[Malum Prohibitum]

Dwayne Dixon's decision to bring a semi-automatic rifle and extra ammunition to downtown Durham was a deliberate one, he said.

It was a gun he was comfortable with. It would be visible to law enforcement. And, after hearing white supremacists were on their way, he said, he wanted to be able to defend himself.

"There was a real concern, like real vivid. A kind of tone that I had never heard by citizens of this city," Dixon, 45, said.

In 2016, there were 344 charges of going armed to the terror of the people, according to statewide information, Welty said.

Read more here: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article171511767.html#storylink=cpy

Turns out there was no KKK at all, just leftist hysteria that there might be KKK.

 

[Taurus92]

semiautonomous rifle

Like Skynet?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That HAD to be the spellchecker!

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

Like Skynet?

I know, right? I was thinking, "damn - this dude has a really cool weapon I need to learn more about." I was thinking maybe some type of AI driving automatic targeting of people committing violent acts - "autonomous self-defense rifle"...

I knew that couldn't be though as I had never seen a story on CNN starting off with "The second amendment of the United States Constitution never intended for citizens to own, much less carry in public, semiautonomous assault files..."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

:lol: title corrected


Now read the article. This whacky leftist responds to the hysterics of a bunch of other whacky leftists about a KKK rally by carrying a rifle to the area of the supposed KKK rally. It turns out there is no KKK rally, just a bunch of hysterical, whacky leftists. Anyway, the police arrest the whacky leftist with the rifle for being armed to the terror of the public and carrying rifle to a parade.

I think this law is just wrong, even if a whacky leftist was on the receiving end of it. Note the hundreds of annual prosecutions for this law, which was surprising.

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

"going armed to the terror of the people" - that's like an obfuscated, slippery slope....

 

[Taurus92]

“There was a real concern, like real vivid. A kind of tone that I had never heard by citizens of this city,†Dixon, 45, said. “I am no savior. I never went down there to play Rambo.â€

BS. The police are perfectly able to handle the massive gathering of a few dozen Klan members, who haven't done anything other than march in years. Not that I agree with them, but like the rest of us, they have the right to march.

The warrant says Dixon â€" who says he stood on a car to warn people about the dangers of walking in the street â€" assisted in organizing and blocking public roadways “while armed with a semi-automatic weapon rifle capable of firing multiple shots within seconds, which upon observance by members of the public caused alarm and concerns for safety.â€

Fruitcake. Standing on a car and then blocking the street? I would expect he would have been arrested without the rifle.

Ah,

“In order to prove that offense, you need show that the person has gone beyond merely exercising their open right to carry into this somewhat difficult to define territory of promoting terror,†he said.

Like standing on a car yelling at people? Warning them to get off the street? Sounds like yelling "Fire" in a theater to me.

 

[Taurus92]

So, two charges?

In 2016, there were 344 charges of going armed to the terror of the people, according to statewide information, Welty said.

The other misdemeanor stems from a 1981 law that prohibits weapons at parades, funeral processions, picket lines or demonstrations at any public place. The law doesn’t apply to people with a valid concealed carry permit and a handgun at a parades or funerals.

Welty said statewide court data indicates the offense was charged “rarely, if ever,†in 2016, and the statute has never been cited in an appellate court opinion.

344 "going armed to the terror of the people" does sound high given that it has to be above and beyond simply carrying.

As for Dixon, he sounds like he's seeing things that aren't there.

Dixon, who was downtown for about an hour, said he saw a motorcyclist wearing a Confederate flag on his leather vest swerve toward a few standing on the Main Street. He also saw a man standing across the intersection from Pinhook with his arm in his pocket, appearing to be pointing a handgun at people.

 

[Taurus92]

Less than a week before, Dixon had been in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a member of the ******* Revolt, a leftist organization that promotes community self-defense in the struggle against racism.

Dixon was among roughly 20 members, some armed, that provided security for counterprotesters when white supremacists and nationalists marched against the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in a local park.

“I have never seen this kind of chaotic, indeterminate, violent haze that just lingered over a city,†Dixon said.

That last comment is interesting, because there were no protesters, only counter-protesters. So if he saw "chaotic, indeterminate, violent haze", it was because he was looking in a mirror. Like I said earlier, he's seeing things he wants to see.

I wonder if the ******* Revolt still claims him?

 

[moe mensale]

******* Revolt = the firearms carrying wing of antifa.

 

[Craftsman]

"armed to the terror of the people" - North Carolina's version of "Public Gathering" - for exactly the same reasons.

 

[gunsmoker]

I think bringing long guns to confront one's enemies on the public streets should be criminalized.
It may be hard to draw the line to distinguish between carrying a gun the way people normally do, and carrying a special gun in a special way just to threaten your adversaries and intimidate the public, but, if such a line can be drawn without the law being void for vagueness, it SHOULD be drawn.

That goes for "our side" too.
I wouldn't mind having a law that bans some of our right-wing brethren and gun nuts from waving battle rifles and combat shotguns in people's faces at public gatherings where a confrontation is expected, even welcomed and promoted by one or both sides.

 

[moe mensale]

I think bringing long guns to confront one's enemies on the public streets should be criminalized.

Why not simplify it and just make it any firearm?

It may be hard to draw the line to distinguish between carrying a gun the way people normally do, and carrying a special gun in a special way just to threaten your adversaries and intimidate the public, but, if such a line can be drawn without the law being void for vagueness, it SHOULD be drawn.

What's a "special gun?" I don't think I own any "special guns." I've never seen any advertisements for "special guns."

And what's carrying in a "special way?"

I wouldn't mind having a law that bans some of our right-wing brethren and gun nuts from waving battle rifles and combat shotguns in people's faces at public gatherings where a confrontation is expected, even welcomed and promoted by one or both sides.

What does "some" mean? How does one get assigned to that special pool?

Who are our "right-wing brethren?" Who are "gun nuts?"

Who defines all these terms and what if you disagree with them?

 

[Craftsman]

I think bringing long guns to confront one's enemies on the public streets should be criminalized.

We could just ban guns at "public gatherings" and leave it to the discretion of law enforcement to determine what that meant. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Nemo]

What could possibly go wrong?

Law Enforcement. Nuff Said.

Nemo

 

[Phil1979]

Well, since a gun that ain't shooting ain't hurtin' anyone, why not just make it illegal to shoot without justification? Oh wait...

And as far as "waving" them in folks faces - isn't it already illegal to wave about a gun in a threatening manner?

 

[etbob9]

What's wrong with "********"? Why is there a group of lefties trying
to give us a bad reputation? :groupprotest:

 

[moe mensale]

What's wrong with "********"? Why is there a group of lefties trying
to give us a bad reputation? :groupprotest:

GS didn't specifically use the term "*******" but, FYI, there's a group called "******* Revolt" that may not be what you think they are.

 

[etbob9]

GS didn't specifically use the term "*******" but, FYI, there's a group called "******* Revolt" that may not be what you think they are.

I meant no reference to what GS said. I'm totally aware of the factions and
liberal thugs that show up at any protest to incite riots or just destroy all
the personal property they can. And that nut in the article with the rifle is definitely one of them.

For what it's worth, I was an avid "Atlanta Crackers" fan when I was a kid.
So, when someone misuses the term "*******" I take it personally. ldtimer:

 

[mrhutch]

Nothing wrong with exercising your 2nd amendment rights while exercising your 1st.

However, if you're blocking traffic while holding a gun, you have just become a threat to all who wish to pass and you are now a public menace. Stand in front of my car in a protest line with a gun trying to tell me I can't go somewhere and you'll be getting shot, as i interpret your refusal to let me pass while you brandish a weapon to be a threat against my life.