War Veteran Arrested for “Rudely Displaying” Rifle in Texas.

[Ronin13]

I don't get where you saw anyone was provoking a confrontation, except the police, in both videos. If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.

It's impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. And since nobody was breaking the law, nobody was provoking confrontation.

You can trick the police into thinking you're violating the law, in which case I'm sure you're violating the law somehow. There was no trickery going on.

The only people who violated the law were the police, therefore the provocation was theirs.

Are you just trying to continue this argument, or do you really not get it?
In case you actually are dense enough to not grasp what Aloha and I are trying to say, let's put it in terms you'll understand, or at least someone with similar capacity... Guy 1 grabs a camera, straps on his trusty .45, goes out INTO THE CITY where the potential for many anti-gun folk is. He wants to be a YouTube sensation and show that he can flex his mental muscles with the vast knowledge of case law and make a cop look stupid. He does such, uploads the video, and says "lookie here! I was harrassed by a cop that wasn't 100% familiar with 100% of the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations out there, and man, I sent him to school! HAHAHA"
Guy #2, wants to go hiking with his son, and straps on his AR-15 and trusty .45 in case of any predatory animals that may happen along the way. They're going hiking in a RURAL area, where odds are he won't encounter any people, most certainly cops. But as poor luck would have it, some cops happen upon him and his son and detain him. He has his son record the incident so that he may present to court that he was breaking no law.
Get it? And yes, it is a dick move to not even offer your name, I don't know why you single that one part out... If you were to encounter me on the street and I ask "hey, so I can call you something, what's your name?" If you refuse, then I guess I can assume you'll be okay with me calling you Nancy, or something, right?

[generalmeow]

Are you just trying to continue this argument, or do you really not get it?
In case you actually are dense enough to not grasp what Aloha and I are trying to say, let's put it in terms you'll understand, or at least someone with similar capacity... Guy 1 grabs a camera, straps on his trusty .45, goes out INTO THE CITY where the potential for many anti-gun folk is. He wants to be a YouTube sensation and show that he can flex his mental muscles with the vast knowledge of case law and make a cop look stupid. He does such, uploads the video, and says "lookie here! I was harrassed by a cop that wasn't 100% familiar with 100% of the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations out there, and man, I sent him to school! HAHAHA"
Guy #2, wants to go hiking with his son, and straps on his AR-15 and trusty .45 in case of any predatory animals that may happen along the way. They're going hiking in a RURAL area, where odds are he won't encounter any people, most certainly cops. But as poor luck would have it, some cops happen upon him and his son and detain him. He has his son record the incident so that he may present to court that he was breaking no law.
Get it? And yes, it is a dick move to not even offer your name, I don't know why you single that one part out... If you were to encounter me on the street and I ask "hey, so I can call you something, what's your name?" If you refuse, then I guess I can assume you'll be okay with me calling you Nancy, or something, right?

I am trying to continue this argument, and I really don't get it.

It is impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. Is that statement accurate, or is it inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, please give me an example.

Either you are crossing the line into breaking the law, or the police are coming over on your side of the line and violating your rights. And if they come over on your side, they have chosen to have a confrontation by harassing someone who they have no right to harass.

I define "provocation" as the party that decides to step over the line. When we're all on the right side of the line, nobody is provoking anyone. One could say that the cops are provoking you if you know you're going to get detained for legally open carrying, so whether or not you decide to open carry is irrelevant. You have already been provoked if you believe the cops are waiting for you on your side of the line.

[Ronin13]

I am trying to continue this argument, and I really don't get it.

It is impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. Is that statement accurate, or is it inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, please give me an example.

Either you are crossing the line into breaking the law, or the police are coming over on your side of the line and violating your rights. And if they come over on your side, they have chosen to have a confrontation by harassing someone who they have no right to harass.

I define "provocation" as the party that decides to step over the line. When we're all on the right side of the line, nobody is provoking anyone. One could say that the cops are provoking you if you know you're going to get detained for legally open carrying, so whether or not you decide to open carry is irrelevant. You have already been provoked if you believe the cops are waiting for you on your side of the line.

What if a cop is unknowingly stepping over the line? What if he doesn't know for sure what the law says? Is he still being provocative? I only ask because law student had to edumacate the cops on the law... And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

[TheBelly]

This is the next town over from me. I've been told (reminded by my MP buddy) that open carry is illegal in Texas.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I am tired of fruitless debate with someone being purposely obtuse so this is my last on this subject. No, your thesis is inaccurate by your own definition. How so? As you note, neither citizen broke the law. However, Citizen A (Mr. Law Student) knowingly baited law enforcement into a confrontation by carrying openly in an area he knew would attract negative attention. He further provoked the confrontation with legal but belligerent responses. Citizen B was also carrying openly but reasonably had little-to-no expectation of contact muchless confrontation.

I gave you another example that you pointedly ignored. You have a right to wear a shirt proclaiming Obama to be a buffoon, a Socialist and a dictator. Wear it to your local Democratic Party meeting or NAACP meeting and stand on your right to wear it on the sidewalk outside the meeting (so you're not trespassing) and see how far that takes you. Legal? Yes. Accurate? Maybe. Confrontational? Yes. Stupidly insensitive? Yes. Go for it.

[generalmeow]

No, your thesis is inaccurate by your own definition. How so? As you note, neither citizen broke the law. However, Citizen A (Mr. Law Student) knowingly baited law enforcement into a confrontation by carrying openly in an area he knew would attract negative attention. He further provoked the confrontation with legal but belligerent responses. Citizen B was also carrying openly but reasonably had little-to-no expectation of contact muchless confrontation.

Wrong. Citizen A did not provoke the police. The police provoked him. Citizen A went out open carrying with a video camera because he had been provoked into doing so, with the belief that he would be harassed for not breaking the law.

If he had not been provoked, if he did not believe his rights would be violated, he wouldn't have done it. That's proof of provocation.

If the police are standing on your side of the line, you better go confront them or they're going to stay there and the line is going to move.

[Gman]

If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law. Period.

If someone's feelings are hurt, TOUGH. This nation wasn't founded on some non-existent right to not be offended.

You can't conceal-carry a long gun. If you have a long gun, it's always open carry. I don't believe the same carry laws apply to long guns.

Some in TX are trying to change the open carry law to allow it via HB-700.

[Colorado_Outback]

You can't conceal-carry a long gun. If you have a long gun, it's always open carry.

I beg to differ, my SIG556 Patrol conceals rather nicely on a single point sling under my hoodie

[Gman]

I beg to differ, my SIG556 Patrol conceals rather nicely on a single point sling under my hoodie

...and you'll go to jail for it. No excuses. Concealed carry permits don't cover the concealment of long guns. That includes a shotgun under a raincoat. ;-)

[Colorado_Outback]

I didn't say I do, I said its possible.