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.