Open carry incident in Claremont, NH? (8/15)

[Mardasee]

@Ben85paintball Why not rocket launchers? In fact why not a can of grenades? And there is nothing wrong about a machine gun.......What society does need to ban is sociopathic behavior. If we can ban them then we won't have any crime, or wars.

[dixiejon]

why not ask the cop wtf?

[Gunluver1]

they got his licence plate, thats why he left.

[Stink808]

I know in my state and I am pretty sure its nationwide, Wal-Mart doesn't allow citizens to bring guns into their stores.  I don't know why they don't put signs up on all their stores but I was told by management it was their policy. If you purchase a gun there, they will walk you to the exit with it.

[jayskyall]

@Stink808

Unless they post it, I don't think they can do anything. There's no 2nd amendment free zone.

[SexySex50]

BackdoorBandit, we support Ridley 110%. Just because you don't enjoy your freedoms, doesn't mean the rest of us want to live in fear of Big Brother. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

[BackdoorBandit956]

Ridley needs to get a fucking life!!!! I feel sorry for the state of New Hampshire, and all of the country for that matter because of cock suckers such as yourself!!!! Quit your bitching, the 70's are over dickbag.

[TheCrazynissOfAll]

Open carry is the law in NH or if a private business like a bar can state no guns allowed(and then it changes if one is legally allowed to conceal carry. No one in NH is generally concerned as many carry here...it is the state...the way we believe in liberty and it is not just sound bytes

[JoeStagner]

SO it sounds to me like the officer did exactly what he should have done.

[kjbevin]

just another idiot who does not care aboutthe open carry law only care about starting trouble. It's 1 claremont NH and 2 there is NO need to carry in a store.

[mbraase]

kjbevin said - "there is NO need to carry(a firearm) in a store."

Yep, just as there is no way a criminal is gonna hold up a store right????

WTF? There is absolutely a reason to carry in a store.  If a criminal came into the store to hold it up, and you weren't carrying, if that criminal starts shooting as they sometimes do, you either can run or die, and if you aren't in a position to run, you're screwed. This is exactly why you SHOULD carry with you everywhere it is legal to carry!

[kjbevin]

your an idiot, plain and simple. Lets have a gun fight in the middle of Wal-Mart. The idiot carrying said gun into walmart had unloaded it so what is the point of carring it.

[imthejoker4u2]

If EVERYONE in walmart was carrying, or even half the people, do you think the "robber" might think twice?? Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them. MORE law abiding citizens need to own, train on, and carry firearms. The public tries to rely on the police for matters that could be avoided if more people "policed".

[militarysims]

WTF does that mean "It's claremont NH? No need to carry in a store? WTF are you talking about you sound like a Anti from MA. What does open carry law have to do with anything? I know for a fact no stores in Claremont are posted as no carry zones. So what the hell are you talking about? Cares about starting trouble? LOL, get your facts right before you make your self seem dumb.

[kd7gvd]

So you unload your gun but still carry it in with you? Sounds like you are just trying to instigate a confrontation. I am for open carry but why try to just cause problems.

[mp40swcompact]

Why did you unload your guns? I don't see the point of carrying a gun if it's not loaded.

[l337pwnage]

He didn't explain well, but it sounds like he didn't actually have the gun in that store, he stored it in his vehicle before going into the store. The cop came from a call at the previous store where he did actually carry.

[militarysims]

Another thing is this guy drunk or stoned? He sounds wasted? Know the laws Carry a Copy of the NH RSA laws with you. Again Walmart does not have a no carry law on the company books. There is no Sign posted on the Walmart doors in C-town. So you can carry there. If they ( the store Man "Robert K") Or another Lower man. Asks you to leave you must or you can be arrested for trespassing. But Co-man Neal is vary nice, the only Higher up person you have to worry about is TONY HE IS A DICKHEAD.

[smebudar]

Are you FSPers going to blame this on MA folks who have moved to NH too? Claremont is pretty far north. Besides, as I said before, the problem is that the NH police actually respond to these stupid calls and go and harass those who open carry.

The police are the problem. They go out and try to intimidate people in order to get them to stop engaging in legal activity. The same police if called about illegal aliens in the area, would tell the callers there was nothing the police could do.

[militarysims]

Do you even live in NH? Or Claremont? If not keep your mouth shut about Claremont PD. As they are the best. C-town PD is vary nice and do not bust your balls. As for NH state police they rock as well vary easy to deal with. Not DICKS LIKE VERMONT STATE POLICE.

[smebudar]

This sounds like a personal issue for you. Let me guess: your father or some other relative is a cop. Hence, the silly, anti-intellectual arguments.

Where I live is irrelevant. In case you cannot understand the US Constitution (written at an 8th grade level), the 2nd Amendment is a federally-protected right which cannot be obstructed at the state level. Cops cannot go around enforcing their own agendas. If they so, they are criminals.

[glflyers]

Anyone who open carries may as well have a sign on their forehead that says " im a giant pussy, and i need a gun to defend myself because i can't do it with my fists" redneck bitch

[KhanIndustries]

glflyers,

Does that mean police are "giant pussies, and i need a gun to defend myself because i can't do it with my fist"?

You're dumb. Also just so you dont pre-judge me I'm from NJ. I can only wish we had the low crime rate that VT had.

You call yourself American? Are you even an American?

[PJThatOthersMayLive]

Without a doubt, police are all giant pussies.

[jimitl5]

"Anyone who open carries may as well have a sign on their forehead that says " im a giant pussy"

Better that then be found beaten, stabbed or shot by criminals. I would much rather be a live pussy then a dead "bad ass".

[kjbevin]

you except to beat ,stabbed or shot in Claremont? man the place has gone down hill since I left

[militarysims]

When the hell did you leave? We have drive by shootings on central street and other drug hoobs. We had a little shit gang called DFL ( dogs for life) who walked around beating people up and stabbing them. The police department took care of all of them. Claremont is not Claremont anymore Alot more color and more drugs then ever. They are trying to make it a big city.

[winnayinvt]

as for the police,it is unclear whether he didnt understand the law or was less interested in protecting the rights of these people.Who pays for this anyway?Would it have made a difference if MJ was a police officer in plain clothes?Would the police have responded to a call if the customer had seen a firearm on the clerk?How would this have ended for the shoppers if police didnt worry about NHlibertyalliance and the freestateproject,which I believe is subject of many police dept. conversations?

[winnayinvt]

I'm not sure what is going on in NH though this video is very interesting.The caller states that he and his wife were open carrying a firearm.According to state and federal law this is totally legal and should not be cause in itself for police to be involved,though this is often the case as demonstrated in many videos and news articles.The caller states a gas station attendant called the police.Maybe the man at the store does not know NH law or simply does not respect the rights of others.

[Mardasee]

The problem that NH is now facing is Massachusetts "Liberal" transplants. Massachusetts is bloated with anti-gun mentality and these anti-gunners have been pouring into NH for some years now. They ruined Massachusetts with those they had voted for there and now in NH they are infecting that state in the same manner. Parasites they are in defining. They feed on a state until it's ruined and then they move on to another "host" state. Eventually NH will be ruined and firearms will be restricted

[fczwartek]

What laws or ordinances have been passed recently in New Hampshire that back up your claim?

Or is it just more gratuitous liberal bashing? I hadn't realized Massachusetts was "ruined."

Did you bother to think that because Massachusetts has different demographics than NH its priorities are different as well?

You're beyond paranoid.

[Mardasee]

In time laws will be passed. Remember that massachusetts transplant governor a few elections ago who thought she could mess with taxes.

Liberal bashing? Yes. And yes, massachusetts is ruined.

In time you'll learn what is going to happen to NH

[fczwartek]

New England is one of the most progressive places in the country. Get used to it!

If you don't like it you're welcome to move down south where you can wave your confederate flag till your hearts content.

[Mardasee]

What! Progressive my butt, it is one of the most expensive states to live in. That's not progressive, it's blood sucking.

Why should I move south for? It will only be a matter of time that folks like you will move to the south next after you bleed the north to death.

[fczwartek]

Let's use the term "progressive" in a relative fashion. When compare to the rest of the country New Hampshire is ..... (fill in the blank.)

I'm probably not moving south anytime soon. So it sounds like we're stuck with each other. Might as well make the most of it.

[fczwartek]

Personally I think NH should become more like Vermont than Mass. Parts of Mass are a wasteland of strip malls wall marts and fast food "restaurants" highways and headaches. But maybe truly "the spirit of America."

Vermont is like something out of the 19th century (almost.) No Billboards!! the only state capital with not Mcdonalds! Like 3 wal marts in the whole state.

They are truly people that respect their heritage and their landscape.

[RidleyReport]

How much initiated violence and force are you willing to support to bring about your dream of a "McDonald's free" land FC?

[fczwartek]

I assume this questions is referring to my comment about the virtues of vermont.

I would say the amount of violence and force necessary to bring about my "dream" would be the same amount of violence and forced used by the people of Vermont.

None.

Unless you consider democratic self determination to be violence. I know many libertarians do. Which is ironic considering libertarian plans to impose your ideology on NH though democratic means.

[RidleyReport]

Research seems to indicate that's a myth. Mass residents who move to NH are mostly republicans, according to the union leader's data in a big article they did on the subject a couple years back. Jason Sorens' ideological map of NH showed some similar trends.

[Mardasee]

A myth? If I remember correctly NH was once a solid GOP voting state. Not no more though. Heck, just recently Hillary Clinton won there, correct? Why would NH voters vote for somebody like Hillary who is anti-gun?

[fczwartek]

I think the GOP began parting with NH when it embraced the Christian right. NH is one of the least religious states in the country. Even those wacky liberals in Massachusetts and the crunch socialists in Vermont got to church more than we do.

Although the GOP still talks about small government and "family values" and all that crap it's real allegiance is to corporate money. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world the big money is in making war.

[fczwartek]

Open carry laws don't give you the right to walk into a private establishment with guns strapped to yourself.

Probably the very last thing the owner (or employees) at a convenience store or a department store want to see is someone walking into their business with guns!

[AnarchyInYourHead]

True. Property rights reign supreme, but if they don't want people open carrying in a place they've opened to the public, they need to make it clear with a sign or something. It's unreasonable to react as they did to completely legal behavior.

[geenbeen]

everyone is guilty. tools are dangerous. no tool belt screwdiver hammer knife lumber. and machine pistol is for military personel only.

[fczwartek]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable and prudent for open carry advocates and activists to instinctively assume that private establishments don't want to let in gun carrying members of the public?

Maybe open carry activists should only wear their guns into establishments that make it clear with a sign or something that gun wearers are welcome.

I don't think the store owners response was unreasonable. Most owners probably would have done the same.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

No, it wouldn't. If I owned an establishment, I'd be glad to have customers open carrying. It makes me feel safer when more of the populace is armed. Crime is a dangerous activity in such a populous.

[fczwartek]

That's like saying the death penalty deters murder. The statistics just don't back up your claim. The United States has a violent crime rate that is anywhere from 2X to 5X higher than European countries and the European countries tend to have pretty strict gun laws.

You might feel safer. But you really aren't. According to your theory crime statistics should be lower in the US because we are a well armed populace.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

Actually statistics back my claim very well. There are quite a range of gun laws within the U.S. and changes in crime rates correspond quite well to changes in gun rights, in support of less gun control corresponding to less crime. There are any number of differences in culture and laws between the U.S. and Europe. It's quite simplistic to say that the one factor to explain differences in crime is gun laws, particularly since data right here in the U.S. doesn't back that up.

[fczwartek]

I bet if you were to look at your statistics again you would find that more accurate determinate of crime levels are;

A)Income levels

B)Regional Trends

Can you send me links to some study that backs up your claim? I would like to read it.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

You JUST stated yourself that crime rates are more related to factors completely unrelated to guns, which is exactly the point I made earlier. You're argument is circular. Watch Bowling for Columbine again but pay more attention to the end where his conclusion was that violence in America has more to do with our police state and militarism than guns, e.g. this vague war on terror which is really about keeping us terrified to fuel a police state. That's something I agree with.

[CurtHowland]

fcz, see if your library has a copy of the book "More Guns, Less Crime" or "The Bias Against Guns" both by John R. Lott.

It's not something seen in only a few places, or only once in a while. The statistics show an absolute corolation between changing violent crime rates and changes in legal gun ownership.

Anywhere that firearms are made even marginally less difficult to own/carry, crime rates drop. That drop includes defensive acts with guns, so it's not cherry-picked stats.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"The United States has a violent crime rate that is anywhere from 2X to 5X higher than European countries and the European countries tend to have pretty strict gun laws." -- fczwartek

There are plenty of reasons that America has higher crime unrelated to guns. Violent crime has gone up dramatically in the UK and Australia since they banned guns. they now have the WORST violent crime victimization rates.

Besides, anyone who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave.

[CurtHowland]

Actually, taking out drug-related gang warfare, American violent crime rates compare very favorably with "civilized" Europe.

And the reason for drug-funded gang warfare? Government prohibition.

Another example of the fact that government creates a problem which is then claimed that only government can solve. Bovine excrement!

[fczwartek]

But even though violent crime may have gone up in the UK and Australia it is still half that of the gun loving US of A.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

Ban guns and watch it soar even higher, as has happened in other countries. Guns save lives: 2.5 million defensive uses per year.

[fczwartek]

Nobody (at least that I know) wants to "ban guns" ok? I'm all for open carry. I think in NH it works fine. In VT it works fine. Maybe other states should set their own priorities.

As far as I'm concerned the 2nd Amendment leaves a lot of room for interpretation. After all what is a "well REGULATED militia?" 

And who regulates it?

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"what is a "well REGULATED militia?" -- fczwartek

A militia is the entire adult male population, each member bringing his own gun to militia service (Google 10 USC Section 311). "It is the whole people except for a few public officials" -- George Mason

The words "well-regulated" simply mean "well functioning"

In modern English it says, "A well-trained, armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free country, the people's right to keep and carry arms will not be infringed"

[fczwartek]

Regulated and functioning not interchangeable terms. To me regulated means supervised, under control, in order.

Regulation is what causes a militia (and society) to function well.

And according to George Mason's definition since women are not part of the militia they can not bear arms.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"Regulated and functioning not interchangeable terms. To me regulated means supervised, under control, in order" --

You have to look up "regulated" in a 1789 dictionary to know how it was meant by the Founders. Words change, ya know. Well-regulated at the time of the founding meant simply well-functioning

[fczwartek]

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment fits nicely into your ideology. And that's convenient. The way I'm reading it is that RKBA is dependent on service in the militia. A well regulated militia at that.

If the clause about the militia is extraneous why was it included at all? What other amendments have these ablative clauses?

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"RKBA is dependent on service in the militia" --

Well, that simply shows your lack of understanding of history and grammar. Independent ablative clauses do NOT modify the operative clauses they precede. The Founders who wrote the 2nd Amendment also gave many reasons beyond militia service for that right

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense" -- John Adams

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"If the clause is extraneous why was it included at all?" --

It's NOT extraneous. It states a non-exclusive, aspirational purpose, as was common at the time

"What other amendments have these ablative clauses?" --

Article I, section 8 uses an independent ablative clause to give a non-exclusive, aspirational purpose for patents: "To promote science and the useful arts." The Northwest Ordinance gives a non-exclusive, aspirational purpose for public schools: "to promote morality and religion"

[fczwartek]

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is flawed (in my opinion.) It is completely unlike Art.1 Sec.8.

Although I agree with you that most scholars probably have adopted your interpretation (or your theirs.) Even Jonathan Turley agrees with you that gun ownership is intended to be an individual right the same as freedom of speech.

However there is still that pesky clause about militias. Why include it? Even if it is just a throw-away non-exclusive clause?

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"However there is still that pesky clause about militias. Why include it? Even if it is just a throw-away non-exclusive clause?" --

It's not a pesky clause. It's a good and important clause. It reminds us what the best form of self defense is for a free republic and the aspirations our Founders had for us. It was included for the reasons I've cited previously: it was an aspirational idea for one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, like with the patents clause and the Northwest Ordinance

[fczwartek]

Which begs the question then why none of the other amendments in the bill of rights have "aspirational" clauses or non-exclusive clauses?

If everything else in the bill of rights is written in straight factual enabling clauses why should I believe that the 2nd amendment is different?

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"If everything else in the bill of rights is written in straight factual enabling clauses why should I believe that the 2nd amendment is different?" --

NONE of the Bill of rights is "enabling." Every comment you make shows you to be more and more ignorant of this topic. The bill of rights prevents, NOT enables.

For the 3rd time, many other legislation and Constitutional texts at that time had non-exclusive aspirational clauses. Many of the drafts of other parts of the Bill of Rights did too

[fczwartek]

Well if you can call the clause "ablative" which it clearly is not then I think I should be allowed to call it enabling.

After all while the Bill of Rights prevents, prohibits, and allows for no infringements by the government on the people's liberties the BOR also enables the people to legally exercise these rights.

So with all due respect from the perspective of the private citizen the BOR is enabling (although you are right to say that the language used is preventative.)

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"Well if you can call the clause "ablative" which it clearly is not" --

Interesting assertion. Back it up. First, I didn't say it was simply "ablative." I said it was "independent ablative. If you disagree, tell me what type of clause it is. I can't give you a grammar, history and civics lesson over youtube

"the Bill Of Rights is enabling" --

No it's not. The fact that you think a person needs to be enabled to exercise their natural-born rights is very telling of your statist ideology

[winnayinvt]

check out the philosophy of liberty video on youtube.

[fczwartek]

I interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that it is the right of the people (not necessarily the individual) to create, arm, and maintain a well regulated militia.

Of course then the whole purpose of the amendment is determined by what you believe a well regulated militia consists of.

It could be an individual who owns a gun for self defense, or it could be Dave Ridley and and friends who open carry while cleaning up trash, or it could be a more conventional definition of a militia.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"Of course then the whole purpose of the amendment is determined by what you believe a well regulated militia consists of" --

AGAIN, the militia is (and has been since the first Congress) written in our law (cite: article 10, section 311 of the United States Code). It's also explained clearly by the people who wrote the Constitution what they believed a militia is. The only question at this point is whether your ideology is more important to you than the facts

[fczwartek]

My "ideology" is that individual states and even smaller jurisdictions within those states should determine their own laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd amendment allows for room for interpretation.

I'm not buying your "ablative clause" theory which happens to conveniently complement YOUR ideology.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"I'm not buying your "ablative clause" theory which happens to conveniently complement YOUR ideology" --

It's not a theory. It's the law of this country based on the Supreme Court's rulings and also is demanded by basic grammar.

"My "ideology" is that individual states and even smaller jurisdictions within those states should determine their own laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms" --

So you want to only enforce the parts of the Constitution you like. I see.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

IF YOU STILL, after all I've cited to, refuse to be honest about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it STILL doesn't matter. You know why?

Because Article 2-A of the NEW HAMPSHIRE Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms and is even more clear than the federal one.

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." -- Article 2-A

[fczwartek]

I appreciate your apparent knowledge on the NH constitution. If only the US constitution was as specific we wouldn't be having this debate. And I was debating your on the 2nd amendment of the US constitution not the NH constitution.

Essentially our debate is whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right or a collective right. The US constitution leaves room for interpretation. I say let the states and municipalities decide and clarify.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

"I say let the states and municipalities decide and clarify." --

Rights aren't democratic. Leaving any right up to democratic votes means it's not a right. The grammar, Supreme Court history, the statements of the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and the history of the Amendment all point in the same direction.

In any case, in New Hampshire, we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms so this discussion is moot as long as you are living in the Free State.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

Article 2A of the NEW HAMPSHIRE Constitution is even more explicit: "All persons have the right to keep and bear amrs in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state"

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- T. Jefferson

[OnGuard4Liberty]

Saying they "cannot" bear arms acts as if the 2nd Amendment (2A) GIVES the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). It doesn't. The RKBA already had existed in English Law for time immemorial and the 2A just says Congress can't take it away

RKBA is not dependent on service in the militia. The first clause of the 2A is an independent ablative clause. Such clauses state a non-exclusive purpose (ie, they give A purpose, not THE purpose). This is the view adopted by the Supreme Court and most scholars

[Venator1]

The difference in crime has to do with how you count it. In the UK if someone murders 10 people it's counted as 1 murder, same with break-ins etc. If one person is responsible for the crime it's counted as one break-in. So it's really about accounting.

[fczwartek]

What evidence can you point to that suggests in the UK 10 murders are counted as 1 murder if they are committed by one person?

[katkanning]

the NH "Department of Safety" was the guys who initiated the open carry interrogation in Manch also

[rmodel65]

FOIA request anyone??

[OnGuard4Liberty]

I've also gotta ask. What the heck is MJ and his wife doing staying in Vermont? Come on over to the Free State and join the fun! Sign up at FreeStateProject*org and move!

[OnGuard4Liberty]

The fact that the officer didn't stop the man and instead chose to observe from a distance is a victory in and of itself, since it's a much better outcome than Dave and others have gotten, and that shows their efforts are paying off.

Troop C of the New Hampshire State Police is the one that patrols Claremont, NH. If you would like to call them and **politely** remind them that open carry is legal and something that good citizens do, you may do so at (603) 358-3333.

[Organjic]

RR plug, pfft!

[FTLIan]

We won't stop. The govt's reign of terror is over.

[lastlady]

Wow! Super inspiring!

[gosmokesome]

That's awesome! Keep the fight for your rights going!

[rataMacue22]

I recently moved to Sunapee/ Newport area which is near Claremont. I usually concealed carry but wanted to kind of feel out the area. So I opened carried in a busy Sunapee gas station/ convenience store. Later that day I opened carried at a public park in Claremont. No problems. You guys are definitely making a difference across the state IMO, at least among the police. 5*

[justcallmeassinine]

@rataMacue22 Why don't you open carry your dick as well ? What's the matter ? GUN SHY ? LOLOLOLOL !!