Less than three weeks after a jury of disturbing the peace and brandishing a firearm, Combs picked up his M1 Garand rifle – which had been used as evidence – from Birmingham Police on Monday.
Then, he and a few other open carry advocates took to the streets of Birmingham once again Monday evening, openly carrying rifles and handguns at .
The group, organized through opencarry.org, all share one interest: raising awareness of the right to openly carry firearms – and not get in trouble for it.
"I'm not here to make anyone feel uncomfortable or scare someone or make them feel like they're not safe because I have a gun," Combs said. "I actually want the opposite; I don't want anyone to feel like they're in any kind of danger, because they're not."
This is only the second time Combs has ever carried a gun in public, and said he did so in order to make a statement.
Combs ignited an open carry debate in Metro Detroit in April when he was stopped in downtown Birmingham for carrying a loaded rifle. Combs, who officers , refused to present his identification and . On July 12, Combs was ; a third charge of obstructing an officer was thrown out on the first day of the two-day trial.
"We start real small, speak softly and carry a big stick," said Jason Harrison, a North Branch resident who was also in attendance on Monday. "First, just send an e-mail or a letter to the City Council or the Mayor and explain what MCL 123.1102 actually says."
After holding a meeting on the south end of Shain Park on Monday, the group planned to walk over to the fountain area of the park with weapons in tow. Many of the men, who said they carry their guns for safety purposes, expected weird looks from those who saw them.
Adrienne Ruby-Fink, a bystander who carries a gun herself, explained that she is in support of the right to bear arms except in certain circumstances.
"I am pro-concealed weapon permit, but I think carrying rifles openly in a downtown area with kids around is just ridiculous," Ruby-Fink said. "But, I do feel it's our right as American citizens to be able to protect ourselves."
As far as offending people; People get offended no matter what over many things. If one is easily offended they should never leave their home or turn on their television. To such a person I would say "Too bad if my patriotism offends you, your lack of spine offends me."
Well said, sir!
Kenneth & Danny - attitudes like your two are the reason the majority of gun owners, including CPL holders, don't support open carry. I support the right, but I do not support the "IN YOUR FACE, IT'S LEGAL!!!" attitude displayed during these "events".
I get what you're saying.... You would probably agree that more people should have CPLs and take responsibility for protecting themselves, correct? One good thing about open carry of a pistol is you get a chance to talk to people and promote safe carry of self defense weapons as well as provide an example of a normal person going about their normal business while armed. If you CC you would never be able to demonstrate to the masses that it is OK to carry. It is OK to be prepared. It is NORMAL to want to protect yourself and your familly. I encourage people to get a retention holster and try open carry. It is a GOOD thing to show the community that people carry and bring carrying out of the closet and into the open. I don't believe I would open carry a long gun outside of a parade or special function, however, I fully support other's rights to do something that is legal as well as constitutionally protected. I absolutely do open carry fairly regularly and I of course support people's right to openly carry handguns.
Also, nobody had any doubt about them being human, they just didn't think they should be able to vote - which was common practice in Europe as well.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19174197/detroit-soldier-shot-and-killed-by-best-friend-in-alaska
How many people will have to die before people start to reconsider how safe we think they are with the current gun laws as they are?
--CC People are only responsible with alcohol, prescription drugs, cars, knives, baseball bats, and access to their swimming pools until they aren't, also. Those are just a few more examples of things which badly hurt or kill a lot of people every year, some even more so than guns. Do you want to live in a country in which every adult has liberty by default, and it is taken away when misused, or do you want to live in a country in which every adult is assumed to be a criminal-in-waiting until proven otherwise, if ever?
GREAT BRITAIN has always maintained a very strict gun control law among it's population. "Deaths by guns" per capita ALWAYS are the lowest in the world, year after year? Coincidence? I think not!!!
--Jeff The UK's rate of all violent crime, and the deaths and great bodily harm from that, is far higher than the United States'. Also, their rate of homicides in which a gun is used is NOT the lowest in the world. Both of those facts prove that strict gun-control does not, and will never, really lower the perpetration of violence, and unjustified homicide in particular.
I believe we have the right to carry, but it is completely inappropriate to carry a rifle around downtown.
Also, the article is about law-abiding gun owners supporting one of their own wrongfully arrested and wrongfully prosecuted, and that person resuming exercising his rights in a lawful and peaceable manner. So, if you want to find the person shifting the focus, you need only look into a mirror. That IS typical of gun-control advocate tactics. Shift the conversation away from law-abiding gun owners to criminals or gun crime.
--R Jeppostol The United Nations, European Union, FBI, and other government sources that I pay attention to on this subject don't do these statistical comparisons at frequent intervals. So if I pass along the latest they have and it's a couple to a few years old, you and others will accept it, right? You and others won't then say, "Oh, that's outdated." . . . I can be assured of that?
--DanM Wouldn't you say a slightly dated source is better than no source at all?
--R Jeppostol Of course, that makes sense. But my question is not will I be sensible, but will you and others be sensible and not say, "Oh, that data is old." Do you pledge to accept the most recent data that is out there and that I will pass along? Will others, such as "Jeff" and "CC" (to name a couple of gun-control advocates here), pledge to accept the data? It is out there, and you can find the links to government sources rather easily, but I can present it here if it's not going to be a waste of time with you, Jeff, and CC.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html
The comments of readers and residents BELIEFS have nothing to do with my RIGHTS. Common sense was lacking on both sides. Just because a right exists it is not diminished in any fashion by an individual CHOOSING not to exercise it. Conversely, overly aggressive and ill informed police officers were just as responsible for creating this situation than the now acquitted former defendant. I understand the individual is only 18 and precluded from carrying a handgun - but- IF your state has adequate CPL/CCW laws open carry is unnecessary. I don't want to make a "statement" - I want to go about my business unobstructed by the criminals and by the authorities. The suburban soccer mom is missing a huge opportunity to teach her children a lesson about society - just because YOU perceive an inanimate object as having an agenda, a personality towards good or evil does not make it so. There is a difference between teaching fear and teaching respect. Do you teach your children to FEAR cars or traffic? This is a much broader issue than just guns in public - its a constitutional issue and a tolerance issue and frankly the public fails miserably. They're about a million times more tolerant of LGBT rights and a naked gay pride parade than they are of someone exercising an ENUMERATED court challenged amendment in the Bill of Rights. THAT my dear readers is the ultimate of hypocritical intolerance.
http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20120819/NEWS02/208190370/Birmingham-officials-seek-ban-guns-public-buildings?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Birmingham|p Was wondering if MCL# 123.1102 would prevent them from doing this or no, because they're attempting to amend it at the state level.
They have as much of a free speech right to ask for that as we who support individual rights have to oppose, and ultimately defeat, them.