He returned to Birmingham to retrieve his property from the PD. Which was necessary because they took it incident to a wrongful arrest and wrongful prosecution.

Thinking with your balls is rarely the optimal course of action. It's too bad that the notion of "good judgement" seems to get abandoned in the lust to demo your right to "Bear Arms". I'm all for the latter, but it seems like the *intent* of the nation's authors of our Bill of Rights wasn't to "provoke" a response when a response isn't needed.

If you've already demonstrated inability to keep the property you have with you secure from theft, how are you to be expected to keep a gun secure from theft? Some people shouldn't have guns, and you are one until you are able to keep your property on you secure.

Even a fifth grader knows not to leave a laptop unattended.

We are flattered that you would want notification so you can attend, thereby you and your kids would be protected by the presence of law-abiding armed citizens. But, really, you can also do this yourself by exercising your gun-rights too.

Funny, I didn't about any children getting shot tonight. In fact, several ran right by us with no problem. Those kids in the park were some of the safest children in Michigan.

Protected? lol Do sex offenders notify you when they are in the area? This is a peaceful rally!!

Protected?? Do sex offenders notify you when they are area? Or thiefs or rapists? You should feel protected when they are around because they are responsible gun owners, not like the thugs that shoot at bars in Birmingham. Wake up!!

On a related note, please also notify us when sex offenders, thieves, rapists, or thugs hold rallies as well. Thanks.

I know, right? Birmingham's wrongful arrest and wrongful prosecution is the gift that keeps on giving. Along with 15 minutes, they've opened up Birmingham taxpayers to the potential of 15 of another kind: thousands of dollars (or more) in a civil suit.

"Hooray for wrongful arrest and wrongful prosecution!" - signed, Nobody Who Respects Liberty and the Law

He was never looking for 15 minutes. He even asked the officers to keep his name out of reports before he gave them his ID. BPD gave birth to an activist that night. Not only for gun rights, but for any and all rights we have. Send them a thank you letter. I know I will.

He isn't looking for 15 minutes of fame? Then why do I keep seeing pictures of him with a big smile on his face every other time I go to to the Patch site? The only purpose for him to be walking the downtown area AGAIN with his band of merry men is so that he can garner attention. He isn't exercising his right, he is flaunting it.

"He isn't looking for 15 minutes of fame? Then why do I keep seeing pictures of him with a big smile on his face every other time I go to to the Patch site?"
--CC

CC, last time I checked, the reporters and editors of the Patch are the ones responsible for determining the newsworthiness and, consequently, frequency with which you see pictures or stories on their website. Not Sean Combs. You're misplacing your attempt at blame.

To BPD's credit, they seemed to pay as much special attention to the law-abiding open carriers today as should be expected: that is, no special attention.

This suggests the officers and authorities involved in the wrongful arrest and wrongful prosecution are an anomaly.

So the only way to stop gun violence is to have more guns? Hmmmm, makes perfect sense to me.

@DanM I'm sure they were watching you guys very closely on CCTV, but it's nice they didn't harass you. Also, What was the BPD thinking when they took the case to court. I could rationalize their actions up until that point, but when they decided to go to court and open themselves up to a civil suit, I lost all faith in them:/

"So the only way to stop gun violence is to have more guns?"
--CC

That would be a fundamental misunderstanding you have. Law-abiding gun owners simply assert that there is a right to self-defense. I don't know where the assertion you express came from.

"What was the BPD thinking when they took the case to court. I could rationalize their actions up until that point . . ."
--R Jeppostol

You could rationalize the wrongful arrest? Please attempt to do so. This will be interesting.

Troy, SH, OP, RO, the D . . . already have OC'ers and/or have been and are currently OC'd in. Catch up at Michigan's subforum on www.opencarry.org.

More people owning and carrying guns won't harm gun rights, since they also vote and that translates to more and more gun owners stamping out more and more the evil of gun control.

Get Real, as OC'ers, we are only using our rights when we still have them. Rights are like muscles, if you don't use them, you lose them. What's the difference from having open carry rights and not using them, or having open carry banned? Either way no one is open carrying.

Readers here appear to be free to discuss each others' comments, as well as the story. I have based criticism on your message contents, not toward you personally. I'm not complimenting you, to be sure, but please don't feel I am disrespecting you.

Dan....your comments should address the contents of the STORY and not the contents of another commenter. There are TERMS OF SERVICES, WRITTEN BY THE patch, that serve as guidelines to posting comments on the STORY.

You are disrespectful and appear to be in violation of the TERMS OF SERVICES.....WHY?

And.....don't even TRY to infer that someone who stole my MacBook Pro at the Libary was my fault....I did not ask for a crime against me like no body asks to get raped; that way of thinking is totally dysfunctional.

We understand that a minority of anti-gun people will call us names. Can you elevate yourself from that group and provide reasonable objections? We don't mind listening to opposing opinions and discussing them.

Your "town" has alot of guns!! Take off your blinders! Gee......shootings at Bars? Wake up, every town has crime even your "precious" Birmingham. They just try to cover it up!!

There is justification to lawfully carry for self-defense in or around public parks. Violent crimes do, in fact, occur to people in public parks or on their way to or from public parks. You may want to get an eye-opener by becoming knowledgeable about your local crime statistics.

There are many hunting rifles, for example, that are larger caliber, more powerful, and just as semi-automatic as any legal AK-47. Do you dislike AK-47s merely on the basis of their appearance, which has nothing to do with anything of consequence at all?

At 20,000 gun laws on the books around the country, there are in fact plenty of good laws already there to enforce as well as a far larger number of silly ones that need to be removed.

What if the bad gun has a AK47? Now I'm out gunned. You can have the AKs. I like AR15s better anyway

Reality doesn't match your speculation. The park and streets were full and no one was running away, several folks came up to us and talked with us, and many children were running and playing in our vicinity. Although a small minority of people vocally or visibly disapproved, that is to be expected in our free country but, no, no one freaked out.

The residents of Birmingham were quite accepting on the whole to lawful and peaceable self-defense carry.

I can't imagine why more people weren't more vocal in their disapproval...could it be because you were walking around with a semi-automatic weapon? I can assure you that for every one person that voiced disapproval, there were many more that were extremely uncomfortable with your excessive flaunting of your right to bear arms.

I know the events of colorado were terrifying, but perhaps if you stopped watching CNN or FoxNews for two minutes you would realize that life is just as safe as it was on July 19th and that you're merely the victim of an insane media feeding frenzy.

"I can't imagine why more people weren't more vocal in their disapproval...could it be because you were walking around with a semi-automatic weapon? I can assure you that for every one person that voiced disapproval, there were many more that were extremely uncomfortable with your excessive flaunting of your right to bear arms."
--CC

That would be a possible theory, except that it is debunked by the relaxed body language that most of those observing us exhibited.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the people of Birmingham, on the whole, may not be quite as anti-gun as you might wish them to be.

No, now they know if some starts shooting, there are people capable on stopping it. They should feel more protected.

jrb,

None of that happened in Birmingham last night. Just as it has never happened to any properly responsible law-abiding open carrier in the decade of the growing open carry movement nationwide.

Reality doesn't match your speculation. Ergo, your speculation is invalid.

I am one of those people. I won't be bringing my kids around downtown Birmingham until this open carry stupidity dies down. I wish you luck in your business and hope you weather the storm of this selfishness.

I would venture a guess that more people will avoid Birmingham because of the shootings that occur around the bars there, not the peaceful, and lawful, open carriers. And no one was "harmed" by a few guys minding their own business walking around.

@CC
You have the right to take you kids wherever you want. Do you really think you kids are in danger because some lawful citizens are out enjoying their night too? Please, you should know better. Do you make sure your kids avoid the police too? They also open carry guns. And please don't try to say that they are properly trained and the open carriers are not. The average police officer only qualifies 1-2 times a year, and it is a very easy test. Open carriers practice with their firearms much more than that and also take formal training becasue they want to be the best they can be with their firearms.

So because someone is lawfully open carrying, I am supposed to just assume they won't choose to use their firearm for the reason it was designed (to shoot people)? How am I to be certain that those people lawfully carrying aren't going to lose their temper and use that gun? And please don't tell me that it doesn't happen and there is nothing to fear. A two second Google search helped me find an article of an open carry advocate that was convicted of murder (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/gun-activist-guilty-in-shootings-that-killed-one-injured-one-132757643.html). Was that person properly trained?

Logic tells me that a person with a gun is 100% more likely to shoot it than someone who doesn't have a gun. So yes, I will keep my kids away from people who are taking a constitutional right to an extreme. Guns like the ones being carried by most of these individuals are meant to intimidate. All it does is encourage people to take the law into their own hands and promotes vigilante justice. With the countless stories of people exercising bad judgement, do you think I should just blindly trust that people walking around with guns are going to be responsible with them? Sorry, but I am not willing to gamble my kids life on that.

Dear Monca,

We were in town that day to accompany Sean in picking up his property from the police department that wrongfully arrested him before. Let me repeat: going into the same PD that wrongfully arrested him before. I'm sure that helps you understand why a group of us was there. The PD set the appointment day. Let me repeat: the PD defined the day we were there. I'm sure that helps you understand why we were there on that day.

Perhaps, at the next city meeting, you should respectfully request that the city be sure the BPD doesn't wrongfully arrest people, which may lead in turn to the presence of law-abiding folks you personally detest.

Don't get mad at Sean or Opencarry.org, get mad at BPD. They are the reason there are opencarriers in down town. Sean said if BPD gave a formal apology, he would stop carrying his rifle in Bham and would ask others too. I am also sorry about your lose.

CC, you won't bring your kids around Birmingham because of an open carry demonstration but you feel comfortable with them surrounded by the bars in the town? More people are killed every year in driving accidents, a large portion of those due to drug and alcohol use behind the wheel. I guess I'm a little shocked at how you can find a town filled with bars, some of which that have had issues with the law, perfectly acceptable yet one or two demonstrations with open carry and you'll write the city off as a danger to you and your family.

Just because someone is concerned with their safety and carries an gun, does not mean that they are out looking for trouble. What point would be proven if they did open carry in Detroit and had to use a gun in self defense anyways? That they were able to protect themselves at the cost of a life? We already know they are able to protect themselves, I don't think that is the point they are trying to make.

Open carriers go wherever they have business or social engagments to attend to. That does include within Detroit.

We were in Birmingham yesterday attending to the business of Sean retrieving his property back from the BPD.

So, be it for business or socializing, you may see us again. Hopefully not for any more business related to wrongful arrest or wrongful prosecution of innocent people. See you around.

No one was brandishing anything. If they were wouldn't you think BPD would have arrested them? They seem to have a great track record at arresting people open carrying. How bout this, you go down to Downtown Detroit unarmed and walk around with a sign saying "I'm unarmed with no way to defend myself" let me know how that works out for you.

BPD hates us. why? Because Sean, a 18 year old young man, knew more about the laws then they did and bet them at their own game in court. Making them look like fools. If local Merchants/business owners have a problem with open carry, they should contact BPD asking to give Sean a formal apology.

I stay in West Bloomfield and comes to Birmingham a lot, even though someone stole my MacBook Pro when I was at the libary and had came back from the bathroom it was gone. but I don't like to see people carrying guns however if I have to carry a gun so no one steels my stuff when I come to Birmingham and everyone else is carry a gun the I WILL so no body messes with me.

@Concerned Resident

What are you so concerned about? After all, Birmingham is a safe community, right? No, that's not right. There have been multiple shooting in Birmingham in the last few months.

Also, of what significance is it as to how many of the open carriers are residents of Birmingham. By making statements like that it shows that you feel it is YOUR city, and that if you don't personally like something that goes on there or someone that goes there than you should be able to make it stop. It is very condescending.

.@Yolanda Jefferson

So wait, you had your MBPro stolen at the library, and your iPhone stolen from your purse at south, geez that's bad luck.

Why does it matter? Is Birmingham some sort of Eden?

Yolonda, I don't think you get the purpose of carrying a gun. Please take a proper course in gun safety and use and pay attention when they talk about the legality of using guns for self defense vs as a theft deterant. You may retain your Macbook but the police will have reason to charge you for unlawful use of a firearm.

Gee.....no one got shot. But, don't go see a movie!! I bet the people in Colorado wished someone had a gun when he opened fire on them.

Sounds like you need some education regarding firearms to get over your fear. And can you please state the where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any laws that say you have "a right to feel safe"? I bet you can't, because you don't have right to feel safe. You have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, none of which Mr. Combs would be violating by excercising his 1st and 2nd amendment RIGHTS.

Are you scared when you see a child molester? Are you scared when you see a rapist? Gee.....guess you can't see them, but you just continue in your little world, not knowing what is actually going on around you!!! Wake UP....the best thing that you can see is someone legally carrying a gun. Maybe one day he will help you, because we know that BPD, only worries about people not committing a crime.

Sharon, if you would be terrified, you would be in an extremely small minority of people with perhaps a gun phobia. We hung out and walked among the good people of Birmingham for a few hours. Talked to several, too, both in agreement and disagreement. Many children played happily in our vicinity.

There was no terror in Birmingham that day.

He doesn't. I know him very very well. Why would you be terrified? No laws are being broken, and you are in no danger. Btw, your right to safety in called the 2nd amendment. You also have to right to leave if you feel unsafe.

That's right.

Pay them no attention.

They proved there point. The law says they can open carry, so go ahead and open carry.

Remember people who play with matches (not against the law to play with matches) get burned.

You'all who carry guns, FINE, just don't try to even steel my new Macbook Pro I got when someone stoled mines from the libary and if you do you will see mines open carry gun staring right between your eyes.

Wouldn't it be true that the people reacting adversely to lawful open carry are the ones turning this into an event?

He wants his apology from BPD for his wrongful arrest and for dragging him through this.

Yeah, that was an EPIC FAIL on the part of BPD.

Sean Combs 2 Birmingham Police Department 0

The fight is far from over. There are constantly inititives being put forth to limit and restrict gun rights. The media doesn't cover any of it because they want it to happen. So unless you are concerned for your gun rights, you will never hear about all of the bills that are proposed that strip gun owners of their rights. One example, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Ever hear of it? I doubt it.

I think you're missing the point MikeN. No one started organizing open carry events in Birmingham until the police made a stink about one event of legal open carrying involving Sean Combs. Had they been sage enough to follow the law and release him upon discovering he was 18, than they might have saved the city some unwanted tension. However, by disregarding the intent of the law and electing to press charges against Sean Combs, they opened up a can of worms, so to speak, for the city. On one hand, they now put the citizens of birmingham at risk of wasting way more money in a civil suit, and on the other they angered open carry advocates around michigan for so callously stepping on the law. It was this callous disregard by the BPD for state open carry laws, that seems to have served as the impetus for these regular open carry events in Birmingham.

If there was a way to guarantee that every gun owner was a "good guy", then I am all for it. Unfortunately, the shooter in Colorado obtained his guns legally and was thought to be a "good guy". The problem is most people aren't identified as "bad guys" until it is too late.

That is the reason the US has not signed it. Why else would they be opposed to stopping terrorists, insurgent fighters, and organzied crime folks from obtaining illicit weapons? They wouldn't be. They haven't signted it because it only takes a small majoritiy of the UN members to amend the treaty after it is ratified. There are many countries that would be happy to amend it to say that civilians in the US are not allowed to own guns per the treaty. Seems like a slippery slope.

Since you are well informed, you probably already know about the attempt to slip in some gun control on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 too. What happened to Obama's promise of transparent government, with no earmarks or pork? I guess that "changed"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/30/-democratic-senators-look-to-tighten-gun-control-in-two-separate-bills

Wow, if that isn't the stereotypical "rich Birmingham" response than I don't know what is. It isn't "your" neighborhood. Maybe you should tell the city council to put a fence all the way around the city so that only residents can come in. I bet all of the merchants of the city would really like that too, since no one from another city spends money there anyways. (end sarcasm)

Wow, last time I checked we still live in the United States, and are FREE to go wherever we want :)

Melanie, please contact BPD for Sean's formal apology to get Sean to stop "toting" his gun in your wanna-be Eden.

Statistics, this is a link to the Birmingham Police Statistics Report http://www.ci.birmingham.mi.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4821
You are satisfied with the increased crime rate and the reduction in the police force.
and you think you are totally safe. I understand.

YOUR correct South Bar was a safe place......NOT.....get a clue and get your head out of the sand. Birmingham keeps alot of crime quiet for YOU people!!!

How about you peek into some research and let us know.

Nice penis joke. Grow up. But, why are you so interested? See something you like?

Bob - your comparisons are completely ridiculous. I have never read of anyone dying from someones choice to kiss another man. I have never heard of any deaths caused by a muslim praying. If you can't see the difference between guns and someones personal sexuality/beliefs, then I am even more afraid than I was before.

What I am starting to catch on to is your irrationality is worse than I feared. However, I am actually one of the least fearful people you will (not) ever meet. My fears are rational. Therefore, I do not fear things that are statistically very unlikely to hurt me or my loved ones. I actually said nothing at all about the law. What I do fear is a hot headed vigilante individual who perceives a threat rightly or wrongly and/or accidentally sets off a gun.

No one has responded to this idea that what you all seem to be accomplishing is intimidation rather than convincing people of your point of view. To me, that is bullying. Is that how you like to operate?

I'm glad you said you do not fear things statistically unlikely.... because it is EXTREMELY statistically unlikely that you will be hurt by a legal and/or licensed gun owner. Your fears of them, as you state yourself, unfounded due to the statistical improbability.

My comparisons are absolutely not ridiculous. Your straw man argument of "no one gets dead from X" is what is ridiculous... my gun has killed exactly ZERO people. So no one gets dead from my gun either, unless they try to kill me or my family.

I don't know what you are talking about as far as vigilantes though. Personally, I have no desire to be "the hero" or to "save lives" other than my own. I'll gather my family and run away while the criminal is busy with you. The only reason I would attempt to stop an attack not on myself or my loved ones would be to avoid my family being exposed to seeing a brutal attack/murder right in front of them.

So your vigilante arguments hold no water with me. I am in fact, extremely pragmatic and rational and logical. Crime is real. Attacks, robberies, and assaults happen. I have taken steps to protect me and mine. Since I have started carrying, I have been even more vigilant at avoiding confrontation, and de-escalating sitautions.

What I find irrational is the refusal by anti-gunners to accept that there are responsible, safe, trained, and highly knowledgeable gun owners out there.

Bob - The way you describe yourself is great. If everyone was like that, then there probably wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, that is not the biography of everyone who has legally obtained and carries guns. The reality is that there are gun owners who don't share your values and responsibility. If you have an idea on how to differentiate who shares those values and make it illegal for those who don't to carry guns, then I am all for it. But until that happens, I subscribe to the less guns, the better.

I don't, unfortunately, have a way to differentiate good gun owners from bad. I have however, found in my dealings with literally thousands of gun owners is that the overwhelming majority of them are good and law abiding people. Open carriers especially must be HYPER SENSITIVE to the law and to following it to a T in order that they don't wander from one place where it is perfectly legal to the next where it may be a 5 year felony. All of the open carriers I know are extremely law abiding and aware of the laws because if they weren't they could easily get into trouble. Big trouble.

I completely understand the mindset of people. You don't know who this person is or what they are up to. I get it. However, if you look at it logically, what does it matter if the person has a gun under their shirt or in the open for all to see? If they are bent on doing destruction, they will. If they want to drive their car thru the playground full of kids they will. I think that open carriers put themselves out for the judgement of the general public.

I agree with you that not everyone can represent gun owners as I feel that I do by dressing professionally, being overly friendly, being able to be articulate and inteligent.. I also believe that the "unwashed masses" possess the same rights I do.

I chalk up some things to the price of freedom. Do I want to make the tens of thousands of OCers unable to carry because of the .00000001% of tragedies? No I don't.

Social "Norms" So........ should not where a speedo in public? I should not kiss my partner is public? I must say...I have to wonder what world / city you live in. What color is the sky in your "perfect" world?

1. "this right will not be infringed on" every hear that?
2. open carry is a right.
3. People have been killing themselves and other far before guns came around

I am sure he would love to get a CCW, however, the law prevents him from doing this. You have to be 21 in the state of Michigan to get a 21, and you have to be 21 to purchase a pistol from a dealer. Since the law prevents him from concealing a pistol, open carry of a rifle was all he was legally allowed to do.

Legally he cannot. He is not 21 duh??? And thank your wonderful BPD for letting this get to this point!!! They did NOT know the law!!!

"I know it's their right to have an adult relationship with whomever they wish, but I sure wish those gays would use some discretion in regards to where/when they hold hands or embrace. I'm simply sharing the opinion that myself and others find this sort of behavior uncomfortable that's all. I find it hard to believe that the gay folds can't understand this."

Sorry dude... sometimes people are going to do things that make other people uncomfortable. (I"m not saying gays make either me or you uncomfortable, I was just using the example)

Part of it being a free country is that people can do as they please as long as it's not breaking any laws. Maybe you don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong and I for one, thank these patriots for bringing 2A rights to the forefront of conversation. It should be talked about. It should be out in the open. It should be on people's minds, not locked away in grandpa's gun cabinet.

Thanks everyone for the debate.....

Talk to BPD who clearly took him thru the court system, for months of anguish. If they knew the law.....none of this would be going on. I think your anger is misguided.

Almost forgot; thanks to www.opencarry.org as well!

The thing is, they've been open carrying FOR YEARS. Anti-OC people have been saying the same thing FOR YEARS... Open Carry is not going to lose us the 2A.

Are some people only allowed to enjoy their rights.
In the Aurora theater all patrons were denied their rights with a No Guns Allowed sign.

This comment is another example of why anti-gunners aren't taken seriously.

Good one! and I'll take the Posse Birming-tot-is seriously when they hold an event somewhere law-abiding citizens with assault rifles are actually needed (like six miles either way on Woodward). Until then, enjoy freaking out the tea 'n' tennis set.

WOW, you have just showed everyone what a fool you are :)

LOL, 2 for 2. So you both agree that those two kids look really alike? Bob? BigJohn?

"He should dye his hair orange before his next 'gun run'. That will *really* get people's pulses going."

Serioiusly, rolfsy? Is this your attempt at humor? I'm sure the families of the dozen slain people in Aurora would not be laughing. Show some sensitivity or consider yourself banned from Patch.

Do you carry such identification ?

Are you suggesting that the guns caused those suicides? Are you suggesting that if there were no guns that those suicides would not have happened?

John.....let us know if you want some company

Once again Suzanne..........nothing is misguided here......read the Constitution.....you are misguided

Yes wrong, unless this is a criminal way of thought, so you are promoting criminal action.

Assault and robbery: Ok!

Legal bearing of arms: Not Ok!

You make a lot of sense to me.. do you maybe have a news letter I can subscribe to?

Never gonna happen.........that would be an assault!! NOW who is breaking the law? Get a clue!!!

LOL! You gun nuts really take these comments too seriously. Lighten up. This kid is a dork. He's probably carrying cuz the football team gave him swirlies all through high school.

I agree the City of Birmingham is not as safe as you think. Thank G-D there are responsible people there with guns. We know that police to not stop crimes...they show afterwards,

Actually......funny you should mention jobs. He has gotten 3 jobs offers from this. Americans that know our Constitution respect him.

Pssst... he was found NOT GUILTY of brandishing.. I'm not sure if you know what that means...

Mr. Combs, as I understand, has very good grades. His mother supported him throughout his ordeal at the hands of the police and prosecutor.

Suzanne......how shallow of you to think that only "smart" people do not stand up for their rights. Well, let me tell you..........he was a awesome student, no issues with high school, does not drink and kill people, no drugs....and no traffic violations. Captain of his HS Cross Country team. How do you feel about teens that drink & drive and kill people. I guess in your book that is acceptable....but g-d forbid you stand up for your constitutional RIGHTS!!!!

He ran 8000 miles in four years of high school. And it sounds to me the kid is pretty smart to know more about the laws then police. Which they had 5 years at Farris State to help them become police. My guess is his grades are just fine.

Sorry, conviction of domestic violence disallows one from obtaining a CPL. If it was a felony, they are also disqualified from legally possessing any firearms.

If he has any guns, you need only make a phone call and the police, I"m sure, would be more than happy to handle the rest.

I am truly sorry that your husband mistreated you, and if he was convicted of this he would not be able to purchase guns with a criminal record, but i do understand your point, that there are some crazy people in our world including the crack addict in your scenario, that will use anything to kill you and you family, No gun owner has advocated killing anyone, but to shoot someone to stop them from killing you your family, no gun advocate wants to shoot anyone unless absolute life or death or rape is emanate. But calling 911 may be done by someone else if you let this poor crack addict do as he wishes. I also am glad that you have those two fine German Shepherds, I hope they are very aggressive to a criminal wanting to do you harm.
As for the criminal human body, the criminal is in charge of that outcome.

Thanks Andy for posting what I was about to post!!! While I find all of this converstion very interesting, I understand why Sean was in B'ham the other day, to pick up his property from the PD. I understand that his supporters felt the need to go with him. What I don't understand is what any of this has to do with Colorado, In addition, the concealed weapon law and the open carry law are in place and in theory and practice do work. Will Sean be going to college in the Fall? Perhaps he will become an attorney and perfect the laws and other things he wants brought to the people!! I think we all agree it was his right, he exercised his right and it should be finished.

Kennesaw is a town of 30k, hardly comparable to Chicago. Additionally, ANYONE who says it's ok for the government to FORCE households to buy guns is now automatically in favor of Obamacare. Thanks for playing!!

One thing to consider:

In order to have a pistol, you must have completed a background check, must not be a felon or ex-con, and must not be mentally defunct.

If you see someone legally open carrying, they have met all of the above qualifications. Do you really think that someone would open carry an illegal gun? That would REALLY be asking for trouble and they would get their butt in a sling real fast.

Now, if you see a group of 15 people open carrying pistols at a park, you're looking at 15 people who are not felons, are not criminals, are not drug users, and are not head cases. What other group can you rely on the LAW that has ensured that the qualifications have been met? The group of 15 guys from a softball team that are drinking beer? (one was convicted of CSC of a minor 10 years ago) The group of 15 'soccer moms? (one did 3 years for possession of cocaine) How about the group of teens hanging by the pavillion? (2 are high on marijuana, 3 got Minor In Possession offenses this year and 1 got in trouble for assault and 2 got in trouble for breaking and entering)

Or would you rather have the guys that all passed background checks and have guns?

Think about it.

Bob,
We are not talking about pistols, we are talking about high power rifles. The rifles strung on the back are much more menacing than that of a pistol.

Adam, so you're saying you're ok with open carry of pistols then?

Bob,
I have a CPL and carry wherever I can legally, but I do it concealed. Having said that, my point is simply that the intimidation factor of a group of people carrying rifles is much greater, in my opinion. So I would rather pistols than rifles.

Concerned Resident, you are not alone in desiring a middle ground on this. I support gun rights, but I do not support the attention-seeking sensationalism these individuals are responsible for.

People legally carry concealed pistols on a daily basis in and around Birmingham, and I think this is good. These people are licensed, they have had background checks, and they are not criminals. Statistically speaking, this group is less likely to commit crimes (including gun related crimes) than either the rest of the general population or the police department. These are the good guys and their right to carry should not be infringed.

People seeking attention by carrying a rifle around on their back however, I think are idiots and I wish they'd handle things in a more mature manner.

Hey Adam,

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.

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean. "which happened in OC" (open carry? something else?)... Drugs, money, huh? I don't need you to tell what to fear. You don't know me at all. Just as I don't know you and do not tell you what to think, fear, say, believe, or do. I just WISH you didn't use the tactics you seem to advocate. I do not wish my children to be in an otherwise lovely park and come across a bunch of men with huge assault rifles. I don't think it's that weird of me not to want that. I didn't say you weren't within your rights. I just wish you would all take into consideration what the community would like for our own community. That's why I am interested in hearing what people who live, dine, shop, own businesses in this community actually want.

Concerned Resident........I am only talking about the law and our Constitution. I respect your views, however........they are not realistic. And for your information I live in West Bloomfield. Just so you know, but it really has no bearing on this situation where we live. Once again, if BPD had let him go when they realized that he was 18, none of this would be going on. Contact your PD, its their lack of knowledge that brought this on.

CR, you complain that Sam is painting you with a broad brush, right after you paint him the same way... ?

Let's try to keep this an open discussion / debate, not an argument that accomplishes nothing.

As to you last comment, think about this...
Those of us who are pro-gun are not imposing our will over your rights, we want everyone to have their constitutional rights, and the freedom to choose.
Open carry, conceal carry, keep on in the home only, or don't carry / own a gun at all. Your choice, and the responsibility and possible consequences that go with that choice.

Anti-gunners are the ones imposing their will, forcing everyone to follow their way, no guns for anyone.
Pro-gunners want you to choose your way, what ever way that is best for you.

I personally hope to never need to draw and use my weapon. But, if I'm ever in a situation, better to have the ability to protect & survive than curl up in the fetal position and hope the criminal doesn't use his.

My family uses seat belts and has airbags, just in case.
My home has multiple fire detectors & fire extinguishers, just in case.
I wear protective gear at work, just in case.
I carry a handgun (Beretta 92FS in a retention holster) when ever & where ever I can, just in case.
To me, it is one more safety device I hope I never use.

Lord Sega,
I live in Birmingham and have a CPL. I also carry whenever and wherever I can- concealed. I fail to see the need to carry assault rifles in Shain Park. If this group would like to continue their cause, I suggest they do so in their own neighborhood. You've reached the point of diminishing return, and now have local business owners fearing loss of business. Protest the police all you want (but I would suggest you walk a day in their shoes), but stop punishing the community.

Adam, I agree completely. I actually live in Royal Oak but my wife and I frequently visit Birmingham's downtown as we prefer the more mature feel of it versus our own downtown. I have a CPL and support the right to carry concealed, as well as the right to open carry. That said, if I saw a group of people trying to make a point by carrying rifles around the middle of downtown, I would leave. There are plenty of other places to take our business and enjoy our day without the disruption this kind of event causes.

I believe we have the right to carry, but it is completely inappropriate to carry a rifle around downtown.

Thanks, Suzanne & Bob, for your replies. Bob, I appreciate your viewpoint as presented in this comment. However, I disagree with you that the background check is a guarantee of these things. It certainly does not weed out the hot heads. Of course, any group of people will have various non-visible "issues," but these other groups in theory aren't [as likely to be] carrying loaded weapons. And, for the record, I try to avoid drivers who are texting or obviously talking on their phones while driving - also dangerous, in my opinion. I have thought about it a lot, and no, I would not rather "have the guys that all passed background checks and have guns." I'm sure the vast majority are level-headed, law-abiding, etc., but all it takes is one fool with a loaded gun who perceives a threat or feels slighted/insulted in some way.

CR I understand your way of thinking, however, I just want to point out that everything you outlined as far as someone perceiving a threat, or feeling slighted/insulted, or even someone with more evil intentions can have a gun too. Under their shirt. Where you can't see it. So really your reasons for fearing the open carriers could be met with ANY person ANYwhere... as they could have an illegal concealed weapon and you would never know it. The difference of the open carriers is that they are choosing to put it out there. To subject themselves to public judgement and sometimes ridicule. I would again say that in order to open carry, one must be ULTRA law abiding. These are not hot heads. These are not people who toe the line. These are people that must follow the law to a T so that they are not caught on some minor technicality. These are people that know the law (most times) better than the cops.

I completely understand your sentiment of avoiding danger, however, I think it is misguided. Of course you're certainly entitled to your opinion and are able to leave areas where you feel danger. I get it.

I thank you for your willingness to consider both sides, and in the end if we don't agree, well hell, we don't agree. So what. It certainly happens! That's what makes our country great, we don't have to agree and we can still enjoy the spirit of the debate.

One last point. In life, there are no guarantees. Only probabilities.

Also, the softball players have bats... the soccer moms have pepper spray... the teens have knives and who knows what else. ;)

Excuse me? You doubt my name.....really? That is the best argument you have? I'm so sorry for you. Not everyone can be name after a pizza place. Sorry!

Please, think before you post.
Sam Adams is a common name.
Look in your city/state white pages, bet there's quite a few.
- Lord Sega, from Portland Oregon, where we have a Mayor Sam Adams.

CR, owning or carrying a gun does not magically turn a good person into a crazed shooter. All because I am grocery shopping while armed (legal) doesn't mean I'm going to shoot up the place because the price of milk went up 12 cents. I would assume that all because the little old lady at the express register has 18 items and the sign says 15 that you are not going to hit her over the head with a can of peas.
I have self control, you have self control, and most everyone in society has self control.
Yes there are the exceptions, ie the Aurora shooter (and others). They need to be handled and dealt with. Maybe if his shrink & family had gotten him more help prior.... but everyone has to be considered a "good guy" until they do something to show that they aren't.
My sympathy & condolences to the families of the victims, but the sudden emotional outcry for more gun laws, especially ones that would have changed nothing in this tragedy, is idiotic.
To punish all law abiding gun owners with even more laws because of a few psychos is like punishing all law abiding car drivers with having to install breathalyzer car starters because someone drives DUI and kills a bunch of people in a crash.
But hey, since a person is 6 times more likely to die in a car crash than by gun fire, that would save lives, and I'm sure the people would get used to blowing in the little tube each time they want to start their car.

I see your still here lol Maybe you need a life. We have one

Actually, there was a point. Sean had to pick up his rifle from BPD. But this was the same department that wrongfully arrested him, in the city that wrongfully prosecuted him. I'm sure it is understandable now to you why we were there.

Yep, those kids on the swings in Shain are shifty.

I reads what some peoples wrote.

I vote for DISABLING THESE COMMENT BOARDS.

Instead of commenting on the story the paper solicits to do, people are ATTACKING and being mean, and have ruined the effectiveness of a comment section.

They do not know how to "play nice" as you requested, plus this is not a GAME.

I WAS DISRESPECTED by many who gave feedbacks when I wrote my MacBook Pro was stole from the Birmingham libary and my iPhone from South Bar. Someone wrote that even a 5th grader should have known better. Remarks directed to me were insulting.

And LORD HAVE MERCY if they be a TYPO in something you write, cuz the "SPELLING BEE POLICE" will pounce on you like a dog in heat.

So I say....SHUT THESE COMMENT section down, it has been RUINED by enough peoples to make visiting THE PATCH WEB SITE on-line an unpleasant experience and not worth the griefs and aggravations of a return visit the read the local news. Please and thank you.

I most certainly am ok with background checks and regulation of firearms to ensure that felons and mentals don't get guns.... However, it seems that they are still able to get guns anyways regardless of the laws. Also, sometimes I think that people that went to jail for shop lifting still have a right to protect themselves once they pay their debt to society. I definitely think that gun ownership is not for everyone.

I don't agree with legislating the 99.9% of good people because of the .01% of bad. I don't think that gun control works. Look at the aurora shooting, and all the other shootings that took place where guns were not allowed.

Especially with instant background checks, there's really not a reason to avoid doing them. How effective they are, I don't know.

Registration is something that likely hasn't solved a single crime, ever.

I don't believe that any types of arms should be banned. Assault rifles is nothing more than a media term. Most of the killing in Aurora was via a Remington 870 pump shot gun. People should beable to have automatics, etc... as they currently can, but must go through all the proper steps....

I wouldn't be opposed to an all out free for all... but I know that will never be allowed. There are good and bad points to it all... 1 thing I know is that unless you are magical, you can never make the guns disappear. I'd rather the good guys had guns too.

"it was not unreasonable for the police to 'arrest' the individual in order to determine if he was carrying the gun legally."
--dredk

Solid case law establishes that reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) or probable cause (PC) that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed are required for detention or arrest. Testimony during trial revealed that the grounds for detaining him were very shaky, but the grounds for arrest were nonexistent.

The arrest of Sean Combs by BPD was absolutely unreasonable.

Not to mention that they determined his age during or shortly after the arrest and he should have been released at that time, however they felt the need to come up with some trumped up charges to "punish" him for his "contempt of cop"....

You can also pull up many stories of people who lawfully protected life or limb by their use of a gun. There is a wide chasm between lawful use of the tool and criminal misuse of the tool. The latter does not invalidate the former.

We could post links all day back and forth of illegal shootings and lives saved by legal gun owners.....

The "rights" to be naked in public or smoke a J in public aren't protected by the US Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Since the efforts of the gun-control lobby haven't ceased and probably never will, the "battle" against their evil is not "won" and never will be.

Certainly, as the BPD showed everyone, even when gun laws are clearly spelled out and everyone thinks it's "won" on that level, the battle against wrongful arrest or wrongful prosecution of law-abiding gun-rights exercise can never be said to be over.

Maybe someone was doing you a favor at the library and thought you should be reading a book and not surfing the internet.
Please proofread before you submit. Every comment has had poor grammar in it and I may or may not only look for your posts.

Ummmm... let's not start the racist stuff here... and how about a link to back up your posted information....

apprently you don't consider African Americans human beings? not suprising. here's another stat for you. compare Chicago and Toronto -- roughly the same population wise but over the last 10 years the average yearly homicide rate is around 450 in Chicago and 60 in Toronto. But i'm sure that difference has nothing to do with significantly stricter gun laws in Canada.

MikeN, it's the gangs in Chicago that lead to the higher homicide rates compared to Toronto, not just the fact that they have guns. Take the guns away and more people will get stabbed or beaten to death, the gangs aren't going to just stop killing each other.

MikeN- Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the US. Take a look at Canada as a whole and you will find their violent crime rate is more than double that of the US.

Bob, here's a DOJ link. It's not the latest (a few years old, I'll try to find newer info again), but matches what I posted fairly closely. I pulled that info from some stuff I looked up a while back and have saved.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

Homicide offender rate by Race:

White: 4.8
Black: 36.9
Other: 4.4

Also, this has nothing to do with racism, just facts. Our murder rate is higher than Europe largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Blacks have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average. If not for that we would be even with Germany and France. Luxembourg has no guns and has a murder rate 9x that of Germany.

Just trying to correct the misconceptions that dredk (and some others) have.

DOJ: "Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more
than 7 times higher than the rates for whites."

Bob, go to page 63 on my link above. For 2005 (the latest they list) rates are:

White: 3.5
Black: 26.5
Other: 2.8

Too bad I can't post pics and charts here.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "infringed"

Infringed means: Act so as to limit or undermine

So any limitation on what / how many guns can be owned are technically in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

I believe the "arms" that one can keep and bear was referring to guns (not sure of any debate on this) so I don't believe it has anything to do with any kind of bomb.

SCOTUS has ruled that "arms", within the scope of the 2nd Amendment, are any weapon in common use and bearable by an individual person.

That includes AK-47s, but would exclude the hyperbolic favorites of anti-gunners such as nuclear bombs.

We can also apply this logic to the 1st amendment.. since the framers could not have known about the internet and computers, that means that the 1A doesn't apply to the internet...

MikeN, I have not argued with a single thing you have said, I have simply provided the definition of the word "infringed".

I do not know the commonly accepted definition of "arms" circa the 1780's and how I define things does not matter, nor does my belief of where a "line" should be drawn.

Also, you specifically asked about the 2nd Amendment and I responded, based upon the 2nd Amendment. However, whether it is right or wrong, other laws are commonly used to limit rights given to the people in the Constitution. I an not a lawyer, judge, or politician so I will not claim to have a full understanding of the legality behind this.

In my completely insignificant OPINION (nothing more, no claim that this is/ should be the law) the entire federal government has become far more powerful than it was ever intended to be, be that for better or worse. Given this, the citizens do not have the ability to militarily overthrow their government, regardless of what guns they are allowed to own. Fixing this would essentially lead to each state needing its own military, which is not feasible for various (and obvious) other reasons.

So basically, the system as it was intended is broken and I have no solution for it, nor will I claim to.

My mistake, 1791 was the year the Bill of Rights was ratified, not the 1780's.

The point of my post is that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (to protect the people from their government, should it become tyrannical) is no longer feasible. Even if the people were allowed to have whatever weapons they wanted, they simply could no longer afford to go to war with our military.

This and the fact that other constitutional rights have been restricted by newer laws (for example, freedom of speech and press are limited by libel statures) I do not think the discussion should really be centering upon the 2nd Amendment right now.

A comprehensive review of the effectiveness of gun control and the people who are and aren't committing crimes with guns however, would point to a complete lack of evidence to support further regulation of guns within our country, and the repeal of regional gun bans that are currently in effect.

This is based on historical facts and data, not the 2nd Amendment.

Apparently you missed the several comments that have alluded to the following fact:

Sean had to pick up his rifle from BPD. But this was the same department that wrongfully arrested him, in the city that wrongfully prosecuted him. It is understandable why the group of us were there.

Attention is not sought after generally with Open Carriers. A group of people open carrying in one place is no different than a group of car enthusiasts meeting in one place. They gather around a common interest and talk.

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."

> your lack of spine offends me

Well said, sir!

DanM - according to the articles, and Sean's posts on the open carry forum, he had to pick the rifle up in the morning and then the group met in the park the following evening.

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".

So somehow logic would say that because you own a gun you will eventually commit a crime and use that gun in the crime. That doesn't make any sense. So then by that logic, if you don't own a gun you will never break a law?

The superlatives "everyone" and "all" are clues that your comment is over-broad and therefore invalid.

And furthermore, if people really are confused about what type of arms and did the framers really mean 2A was an individual right and all the other arguments, I suggest they read the corresponding contemporaneous documents, the other writings of the framers and the Federalist Papers. They make it quite clear what they had in mind when they wrote the 2A (and the rest of the Constitution).

I'd say the second amendment is already restricted more than the first... google "westboro baptist church" for an example.

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.

With more than 20,000 gun laws on the books, the situation is beyond "reasonable restrictions" well into "infringements".

You are right CC. The military shouldn't have guns either. They might shoot someone. Btw, One bad apple in the orchard, doesn't mean you should shut the whole orchard down.

But their violent crime rate is three times HIGHER than the US (and Scotland's is six times higher), Homicides make the news, but they are a statistical blip on the radar compared to other violent crime.

They also had a resent school shooting. But, they don't allow guns! How could this have happened?????

I'm all for open carry, but please cite sources.

"please cite sources"
--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?

"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?

"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.

> I'm all for open carry, but please cite sources.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

Unjustified homicide is a subset of violent crime, not separate from it. I'm widening the perspective for a more honest view of the UK's problems, which are actually far greater than the US's. The many victims of violent crimes and their families, especially those victims who suffer devastating body or brain injuries, would disagree with your trivialization of what they suffer, if it wasn't an unjustified homicide they suffer from.

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.

MCL 123.1102 prevents local units of government from unilaterally banning firearms, but it does not prevent the private citizens who work in those governments from asking the state legislature to change state law to do so.

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.