He got it as a gift! He wanted to show it off, and not by waving it around. He was proud so he took it downtown. What's the point of open carry if you can't even use your permit?

Brimingham is irrelevant. No matter where you are there is risk of being attacked. Perhaps you remember not long ago a man shot at the White House hitting a window. This was not the first time one of the most secure buildings in the world has come under fire. No matter where you are it is your responsibility to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones. I hate to say it but if you find this situation scary then you just are not educated, let alone on firearms. Carrying firearms "just because" one might need to defend themselves is the society we live in unfortunately. Maybe if law makers spent more time passing laws to create harsher punishments and less time dis-arming good citizens this wouldn't be such a problem.

If you feel that law abiding citizens carrying firearms for their own protection is scary, then you are very uneducated about firearms. I'm not quite sure how a child finding a "locked away" firearm is relevent to this story which is regarding open carry and the legal issue surrounding one young man you knew his rights. And Trayvon Martin was killed because he violently and vicously slammed Zimmerans head into the concrete. Have you kept up with the case at all? There is more evidence coming out every day to support Zimmerman shooting in self defense.

People arent carrying guns "just because" they are carrying guns because criminals are carrying guns and we live in a society were violence is a serious problem. It doesnt matter what part of this country you are from, crime and violence happens everywhere. There is not "perfect" place to live. We as a society can no longer rely on the police for our protection. There are many Supreme Court rulings that state it is NOT the responsibility of the police to protect the citizens. Police will not and cannot be there to protect you every moment of the day, at some point you have to realize that in the few seconds someone might have a knife to your throat you arent going to be able to call the police. If you had a violent intruder in your home with a knife pointed at you, would you rather have a gun or a phone?

With the crime rate climbing the way it is and with this potential gun ban coming up kids are going to be finding guns on the streets and I know if my kid finds a gun he is going to know exactly how to handle that situation god forbid it arises Make no mistake. I refuse to keep my child in some make believe wonderland where there are no winners and no losers and everything will be just fine . Thats child abuse people that do that are setting their kids up for complete and utter failure .
just my 2¢

This kid has/ had every right to carry his rifle . Police think they can do anything they want to people and we must obey "Granted this wasn't the brightest idea this kid ever had.. but still ,it is his right" that being said Kimber why do you think cops carry guns if we live in a world where "as you put it" I am not sure" what" Mike Stanley feels he needs to defend himself with a gun in Birmingham or in most places in our country" To answer this ..the same thing the cops need them for Crazed crack heads , rapist , murderers. Most kids that get killed or are killed accidently by "Locked away guns " Are kids that are unfortunately uneducated about guns . That's the parents fault every kid should be taught how to handle a gun Statistics prove most kids killed or maimed by a legal "locked away" guns are nine out of ten times the kids of anti gun parents at a neighbors house.. Do you know how much home invasions would drop if every home owner had a gun. . Watch what happens if they ban guns in this country how fast the first ever foot soldiers invade this country and start killing innocent civilians. all these anti gun people will be the first ones standing behind they guy who still has his gun . . As far a s the Zimmerman deal goes the kid didnt even have a gun on him . If he had.... he he might still be alive !!

Actually sir, there were quite a few other individuals who would have liked to attend, such as myself, however the scheduling interfered with work. Others chose not to attend because of the heat, would you be outside for a few hours in the heat we had on that day? probably not, so lets not me so quick to judge. And I would also argue that it had quite the effect, regardless of the turnout. You can make as many pathetic arguments as to how this was a flop and it failed and people dont care about gun rights or Mr. Combs case, fact is, youre commenting on the news article arent you? Thats right, its made the news. So looks like it had a very good effect.

And no one is "exploiting" anyone, Sean was grateful for the turn out, he has also been grateful for all the support he is receiving. Seans brother went onto opencarry.org and put this event together. Thats right, Seans Combs brother organized this picnic so that more word can be put out that open carry is in fact a LEGAL activity and what the police department did was a violation of this young mans rights. Whether he be 18 or 81 people would have shown up for support.

And what kind of things are you doing with your life, what inalienable rights are you fighting to support? People like these folks and myself participate constantly to ensure that our 2nd Amend rights are secured to the people. Put a little bit more thought into your next comment please, maybe do a little research too.

oh, and yes, because one can in regards to your inalienable rights certainly means one should. A right not exercised is a right lost.

Perhaps everyone that wanted to go had umm jobs.. and couldn't. I do not think they are exploiting the kid as much as the issue at hand, and the fact they ARRESTED THIS KID JUST FOR WALKING AROUND WITH A RIFLE.
COPS DOING THAT REALLY PISSES SOME FOLKS OFF

Oh yes, guns aren't dangerous. But holy crap, don't drop one! Might shoot yourself in the p**** like that guy in Birmingham did a few weeks ago. Whoopsy daisy!

Sorry Sharon, he did not drop it.

You are funny, a con walking down the street, with a WW2 rifle over his sholder?

Lets not sugar coat this Jennifer . If a black kid did this he would have been shot by the cops seriously he probably would have. Now before anyone starts calling me a racist because I mentioned the word black and I myself am white try to keep this in mind. "I'm not prejudice or a racist at all, In fact I hate every one equally"

Yeah, tell that do Dr Ossian Sweet of Detroit. Who tried to move into a White neighborhood. To save his life and his family, he used guns to keep his family safe. Conciquently, the State of Michigan started handgun registration to keep certian people from owning handguns.

Even Dr King applied for a CPL.

How come when a person accidently kills some one in a car ..no one blames the car ...but if some one kills some one with a gun everyone says we need to ban guns.
Well I think we should ban all cars they kill more people every year than guns heart attacks cigarettes l and war combines yet no one wants to get rid of them

One more thing I dont see Japan not invading us because almost every house hold had a car in 1942 .they didnt invade us with 2 million foot soldiers because "as the commander of the .aircraft carrier that launched the attack on Pearl harbor said .. Americans have more guns than they have blades of grass" Now take away those guns and see what happens Jennifer. As much as I'd like to live in your fun loving fancy free flower flying world , It isn't like that over here in Real World USA lady.. "Not to be offensive or anything"

Isn't it interesting that when progressives have nothing to say they resort to calling people names and belittling them? Pretty easy to ID those incapable of rational thought.

"An armed society is a civil society." in the world view of a fearful, power hungry, egotistical society. As I've mentioned in another post, carrying a gun, even for self protection is a violent act based on fear. It is not necessary except when you think it is. It all depends on your world view which is what you make it to me. People who carry guns are contributing to the very violence that they think they are preventing. It is a warped view.

You are right, it is silly to think that there are people out there that have no respect for the law or your well being. Perhaps since you are so confident of this fact you would be willing to post your address here for everyone. I mean, there wouldn't be a reason not to, right? Especially since you don't need a gun to protect yourself, I am sure you wouldn't mind all of the law obiding citizens knowing where you live, defenselessly.

Oooooo gun deaths, subtract the sucides and what is the number? How did the riots earlier this year save anyone?

While getting your facts from wikipedia might negate the presence of any intelligence to begin with, I think you might want to research your stance on that issue a lot further before you start throwing numbers and statistics around that you obviously know nothing about. Australia, the UK and Canada have all seen dramatic rises in violent crime and in particular gun crime ever since they all enacted strict gun laws (including registration, once again punishing the law abiding citizens). In fact if you read anything instead of just regurgitating whatever supports your position you would see that a lot of gun related crime has actually drastically increased in those areas.

Gun laws don't stop criminals from obtaining guns. How hard is that to understand? They're not buying them legally to begin with. Gun laws stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and from protecting folks like yourself.

I have been struggling to keep up with local news these last three days due to the loss of a family member and when I happened upon this free time Monday morning at 1:00 am EST I read the local Patch and I found myself getting riled up again by this issue. The original coverage of this story was the first news by Patch that I commented on and I took a break after finding it impossible to argue valid points with the gun nuts who implore comparisons of their "struggle" to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and have some harder-to-conceal but latent belief that the government has some secret, hell-bent agenda to take their firearms. I've written too much already and I don't have the time to respond to counter-arguments so in lieu of what is already becoming a diatribe on my part I second the comment of Mr. Baller. Indeed, these men and women have every right to carry a weapon via permit but it is awfully strange to do it in our city considering that Birmingham (with the exception of South Bar) is a violence-free city. Enough is enough.

@ Daniel JK

You make a couple very valid points. One, these men and women have every right to carry a pistol or rifle around Birmingham. However, no permit is required. All that is required is that you are 18 and not a criminal. Secondly, enough is enough. I couldnt agree more. Please call the city of Birmingham and let them know that you are tired of all these people carrying guns around the city. It is actually the city's fault that this is still going on. They have had every opportunity to make this case go away, but they are insisting that it doesn't because they don't want the police to look incompetent.

It's just that some of us don't want to live in the Wild West. It's dangerous.

Sorry, Sharon the Wild West was not that wild and Hollywood want you to believe.

@ sharon and jennifer, It boggles the mind to see the ignorance displayed in some of your posts. How about if you don't like seeing people with guns you leave the USA. it is a right guaranteed by the constitution second only to free speech, which by the way also guarantees that you are entitled to express your opinion no matter how wrong it is. When I see someone with a gun I feel safer knowing that there are law abiding citizens around me. The tactics of the Jack booted thugs er, Birmingham PD in this case disgust me. It is quite obvious they know little of the laws they were sworn to uphold. Their actions remind me of Nazi Germany "Papers please" Bad things happen to good people even your precious Birmingham is not safe from crime. Take a walk down Cass corridor at 2 am unarmed and then tell us about "Thinning the herd"

You have to keep in mind Sharon, all of the people shot themselves because of depression. Not some third party (intruder). Some even buy the guns solely so they could shoot themself. One shot in the wall then once to the head. Funny thing is, the suicide number do not change when guns are restricted.

Way to bring pit bulls into this just to prove you don't care about the actual issue and are just here to rabble.

Excellent comparison though. I own a pit bull who has never harmed anyone. I know quite a few other pit bull owners that I see at the park every weekend (where I carry openly), and their dogs are some of the sweetest little furballs you have ever met. I hate to tell you this, it may just blow your mind... but if a chihuahua is mistreated, it will attack your child as well. The difference is a chihuahua is the equivalent of walking around carrying an airsoft pistol. If all the criminals in this country chose to start doing business with airsofts, I would gladly carry a wiffle bat around instead.

Seriously, think about what you say before you say it.

They had every right to ASK for his ID. And he had every right under Michigan law to politely decline, which he did. This is not a stop and ID state. Learn the law. What actually happened was the police DEMANDED his ID, and were very rude. Leadership by example, you want to be respected than you must show it to others. The police are simply citizens doing a job. They seem to forget that sometimes.

The "police" are supposed to be trained in the little thing call the law. They are supposed to have Reasonable Articulated Suspicion of a crime. That little thing called a Supreme court said so.

Well said Chris P !

I believe the person that committed the crime would be held accountable. It is not the job of the police, no matter how much you want it to be, to protect you or prevent crime. The police are there to investigate crimes and deter crime if at all possible. Please look into the Supreme Court ruling that talks about the fact that the police have absolutely no responsibility to protect you. Only you have that responsibility.

Should the police pull over all guys that ride Harley Davidson motorcycles because they might be involved with biker gangs? How about people that drive sports cars because clearly they are going to speed excessively and put others drivers lives in danger? This isn't Minority Report, you can't arrest someone because you think they are going to do something.

Another excellent example. If one of those teachers at Columbine had been armed, a good many less people may have been harmed.

Was there any practical reason for Rosa Parks when she decided to sit on the front of the bus? She was sitting in the front of a bus freaking black!

Why do people need a practical reason for liberty?

Carrying a gun is a constitutionally protected right, and open carry is the only legal method to do so unless you are licensed by the state to carry concealed. It's also very, very difficult to carry a rifle concealed if you do have a CPL. So a gun with a sling put over a shoulder is a safe and responsible way to carry a rifle. You may not like it. It might make you feel uncomfortable. But a slung gun or a holstered gun is no threat to you.

Your opinion and feelings are frankly not relevant when it comes to another persons liberty. Unless the gun is pointed or waved in your direction in a threatening manner, it's none of your business, because you nor anyone else has been victimized.

Yes, I was using that comparison. She had just as much of a right to sit at the front of the bus as an individual to carry a gun. It's the same exact issue of civil/political rights being violated simply because other people (who are not even victims) don't feel comfortable. I look at people who want to take away my right to carry a gun the same exact way as I look at a racist. And please, I'm not pointing fingers- that's just how I perceive it. It's a feeling (and nothing more) that people are trying to use to justify the violation of an individuals rights.

Rosa Parks wasn't hurting anyone, she wasn't stealing from anyone, she wasn't doing any wrong to anyone- but she did make people feel uncomfortable, perhaps even a little shocked and angry. She publicly did something that was unusual and out of norm in society. But she had every right to do it, because she was a free individual born with liberty (individual rights).

It's the same situation here. No victim, no crime. Just an individual doing something publicly that made people feel uncomfortable. No one was hurt, no one was defrauded, no one was wronged- except for Sean. He had his individual rights trodden upon.

It's just as evil to use government force against Sean Combs for carrying a gun lawfully and safely (his constitutional right, let's not forget) as it was to use force against Rosa Parks for sitting in the front of the bus.

If my son was wrongfully arrested, I would demonstrate too. Open carry is not brandishing. No Michigan cases define brandishing, but in US v Moerman, the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." A handgun that is holstered, or a long gun that is over a shoulder via a sling, is not pointed, waved, or displayed in a threatening manner. Both are safe and proper methods to carry guns (bearing arms), and the only lawful means to do so if one does not have a CPL.

If we can all admit that 1) a law-abiding adult has the right (whether we like it or not) to keep (own) and bear (carry) guns in a non-brandishing manner in this country according to our 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, and 2) that MCL 123.1102 makes it unlawful for a local unit of government to restrict the possession of firearms in Michigan, and 3) reasonable suspicion is required for a police officer to make a "Terry Stop", then we really don't have a cause to arrest him, do we? What Sean did was entirely lawful and what the police did was entirely unlawful. So yeah, I would support him too if he were my son.

We have a statue erected in New York celebrating "Liberty", yet so many people seem to be unaware of its true meaning. It's now just a empty word that is used only because it sounds good. I really wish more people knew what it actually means.

For Liberty!

This is the second time you have commented about Sean's "Mommy". Do you have a thing for her or something? You seem awfully preoccupied by her. Maybe you would have a shot with her if you weren't so agaist standing up for what you believe in.

Believe it or not, some people don't actually like the attention. But it is a necessary evil if you are to get the word out that someone's rights were violated and they were wrongfully arrested. I am pretty sure the founding father's didn't like the attention they recieved from the King of England during the revolution, but that was the way it had to be since they stood up for what the believed in. It is a good thing that there are still people out there like that, otherwise we might be the subjects of the king of the US by now.

The comments dont concern me in the least, I just found it creepy that you are so fixated on her.

Now, since you clearly dont know any of the people involved in the case or any of the unreported details please try to refrain from making generalized statements. Would you opinion of her change if she didnt know that he was going to do what he did, but now that it has happened she supports him?

I agree, they BPD should have stopped him and questioned him. That isn't exactly what happened though. They bullied him, screamed at him, and demanded he show his ID when he didn't have to. Had they been polite, and shown some respect (the same respect that they demand be shown to them) he would have kindly handed over his ID. And why is it common sense to do what ever the police tell you? Are you that brainwashed that you will just do anything a cop tells you to do. THat is the problem here, the cops think they can do whatever they want whether it is legal or not.

You state that you realize what he did was legal, but you are OK with him being arrested on bogus charges simply because he didn't obey every order (that they had no legal right to in the first place)? And since what he did was legal in the first place, after they got his ID and saw that he was 18 why wasnt he let go?

Please just admit that you simply dont like people standing up for their rights if it is something that you find "scary".

Yes, the nuances of human interaction are complex. Maybe the police thought they were being "reasonably polite" but in actuality screaming at him. Lets just say i have a better source of knowledge than this news article.

The point still seems to be lost on you. If his rights to open carry are already protected by law than why was he arrested again?

Thanks for replying, Unknown Poster. From the news reports he was arrested for "brandishing a firearm, disorderly conduct and obstructing an officer", not for open carrying. Something went awry after the police officiers asked (or demanded) to see his ID. I would think the police officiers would be well aware of Constitutional rights, Michigan law and Birmingham ordinances, more so than the average citizen....we'll see when the case comes to trial.

I know what the news reports say. Do you believe everything you hear. Do you think the news reporters were right there when it happened? They werent. They got their story from the police, who aren't about to paint themselves into a corner.

To say that they would be well aware of Constitutional rights is a bit optimistic. They should be aware of them, but they clearly aren't. And birmingham ordinances are completely irrelevant, since Michigan has preemption regarding firearms laws. Please educate yourself with the following link:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(t3ycngj43wkvgcvfmgn3dxbr))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

Here's what Judge Barron said regarding Birmingham ordinances vs the Michigan constitution:
"City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city." which I presume is his reasoning for binding Combs over for trial. I also presume the gun rights advocates will take this case to higher courts if Combs is convicted.

You are right, Unknown Poster, so far all we are hearing are the actual charges brought against Mr. Combs. Soon he will have his day in court and be able to present his side of the story, complete with unbiased witnesses.

I've pasted the verbiage from the MI legislation re firearms that you linked to:

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

Wonder what that last clause "except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state" means? Could there be a law of this state pertaining to the "Home Rule city specific authority" to which Judge Barron is alluding?

Such logic kept the US out of WW2 and lost 20 million lives in camps.....

I'm not sure what world you live in, but for the rest of America things like kidnapping, rape, assault, murders, robberies, and home invasions are a real threat to people. People like myself who carry a firearm arent carrying because we are afraid and live a fearful life, we carry a gun so we dont have to be afraid. I have quite the peace of mind knowing that if someone pulls a knife on me while I'm at home or at an ATM I have a chance to defend myself and not suffer serious injury or possibly death. You can continue to feel free to live in this world of "peace" that you imagine, for the rest of us we will still be in the real world where there are real threats. The smart ones will carry a firearm so they will not become a victim.

You have taken just a bit of that ruling out of context. how about this quote from the same opinion, "For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

Simply walking down the street with a rifle on your back is not displaying it in a threatening manner. The rifle isnt even in your hands, how can it possibly be used to theaten someone? And feel free to file a FOIA for the 911 calls recieved that night regarding someone with a gun. You won't find any. Clearly people were not very intimidated.

It's been interesting doing the "armchair lawyering", we'll see what happens in court, could be one of those precedence setting cases. Certainly this must be costing Bhm legal fees, nothing to ignore in these tax revenue strapped times; they must believe it an important enough case to pursue, even if ultimately not winnable.

I think they find it to be an important case because they dont want it to look like the police department made a mistake and infringed on his rights. They should have said sorry, and sent him on his way a long time ago.

I never claimed to have any omniscient powers. I simply said I am much better informed than what the news has shared.

Your comments about his mother were not very clear if your intention was simply to say that she is a bad parent. Instead of just saying that, you try to insult her for some reason. Usually when little boys have a crush on a girl they insult her. I simply noticed that is what was going on.

If you aren't against people's freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and right to bear arms than why are you so offensive to ward the teen and his mother. Did he somehow cause you harm or infringe on your rights? Please remember that your "feelings" do not constitute rights.

So, lets hear the best that have now....