to snap pics of a place like Area 51, then you'd have a point.

Here's an article which proves my point: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/you-can-photograph-that-federal-building/?_r=0

The right of photographers to stand in a public place and take pictures of federal buildings has been upheld by a legal settlement reached in New York.

In the ever-escalating skirmishes between photographers and security agencies, the most significant battlefield is probably the public way — streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas — which has customarily been regarded as a vantage from which photography cannot and should not be barred.

Under the settlement, announced Monday by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Federal Protective Service said that it would inform its officers and employees in writing of the “public’s general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces” and remind them that “there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation or order.”

.

All the guy was doing was asking why he was taking pictures of the building

Which is something they have no right asking. What he did isn't illegal. And they did more than simply asking him questions, they detained him with no probable cause. Take the open carry out of the equation, and they surrounded him over taking photos/video of a federal building - something even the FPS under the DHS as explicitly stated is 100% LEGAL.

Look, I'm all for a secure homeland, but not at the price of individual liberties and rights and in exchange for a quasi-authoritarian police apparatus.

Open carriers do what they do in order to normalize the behavior, so people won't react in panic every time they see an exposed firearm. As others have stated on this forum, areas that embrace open/concealed carry tend to have lower crime stats. That is a fact. An armed society is a polite society.

.

I'm absolutely not a big fan of the ACLU, but since the pendulum of civil liberties has swung to the other side (a Democrat administration  ignoring the laws and Constitution), conservatives can use all the help it can get!

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right –
and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials
carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement
officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and
arresting those who fail to comply.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

It isn't illegal to film someone's house either. Are you telling me if someone parked in front of your house and just sat there taking pictures of it you wouldn't say anything?

The problem is that these people are actively seeking out altercations with the police by doing things that they know will garner attention. I carry a knife with me, but you don't see me standing outside of HPD headquarters, filming the building with a machete attached to my belt just because its legal.

I'd call the police and let them check on the individual.  For all we know, it could be a realtor doing market research or a homeowner getting ideas for upgrades or landscaping.  I've actually done that myself ... taking pictures of vinyl fences in several locations for comparison.

If the individual is known to you (former love-interest of a family member, etc.) and is harassing or stalking someone, there are restraining orders and other LEGAL means of preventing their invasion of your privacy. 

Confronting the individual on public property or roadways might be the macho way to handle it, but it will in all probability work against you in the long run.

I gots news for you.

1.  The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.

2.  It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.

Here's the closest thing I can find that roughly supports your "NEWS" to a small degree:

It is illegal to take pictures of federal buildings and military bases.

That is incorrect. It is illegal, and posted as such, to photograph CERTAIN federal installations without a permit - Los Alamos, parts of Livermore Labs, parts of Oak Ridge, etc etc. Also, they're probably a little skittish at places like NORAD in Colorado. But I can walk up to any federal courthouse, or the US Congress, or a post offfice, and take as many pictures as I like. You can not make a blanket statement saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings.

Are you telling me if someone parked in front of your house and just sat there taking pictures of it you wouldn't say anything?

I'm not telling you that. I would ask them what they were doing. However, they have no legal obligation to answer me, nor do I have the right to detain them. Both of those things were done by over zealous police and/or the feds in the building - contrary to what the FPS has been instructed to do by the DHS, per my linked article. My link clearly shows the DHS KNOWS this activity is protected under the 1A. Yet they send out helicopters and squad cars to harass a man that they KNOW is doing something 100% LEGAL. That is the issue. Why does the Federal government think it's alright to badger and harangue a man - they've already admitted is well within his rights - over it? It's about damn time the feds realize we're the BOSSES. They work for us, not the other way around. If people want to behave like serfs, that's their right. I'm not going to oblige.

You may think open carriers are simply doing it to get a response, and you're probably right in some instances. But a right not exercised is a right lost. The more openly accepted it becomes, the greater the chance we see it spread across the nation. Who knows. Maybe one day even here in the People's Republic of Hawaii.

.

I think where most people have their hang-up, and I see it in the comments here ... Americans have been conditioned to wrap themselves in their rights, to play the victim when something they don't like happens to them.  However, few have been schooled in what their duties and responsibilities are as citizens.

Many people think they are living in an episode of Law & Order, where the legal system is all they need to understand.  Unfortunately, having legal rights is only half the equation.  You, as a citizen, also have a duty to assist law enforcement.  That's why certain laws like citizen's arrest exist, and why lying to an investigator is unlawful.

The problem is how LE and the legal system uses and abuses their powers too often to bully and intimidate and wrongly convict innocent people.  That creates an environment where people are reluctant to get involved or even cooperate with the authorities for fear of retaliation by the actual perps or unwarranted arrest caused by volunteering information.  This problem comes around full circle, causing LE to be frustrated when people refuse to give them the time of day when all they are trying to do is ensure they and the public at large are safe.

I don't see a solution, and continuing to choose sides, LE versus law abiding citizen, will not get us any further along in these debates.

Those are my observations.  Maybe I'm off base? 

We can sit here and argue about what is constitutionally allowed and so on, but the fact of the matter is that if some clown was outside filming your house, I'm pretty sure you would have done something; especially if you have a family with children. The same can be said about providing personal security for other individuals or structures; if you perceive a threat, you inquire and verify if it is or is not a threat. It can range from calling the police, to openly confronting the individual. Fact of the matter is you still responded, the same way these police officers responded to someone filming one of their assets, which would be their building and when he was confronted about it, instead of act in a professional manner, he wanted to act like a dumb ass. This is why people think 2a supporters are a bunch of attention whores, because people like him provoke situations just to prove a point.

To me, he was not stopped because he was open carrying; he was stopped because he was standing outside, at night, filming a building for no reason. I have a disability placard and have been stopped on multiple occasions to provide documentation proving I was entitled to such a placard. Was I pissed? Yes; because I shouldn't have to explain my disability or provide proof of my disability. However, I understand that there are people who abuse the system, so I can see it from another stand point as well. Did I freak the hell out and cause a scene? No; I conducted myself in a professional manner and with tact, and still got the result I wanted without causing a scene.

Its not the fact that its his right to carry; its how he handles the situation to garner the response he hopes will get 1,000,000 youtube views. I can guarantee this situation would have never happened if he had simply just been walking down the street, minding his own business. If it did, then yes; a response like this would be totally justified. But in this light, he might as well strap a big ass neon sine to his back that flashes 'COME QUESTION ME BECAUSE I HAVE A GUN.'

Whether I would do something about a person filming my home is irrelevant. I can ask him what he's doing and he doesn't have to tell me jackshit. And I can't detain him for doing that. These LEOs were conducting that stop under the authority of their badges. Big difference. As a LEO, they're supposed to enforce the law, not skirt and brush it aside when it suits them. The law has ALREADY been established that this activity is LEGAL and protected under the 1A. They have no legal recourse to stop and ask him for ID or detain him for one second, as they did.

he was stopped because he was standing outside, at night, filming a building for no reason.

And as I've already shown via the linked article, his behavior is protected free speech and THEIR actions VIOLATE the rule of law. You can side with the law breaking police, I'll side with the constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.

Its not the fact that its his right to carry; its how he handles the situation to garner the response

Handles the situation? In what way? He did nothing illegal. In fact, it's the police that were violating HIS rights.

Are you saying we, as a nation, should only act in a way that LEO will approve of? Regardless if it infringes on your rights?

No, thank you, sir.

Which is something they have no right asking. What he did isn't illegal. And they did more than simply asking him questions, they detained him with no probable cause. Take the open carry out of the equation, and they surrounded him over taking photos/video of a federal building - something even the FPS under the DHS as explicitly stated is 100% LEGAL.

Look, I'm all for a secure homeland, but not at the price of individual liberties and rights and in exchange for a quasi-authoritarian police apparatus.

Open carriers do what they do in order to normalize the behavior, so people won't react in panic every time they see an exposed firearm. As others have stated on this forum, areas that embrace open/concealed carry tend to have lower crime stats. That is a fact. An armed society is a polite society.

You and I know that he wasn't detained for taking pictures.

This guy opened carried a firearm while taking pictures of a federal building.

What he did, he did to illicit a response.

He knew he would have police questioning his actions.

I'm going on record and saying that I'm glad the police questioned this idiot.

I'm glad they detained him until they realized that he was not a threat and simply someone trying to make a point, at which point they let him go.

I'm so tired of the double standard that the sheeple of America live by. Out of one side of their mouth they say "police have no business questioning me and out of the other side of their mouth they say "America had knowledge of terrorist activity and did not arrest the terrorists that committed the 9/11 atrocity."

You and I know that he wasn't detained for taking pictures.

Huh? You know what I know? Sounds like you're projecting.

No offense, but you don't know what I think about this issue. I've stated I THINK he was stopped exactly for the reason(s) the police said he was stopped: for taking pictures.

This guy opened carried a firearm while taking pictures of a federal building.

Which is 100% legal

What he did, he did to illicit a response.

No one has ever stated otherwise.

He knew he would have police questioning his actions.

To prove the police and/or feds refuse to obey the very laws they've sworn to uphold.

I'm going on record and saying that I'm glad the police questioned this idiot.

Good for you.

I'm glad they detained him until they realized that he was not a threat and simply someone trying to make a point, at which point they let him go.

If you're glad they're violating the 1A, more power to you, I guess.

I'm so tired of the double standard that the sheeple of America live by. Out of one side of their mouth they say "police have no business questioning me and out of the other side of their mouth they say "America had knowledge of terrorist activity and did not arrest the terrorists that committed the 9/11 atrocity."

There should be constraints and limits on what the federal government can and can't do. Violating a federal judge's ruling on the legality of this behavior is cause for concern. If the feds can continue to violate the rule of law, then what good is the rule of law?