I agree. He seems to have just wanted to exercise his teenage male libeto.

I love how people that don't agree with a person's point of view immediately resort to insulting them...nice.

I didn't see where it said the gun was loaded. It's good to see that someone so young has a good handle on the way the law. He's hardle a whack job for proud of his new gift. Personally, it scares me to think of everyone walking around with guns on their hips but he was within his legal right, assuming he wasn't waving it about or taunting folks and he has the same right we all do of expressing it.

So, peaceful, lawful exercise of a Constitutional Right, that does not interfere with anyone elses business, should be limited by geography? Why?

We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

Oh, and the whackjob thing. In order to purchase a gun, you have to udergo a federal background check, and um, the feds dont let whackjobs buy guns. Dipshit.

And every individual I've seen openly carrying, which is their legal right, was simply doing so because we have that right. We don't have to justify our actions just as you don't have to justify what kind of a vehicle you drive. This is still the United States of America. If you knew how many people you pass on the street that were legally carrying a concealed weapon you would probably pee your pants. Your illogical fear of firearms and your subsequent "fear projection" is a personal problem so stop trying to make it ours.

Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the link, really the only post that matters here!

Whether you agree with his choice or not Michigan is not a stop and ID state. A person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. It is your option to provide ID/CPL.

I worry about a society where I need a state-issued ID card to drive a car or vote, but I don't need an ID card to carry a loaded, semiautomatic down a busy sidewalk.

Yelling "fire" isn't protected by the first amendment is the situations you are referring to, please know the laws before you comment, as it will help your position.

Some people get anxious and or/nervous when they see a Muslim(some irrationally think they are all terrorists), or young black males wearing baggy jeans(all gang members!). Should those groups of people be banned because some are "nervous and or/anxious" around them? Ludicrous thought, huh?

By the way, both yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre and yelling obscenities at soccer games are illegal.

Actually a Right is a Responsibilty. You SHOULD exerscise your rights. One doesnt have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. There are laws against that. There are no laws agains the peaceful open carrying of a firearm by a legal adult in his state. He did everything right, he was illegaly obtained and arrested by a bunch of bully cops. Can't wait for him to be fully aquitted by the court system so he can turn right around and sue the city for stomping all over his civil rights.

FYI, just because you have the RIGHT to vote, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I applaud your awareness Jenny. Everyone needs to be aware of their surroundings wherever they find themselves. It is certainly your business to be aware of the people and the surroundings in which you find yourself.

I too applaud your desire to carry items for personal defense. May I make a suggestion tho? Take a firearms training course then get yourself a concealed weapons permit and then find a nice handgun which you feel comfortable with and carry it in your purse. It certainly beats the heck out of a machete or "throwing stars" since I don think you've been adequately trained in either one of them. Good luck Jenny and stop by and let us know what your choice of firearm was........

"...are cowards who flaunt a big gun to conceal the petiteness of their genitalia."

I'm much to polite to ask how you became an expert in this field.

I would disagree with you. The sooner the people here in Michigan start exercising their right to open carry the sooner the people in this state will get used to it. It works in Arizona.......As far as your experience regarding "radical open carry proponents", what do you care what they display as long as they're not breaking the law and shootin' folks in the street? And as far as I know, that has never been the case has it? I started carrying a .22 rifle a year after I started driving the farm tractor at the age of 8 so I guess I have a different mental attitude about firearms than you do. I truly feel sorry for you, city living and its subsequent chickification of males has ruined this country......

Fred Ferret is right on. Well put Sir.

The First Amendment says you can. But yes, there is an exception for that. Shouldn't there be an exception for an 18 year old carrying a military weapon on a suburban street?

Should = hypothetical...what is real is that the law allows it right now. If you want it changed write your congressman (but don't). And no it should not be illegal for an 18 year old.

@ MDT48302,
You might be aware, that you are discriminating based on the type of firearm and age of the person who was carrying it. In an age that we are supposed to be against discrimination, it's something to think about. Also, bolt actions, 1911's, USAF .38's, etc, are all "military weapons" and are carried everyday in the woods and on the streets, you just don't see them. Know that they are there, relax, you'll probably see them more and more. Remember, an armed society is a polite society. It's nothing to argue, it's just science.

I get your reasonable point, Greta, though Sean is a senior who presumably has applied/been accepted somewhere.

His family's concerns now include getting the three criminal charges reduced or dismissed so they don't jeopardize his college enrollment. "Obstructing an officer" is a felony, while the other two (disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm) are 90-day misdemeanors.

Alan, you are right, of course. I hope he is able to go to college despite this incident. I was thinking that maybe he was doing it as an experiment---to have something to write about for a gov't class, etc.
It clearly was legal, however, perhaps not in the best judgement.

OMG, as Sean's peers would text. Are you saying officers should not arrest a young man with a loaded, uncased M1 on a busy street who declines to identify himself? Really?

As you can see from his booking photo and friend's snapshot, a reasonable person could be unsure Sean is 18 -- a birthday he reached this year. That means officers had probable cause to request his driver's license to verify he wasn't too young to qualify under the open carry statute.

I agree charges likely will be dropped, but I'm relieved my city's officers acted with public safety as a foremost concern. I'm no attorney, but can't imagine a wrongful arrest claim would be filed or allowed to proceed.

Alan:

thats exactly what we are saying! they had no reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause to even stop Sean. These bully cops gor angry when Sean stood up for his rights and refused to produce his "papers". I applaud this young man for knowing and understanding his rights and the laws. Its a shame the same people who swore an oathe to uphold those laws cant say the same thing.

(question for everyone)

What if Sean was wearing a black hoodie and eating skittles when the cops stopped him? would all of your posts say the same thing

He didn't need to...nobody said he needed to...Why do people do anything they do...because they want to. I see people wearing winter coats on warm days and I wonder why is he wearing a winter coat when it is warm? Dunno...it's called freedom.

And legally the police did not have any right...you may wish they do but they don't.

Apparently it is like Detroit where you need to defend yourself. I've never seen or heard a teenager walking around downtown Detroit with an exposed rifle. Never understood random jabs at Detroit that have nothing to do with the story.

Ever hear of the Blue Martini?

@ Troy Walls,
I think everyone understands why Detroit takes jabs and is used as a negative example, the city is full of corruption, ignorance, violence and entitlement attitude.

You sound just like a big government liberal. Let the government take care of us they know what's best. I don't care about freedom or the fact that 1000's of people before me laid down their lives for it. The fact is Mr. Combs was lawfully carrying a rifle and his rights were infringed upon and you don't like it. Me on the other hand I welcome law abiding citizens who wish to lawfully arm themselves safely.

So Gambit, if my little scenario happened would you complain or would you say the police had no business preventing the shooting of your family member since the gunman did nothing illegal until he shot them?

My comments pertain to the story above not a hypothetical situation devised to elicit a particular answer. Mr. Combs is welcome to walk down my street with his rifle any time. Tragedies happen every day...I don't wish them on anyone. Recently a 17 year old killed his father and injured other family members with a baseball bat. If you saw a 17 year old walking down the street with a bat you would not think twice however as we are taught from preschool on...looks can be deceiving. Stick to the case at hand not some hypothetical situation.

I didn't think you had the guts to answer the question gambit. You'd probably be the first one suing in my scenario because the police failed to prevent a shooting.

We could lose all of our liberties and freedoms and still not prevent all crimes. Unfortunately it appears to be, at least in part, human nature.

So now you're a student of human nature? Human nature is also responsible for stupid decisions like carrying a loaded rifle into downtown Birmingham when there is absolutely no reason to do so. Is it legal to do so? Apparently. Is it intelligent to do so? No. He was just asking for trouble and he got it. On the surface, the problem seems to be a dumb kid, making a dumb choice and then compounding that dumb choice by refusing to cooperate with the police when they asked him for his I.D. to make sure he was old enough to be legally walking around with a weapon. I'm not trying to eliminate all crimes, just senseless, preventable ones. This kid is an accident waiting to happen and I'll wager dollars to donuts that this won't be his last brush with the law.

I would say that having been human all of my life would make me a 'student' of human nature yes.

Taken from dictionary.com
Student -- any person who studies, investigates, or examines thoughtfully.

Yep I'll go for that...and by the way I like the glazed ones that are also dipped in chocolate.

Someone should arrest you next time you are driving a car. After all, you might swerve onto a crowded sidewalk and mow down innocent people.

Right?

Please tell me, amused observer, how the police reaction would ensure the safety of ANYONE? Just as you stated, Mr. Combs could have at any moment shouldered the rifle and shot someone. Similarly, Mr. Combs could have concealed the rifle under a long coat, or carried a shorter rifle, or even pulled out a machine gun and mass murdered 50 people. Point being, that someone who wants to kill a bunch of people is going to one way or another, especially if they don't care if they die.

You can't prevent that kind of crime. You can, however, remove liberties and try to give the ILLUSION of safety and violate people's rights and take away freedom. It is clear which side you are on. Keep burying your head in the sand and pretend you are always safe and mommy govt. will keep you safe. Meanwhile, we will be responsible for ourselves and our own protection. kthx.

@ GambitofTroy, very well put

I can think of a lot of sarcastic responses to that but in all seriousness...who are we to say what he should and should not do. As long as it is legal it's ok with me...if you choose not to that's fine but leave other people to make their own decisions.

I agree, and add this in response to the latest comment by 'Gambit':
Birmingham police officers made their own professional decision last Friday night. So will a judge when deciding at a preliminary examination whether there is sufficient evidence to let the case proceed.

Our system of street-level law enforcement and judicial-level review of legal rights is based on decisions that we empower trained professionals to make every day, everywhere.

In all seriousness, who are we to say what police on Merrill Street four nights ago should or should not have done?

Refusal to provide a driver's licence, when not required by law, is not "resisting". Nor does it rise to the level of justification for an arrest.

Legal exercise of Constitutional Rights DOES NOT WARRANT ARREST.

Get it?

@ Alan Stamm: "...who are we to say what police on Merrill Street four nights ago should or should not have done?"

We are the Citizens, the People who make the laws and employ police to enforce the laws, not act at whim. Police do NOT get to make things up as they go along.

an avid collector would know that the term "assault weapon" as you used it, is a created term used by liberals and the media to create fear in the uneducated public. If I hit someone with my car would it be an "assault car?"
And its his right to carry a gun so I feel he should be able to do it without worrying about a police officer arresting him on a bogus charge. This is why Ben franklin wanted the US motto to be "Mind your Business"
One more thing; an calling an M1 garand an "assault weapon" is a gross overstatment and wrong. The military definition for "assault weapon is:
1: a carbine (x)
2 intermediate round (not a full size rifle round but not a pistol round)anyone can tell you the 30-06 is NOT an intermediate round (x)
3: magazine fed - en bloc clip (x)
4:has a "pistol grip" (x)
5:is select fire (able to switch between full auto and semi auto) (x)
0/5 sounds like not an assault weapon to me

Your first-hand perspective is relevant and adds valuable balance to this discussion, James. Sean is fortunate to have you as a schoolmate, and now so are we.

@ Bruce,
Don't know your age, but you are obviously being condesending to James by calling him "kid" and in the tone of your message. I wish more young people were as articulate and able to put together a well put statement as he did.

Here's the reality, judge the situation by the actions. It's called situational awareness. Read Sean's body language. Did he seem to be carrying himself in a tense manner? Did he seem to be aggrivated? Etc. Etc. These are things professionals and concerned citizens get training in. Those are things that give you the ability to judge a situation, see if an attack is about to happen, etc.

Body language tells everything. Most people don't know how to read body language so they resort to reading circumstancial items that can and are misleading in a situation.

Once you learn to read body language and or go after certified training, you end up seeing much more about a situation. Things that alarmed you before, might not alarm you anymore and vice versa.

Thank you, James, for shaing an excellent comment and for vouching for his character. I also know Sean and agree that he is of good character and is a very good young person who did something rash/foolish/ill advised - legal/illegal/morally correct or otherwise.

Sean makes better decisions lately, presumably with parental and legal guidance. His Facebook page, which had been on full public view as recently as Wednesday, has been taken down.

Content included a January photo of his new M1 Garand lying across two kitchen chairs, captioned "new member of the family," and a YouTube video of someone else demonstrating that model's firing power.

And how is Sean incapable of decent thought? What did he do that was wrong? he legally carried a firearm in public... so what? Just because you dont agree with it, this young man in is an idiot? Thats awful narrow minded of you. seems you are the one incapable of decent thoughts

Technically he can buy a handgun from a private seller. Though he is still limited to only OCing.

What do you mean? I thought paying $10,000+ a year in property taxes guaranteed your safety! No? /sarc/

So what if he did have intentions to use it? This isn't Minority Report, you cant arrest someone for thinking about doing something. A crime must actually be committed to be arrested. Also, the police are not there to prevent crime, as much as you would like them to be. They are there to investigate and arrest people that actually commit crimes. They don't carry a gun to protect you either... they carry it to protect themselves.

I find it interesting that people get so upset by someone exercising their 2nd Amendment rights because it makes them uncomfortable when they see someone with a firearm. What about 1st amendment rights? What if someone is uncomfortable when they see two guys holding hands walking down the street? Should people not be allowed to hold hands with whomever they wish because it might make someone else uncomfortable? Didn't think so.

Interesting. So you are clearly in favor of the police violating his rights to lawfully carry a firearm. Any other amendments in the Bill of Rights you are OK with the police taking away from you and letting a judge decide if it is legal or not. Freedom of speech maybe? I don't think so, as if the police read what you wrote and didn't like it they could just come and arrest you for it. How about illegal search and seizure? The cops are out to protect you right? So they can just stop by your house anytime and go through everything you own to make sure it is all legal, right? I mean, it is for your safety and the safety of your community after all. Let the government infringe on one right, and they will infringe on all of them.

And you are more concerned about someone legally walking around with a firearm than a girl randomly shooting a gun into the air? Yeah, that makes sense. You know bullets have to come back down too? Hope your roof is strong enough to stop one from hitting you or your family.

Hopefully, you will soon be arrested for speaking in public. I don't care if it's legal or not for a half-wit to speak freely. Let a judge decide that; the cops better get your ass off the street.

Schenck v. United States 1919.... Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. specifically wrote in his opinion of the case that falsely yelling fire in a crowded area is not protected under the 1st Amendment. which means one may be charged for disturbing the peace, causing a riot, etc. if someone was to be hurt within the panic, said person could be charged for their injuries...

but that is all beside the point and off topic. the topic here is the fact that the cops violated this young man's constitutional rights, and should all be held accountable for their illegal actions

It's good work for the police to violate the Rights of the citizens now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2mqqCMu-LM

Nice try -- LOL!

actually it was three counts, judge dropped one and wouldnt touch the others for political reasons. maybe you should get your facts right before commenting.