Gun-toting teens alarm residents

[IChing]

Source: Spokesman Review Newspaper Idaho

POST FALLS – Zach Doty typically wears a tie and dress shirt to church. But lately, a new accessory of his is raising alarm in Post Falls.

After turning 18 last month, the Post Falls teenager began strapping a loaded 9 mm Glock 19 handgun to his belt every day. He totes it in full view to Bible studies, the public library, city parks and neighborhood stores and on walks around town.

His 15-year-old brother, Stephen, has joined him, carrying a loaded Ruger .22-caliber rifle slung over his shoulder.

The brothers, who are home-schooled, say they're flexing their Second Amendment right, which allows citizens to bear arms. They say they're protecting themselves and others, deterring crime and making a statement about constitutional freedoms.

Read more: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10097

---

Can anyone say "Armed Mad House"?

[SlipperySlope]

1. Just two young men exercising their rights.

[19jet54]

14. Like your logo!

... every state prevents the sole ownership of handguns by persons under 21 - Not a legal right as you suggest! In my state, the parents can be charged for "access to handguns by minors" and I live in the wild west - Nevada.

Oh, I get it, that was :sarcasm:

[Codeine]

Ownership isn't the issue

It's the public bearing of weapons that is the point of the story, and it's completely legal.

[Toots]

114. In America the country with the very smartest people on earth it is legal

We are most definitely a country of genius'. We elect Bush* and strap guns on teenagers.

[Codeine]

117. To be fair

we didn't really elect Bush, he just sorta slimed his way in there.

[IronLionZion]

118. Republicans want to turn us into the Middle East

with an AK-47 in every child's hand and absolutely no personal freedoms of any kind.

[SlipperySlope]

52. Idaho law...

See Idaho code:

You have to be 18 to purchase a gun, unless you have permission from your parents.

18-3302A: ..it shall be unlawful to .. sell to any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years any weapon without the written consent of the parent or guardian of the minor..

If you are under 12 and in possession of a firearm, you have to have an adult with you. If you are between 12 and 18, you have to have a note from your parents.

18-3302E: .. it shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen .. to possess .. any weapon .. unless he .. has the written permission of his parent or guardian.

That takes care of the age question, but what about the open carry? As it turns out, Idaho is one of ten states where the open carry of a firearm is completely legal.

Nevada, where you live (and I once lived) is not among these enlightened ten. In Nevada, according to NRS 202.300.1, you have to be 18 to possess a firearm without a parent present. However, under NRS 202.300.5 and 202.300.6, children 14 and above do NOT need a parent present if they have a valid hunting license, or if they are practicing at a firing range, or if they are traveling to hunt or practice (although they may need a note from their parent).

Sorry, no sarcasm.

[19jet54]

56. Handgun vs Rifle/Shotgun

What you say is true in Nevada for Rifle/Shotgun, but it is 21 for Handguns period. It is further regulated by cities too. I.E. North Las Vegas & Boulder City you cannot carry a loaded firearm period, but other cities are OK depending. It is a crime to discharge firearm in city without just cause. Clark County (Las Vegas) requires registration and the carry of a blue card with firearm for open carry; but all concealed carry requires a "must issue" permit except where prohibited (all gov land, tribal land & casinos). Auto is not considered concealed carry by residents, and there are no reciprocity laws with other states. Peaceable Journey law of 48 hours. Note - exceptions to all the above for law enforcement persons.

I looked up some stats on Idaho - 1.5 million residence - not the same issues as California, New York & Illinois - Large hunting areas & sparse populations, which is usually the conditions of the open carry states you mention? 18 years for Handgun ownerships?

"At least a dozen states — Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming — have constitutional protections for the open carry of firearms." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

[SlipperySlope]

58. Well, I guess it is up to Idaho.

As you, and other, posters have pointed out; we aren't talking about what is right for New York or Miami, we are talking about what is right for Idaho.

[slackmaster]

63. I wish more of us had SlipperySlope's sense of tolerance

The mistaken assumption that one set of rules could apply everywhere has cost us dearly.

[19jet54]

66. Yep, got us into Iraq!

... sometimes it is just best to mind your own business, unless there is an overwhelming consensus?

[oldhippie]

96. Texas allows 18 year olds to own handguns....................

They can't buy it from an FFL, but they can receive it as a gift or buy it in a private purchase within state. Violates no sate or federal law.

[karlrschneider]

2. Do you live in Post Falls?

???

[Turbineguy]

76. I visited Post Falls once

had some very nice pan-fried trout. Don't recall needing protection from criminals, but then, I did not go to a bible class either.

[Codeine]

3. In all fairness

they do have the right to be armed. If they were exercising any of the other rights that our Constitution guarantees them nobody on DU would be bothered; why does this? They haven't shot or threatened anybody, have they?

[superconnected]

4. No, not yet. Do you carry a gun around in plain view just for the sake of

carrying one?

if not, why not?

I have a right to carry a butcher knife, but I just don't feel like it. If I ever do feel like it and my co-workers complain, I suppose I could sue them because I have a right to bare arms to protect myself and the constitution doesn't specifically say it has to be a gun.

I'm sure I'd feel safer with a butcher knife... How dare people feel threatened with me if I'm at the store and we argue. I've never stabbed anyone yet. It would just be in my hand...

But for some reason, I don't feel like carrying around a butcher knife so I can stab people if they threaten me. I suppose these guys and the duers here supporting them would say, "why not", and "you should definitly carry the butcher knife everywhere, it's your right and it protects you".

[Codeine]

9. Nope. I'm not a jackass.

However, that doesn't mean that I can't -- I'm just smart enough to know I don't need to.

[Lance_Boyle]

48. 'It would just be in my hand...'

That's brandishing a weapon, and it is illegal, for both firearms and butcher knives.

[iverglas]

79. the one I like

is that everybody has the right to make a complete donkey of him/herself in public ... and the fact that so many people do it so often and so well, just to exercise it and make sure it doesn't get rusty, I guess. Threads about firearms provide excellent opportunities and examples of people taking them.

I have the right to dye my hair purple and walk around town on my hands, topless. (Yup; prosecuting women for indecent exposure when men would not be prosecuted for dressing the same way isn't allowed, where I'm at.)

I've never been too worried about losing that right if I don't exercise it often enough.

And I've never quite heard an argument for doing something that's as stupid as "because I have a right to". Nobody does anything because they have a right to. But a lot of 'em sure do seem to make donkeys of themselves just because they have the right to.

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Hate say it, but that's a load.

Are they part of a well-regulated militia? If not, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply.

[Louie the XIV]

6. Is that your personal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

or has a court actually said that?

[LanternWaste]

70. I think the case was U.S. v. Smith in '39.

I think the case was U.S. v. Smith in '39. The case indirectly defined what the U.S. militia was.

[Codeine]

7. Better minds than ours

still can't agree on that question.

[atreides1]

10. Until the SCOTUS

Agrees with your interpretation, they have the right. Besides, what is the legal definition of a "well-regulated militia"?

[iconoclastic cat]

23. Hmm..."The National Guard"? nt

[slackmaster]

24. Definitely not so for Idaho - See reply #11

n/t

[Socal31]

75. .....

Not quite the Militia they had in mind I dont think...

[slackmaster]

11. They most certainly are members of the militia of their state

TITLE 46
MILITIA AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 1
STATE MILITIA -- ORGANIZATION
AND STAFF

46-102. STATE MILITIA -- MEMBERSHIP -- EXEMPTIONS. The militia of the
state of Idaho shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the state,
and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their
intentions to become citizens of the United States and are residents of the
state of Idaho; who shall be more than eighteen (18) years of age, and except
as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five (45) years of age, subject
to the following exemptions:

1. Persons exempted from service in the militia by the constitution of
the state of Idaho and by the laws of the United States from enlistment or
draft into the regular army. Provided, however, that voluntary enlistments,
with the written consent of the parent or guardian of any able-bodied male
citizens over the age of sixteen (16) years may be accepted and such enlistees
inducted into the organized militia of the state of Idaho in time of war, and
as classified in section 46-103<, Idaho Code>, except that the provision for
the enlistment of able-bodied male citizens under the age of eighteen (18)
years will terminate six (6) months following the declaration of peace.

Pardon the crappy line breaks.

Source: http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/46ftoc/460010002.html

[brentspeak]

54. Really? The 15-year-old who's toting a Ruger is "certainly a member of the militia of his state"?

Is he over 18? Or, is he over 16 in time of war?

So how's he a member of Idaho militia?

[slackmaster]

57. The 15-YO has permission from a parent who is a militia member

In any case he's in compliance with Idaho state law, so the question of militia membership is really a red herring.

[brentspeak]

64. Wait a minute, that's not what the law you quoted said

The law which you quoted said this:

"Provided, however, that voluntary enlistments,
with the written consent of the parent or guardian of any able-bodied male
citizens over the age of sixteen (16) years may be accepted and such enlistees
inducted into the organized militia of the state of Idaho in time of war..."

It says 16 years-old with parental permission, not 15. And the "red herring" of militia membership was your red herring! You're the one who's been arguing that his 2nd amendment rights are validated by saying he's a militia member.

[slackmaster]

74. OK, point taken but he's still in compliance with state law

You're the one who's been arguing that his 2nd amendment rights are validated by saying he's a militia member.

Actually, if you trace the thread back I'm not the one who brought that up. My intent was to correct the misperception that citizens in general are not part of a legitimate militia by way of answering iconoclastic cat's question in #5. I have written on DU numerous times that I do not believe the right to keep and bear arms necessarily rests on militia membership or the Second Amendment; the general right to do anything that has not been prohibited by due process of law pretty well covers it.

ETA my stepfather joined the Navy when he was 15. :D

[zanne]

112. Sometimes it isn't about the Second Amendment...

Sometimes it's just plain paranoia that makes people feel they have to be armed to go outside. Some people feel threatened when others don't.

[slackmaster]

116. And sometimes its about the total inability of some of us to understand other people

:eyes:

[Cant trust em]

15. 2nd amendment hijinks

I like how the second amendment has the two clauses in it that almost contradict each other. Effectively the founding fathers are forcing us to argue this out forever. The vagueries of the constitution will provide us with endless debate.

[slackmaster]

16. Will wonders never cease? They're members of the US militia too!

10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),

Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,

Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

-MISC1-

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

1956 ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

section Large)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 32:1 (less last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134,

Sec. 57, 39 Stat. 197;

June 28, 1947, ch. 162,

Sec. 7 (as applicable to

Sec. 57 of the Act of

June 3, 1916, ch. 134),

61 Stat. 192.

311(b)

32:1 (last 19 words).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of

intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have

declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and

* * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who

shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than

forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section

313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as

hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum

age.

In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which

consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are

substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia",

since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the

organized militia.

1958 ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

section Large)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789,

Sec. 1, 70 Stat. 729.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are

omitted as surplusage.

AMENDMENTS

1993 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted "members" for

"commissioned officers".

1958 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of

the United States who are commissioned officers of the National

Guard.


http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+170+0++%28militia%29%20%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

[SteveM]

42. Thanks, Slackmaster, for clearing this up before too much urban legend impinged.

Once again, there are those who are still arguing the "militia clause" as a means to deny the individual right to bear arms, in spite of the fact that most constitutional scholars say that 2A recognizes an individual right and not a right dependent on a state's regulation of a militia. See: Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate (1997), passim.

[slackmaster]

46. What bugs me about it is people never bother to check their facts

...before making a broad-brush declaration that a particular individual is not a member of a (legitimate) militia.

All of the states' codes are available online now. Some are easier to sift through than others, but the information is out there for free.

[SteveM]

51. Some folks here seem genuinely curious; others like the culture war.

[DBoon]

8. I have a constitutional right to insult people all day

as free speech, but I don't (even though it is very tempting sometimes)

Having a right to do something doesn't make it a good or intelligent thing to do

[Codeine]

12. That's not the argument, is it?

I'm not upholding these two idiots as the greatest Americans, I'm just saying that if they want to do that, that's their right.

[wuushew]

13. How can it be an "individual right" when it requires the complicity of a 2nd party?

You can't legally buy a handgun if you are under 21. I do not know the rules regarding inheritance or gifting but in my opinion the validity of his right is undermined by the necessity to have relatives involved to demonstrate the conviction.

[Codeine]

20. Could you rephrase that?

I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you're saying. :blush:

[wuushew]

25. I am curious about the original source of the handgun

I am not taking a stand either way on this topic, however if we view "rights" as activities that a person is legally entitled to perform at some point in time, then I question the complicity of who ever helped him obtain the device needed to demonstrate the 2nd amendment.

Most car rental companies do not rent to people under 25. Someone under 25 certainly has the technical and possibly legal ability to drive said automobile, but without the assistance of another person such a situation would never arise. When two or more people are required to act in the completion of a given task, that in no way validates the ability of one person to accomplish it.

[slackmaster]

26. Any Idaho resident who is over 21 and not prohibited from buying a gun...

...Could have legally bought them and sold or given them to the young adults.

[Codeine]

28. Perhaps in Idaho you can buy a handgun at 18?

Besides, all sorts of rights don't necessarily apply to minors; that doesn't invalidate them as rights.

[slackmaster]

31. Not from a federally licensed dealer, only from a private party

Federal licensees can't sell handguns to anyone under 21. This means they can't buy brand-new ones, only previously owned ones.

[Codeine]

33. Used guns are cheaper anyway. nt

[krispos42]

41. You can posess one at 18 in Idaho

And the 15-year-old can pack as long as he's accompanied by a 'guardian', which in this case would be his older brother.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/IDSL.pdf

[youngdem]

29. Unrelated, but ALL rental car companies must rent to 18 year olds

There was a court case a few years ago that rightly found it to be age discrimination.

[atreides1]

21. This is Idaho

Idaho law generally allows people over age 18 to carry a handgun that is in plain view, Post Falls Police Chief Cliff Hayes said. From age 13 through 17, teens may openly carry a rifle with permission from a parent or guardian. After age 21, citizens may apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

They may not be able to buy a handgun but they seem to be in compliance with Idaho law!

[saigon68]

67. Carrying a concealed weapon deters crime

Thugs are less likely to rob you if you carry heat.

IE:

Thug #1 with a knife "Give me your purse"

Husband of woman with purse "smokes" the thug

End of story

[SteveM]

44. Not sure what you mean, but Sarah Brady bought a gun for her kid.

[SlipperySlope]

53. I don't think that is correct.

Can you site a law that says "You can't legally buy a handgun if you are under 21"? I'm not sure there is one.

[slackmaster]

59. Federal law prohibits federal firearms licensees from selling handguns to people under 21

There is no federal law prohibiting someone under 21 from buying a handgun in a non-commercial, intrastate transaction.

[SlipperySlope]

61. That is what I thought...

There is no Federal law prohibiting a 18 year old from *purchasing* a handgun.
There is no Federal law prohibiting *selling* an 18 year old a handgun.

There is a Federal law that restricts *who exactly* can sell an 18 year old a handgun.

[krispos42]

38. They do have a right to be armed... however...

There are interests of public safety here. They are in public, and there are more laws than if they were keeping gun in their homes or while hunting.

Generally speaking, the law prohibits inappropriate displays of weapons in public.

This is in Idaho, right? Well, according to the NRA:

<snip>

It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen years to possess or have in possession any weapon, unless he has the written permission of his parent or guardian to possess the weapon; or is accompanied
by his parent or guardian while he has the weapon in his possession. An adult shall accompany any minor under the age of twelve years in possession of a weapon. It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen years to possess or have in possession any handgun.

<snip>

It is unlawful for any person to possess a firearm while on the property of a school or in those portions of any building, stadium or other structure on school grounds which, at the time of the violation, were being used for an activity sponsored by or through a school in this state or while riding school provided transportation. This prohibition also applies to students of schools while attending or participating in any school sponsored activity, program or event regardless of location

<snip>

Except in the person’s place of abode or fixed place of business or on property In which the person has any ownership or leasehold Interest, a person shall not carry a concealed weapon without a license to carry a concealed weapon. For the purposes of this section, a concealed weapon means any dirk, dirk knife, bowie knife, dagger, pistol, revolver, or any other deadly or dangerous weapon. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle.
While in any motor vehicle, inside the limits or confines of any city, a person shall not carry a concealed weapon on or about his person without a license to carry a concealed weapon. This shall not apply to any pistol or revolver located in plain view whether it is loaded or unloaded. A firearm may be concealed legally in a motor vehicle so long as the weapon is disassembled or unloaded.
“Upon or about ones person” has been defined by the Idaho courts as encompassing the physical carrying of the weapon in clothing or handbags as well as going about with the weapon in close proximity and readily accessible for prompt use. The test for concealment is whether the weapon is carried so as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

<more> http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/IDSL.pdf

Unless the city or state has a law prohibiting inappropriate open-carry of weapons, they are probably perfectly legal, as long as the 18-year-old is responsible for the 15-year-old.

[THUNDER HANDS]

60. if I was in a library

and someone had a gun strapped to them and they weren't a cop, I'd feel threatened.

[slackmaster]

62. If I was in a library (in San Diego) and someone was openly carrying a gun

I would assume that the person either was a cop, or a security guard with an open carry license. I've seen truancy officers for the San Diego City Schools in business attire and wearing sidearms.

If I saw someone waving a gun around like a crazy monkey and yelling psychotically, then I'd worry.

[19jet54]

17. Teenagers are like monkeys

... they are not fully developed decision makers yet? Most crime is by youth who have not yet learned which side of the law is the best choice. Very dangerous mix, kinda like drinking and driving?

[karlrschneider]

32. Does that observation extend to 18 year old soldiers and marines too?

:eyes:

[19jet54]

37. Yes!

... that is why they are usually kept on a very short lease with "brain washing type" control training. Even though you see them with weapons in the US, ammunition is strictly controlled.

[SteveM]

50. Teenagers are subject to bad/ignorant upbringing, far bigger factor.

Young people who are introduced to and trained competently in firearms are very unlikely to use them in an unlawful manner. Problem is, we have become so urbanized and sub-urbanized that millions of families have no outlook on firearms other than what's on the nightly news. Living in a college town, I and many kids around me were trained at an early age in the use of firearms, primarily for hunting and target shooting; but with enough know-how to use a gun in self-defense. My father was resonsible for this. By the age of fourteen, I and each of my brothers had a shotgun and a handgun. Teens may not be "fully developed decision makers," but they are entrusted with automobiles (much more dangerous to them than guns) and, as it has been pointed out, with critical military service.

We live in a society besotted with fear (born of ignorance) and prohibitionism, but some parents trust their kids and give them responsibility, the best antidote to both fear and prohibition.

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected." -- Henry David Thoreau, Walden.

[stillcool]

18. Around these parts...

one needs a license to carry a concealed weapon...I don't know how one would go about getting a permit to carry a gun in full view..other than become a cop? I've never been to Idaho, but should I have the opportunity I'll make sure I'm dressed appropriately.

[slackmaster]

22. Open carry is legal in most places in most states

It's even legal here in California in unincorporated (non-urbanized) areas, unless specifically posted otherwise.

[stillcool]

40. So..why the need to get..

a license to carry a concealed weapon, if one could just walk around with a handgun? It was a very long intricate process to have to go through for nothing.

[slackmaster]

43. Open carry can be provocative - I wouldn't do it in a populated area

There are people out there who are looking for a fight. With concealed carry, nobody has to know about the weapon unless its deployment becomes necessary.

[Codeine]

45. Many people prefer

to keep the gun under wraps so as to make day-to-day interactions easier.

[krispos42]

47. Because you don't want to advertise that you're armed

Clerks freaking out, perhaps calling the cops?

Don't want to be targed by someone who wants to steal your gun, either.

Besides, in a lot of places you can't carry openly in urban areas, where arguably the greatest risk is.

[mitchum]

19. Well, I guess that kind of compensation prevents disappointment...

and/or lying on the part of teenage girls in Post Falls

[Xithras]

27. No problem with the 18 year old, but the 15 year old kid shouldn't have one.

The 18 year old is an adult, and since I have no issue with open carry laws, I have no issue with him carrying the pistol. The 15 year old kid should NOT have a gun though, and it's a legal loophole that needs to be closed. I have no problem with 15 year old kids having guns (my own children handle firearms, and they're younger than that), but it should ONLY be done in the presence of a parent or a responsible, designated legal guardian. If my daughter brought home some kid with a rifle slung over his shoulder, he'd leave my property at gunpoint. Having a piece of paper from your parents (which can be easily forged) is not the same thing as having responsible supervision. The very fact that he'd willingly alarm so many people, and that his parents allow him to do it, demonstrate both his irresponsibility with firearms and his parents lack of common sense.

California is a rural open-carry state, and since I live in a rural area and hunt, I can be regularly seen carrying my firearms openly. I would NEVER allow my kids to do so. Those parents are just asking for their kid to get shot by some overeager cop.

[Codeine]

30. It's not a "loophole"

it's the law; Idahoans have decided that kids that age can carry a gun with parental permission. Some kids are fine for stuff like that at 15, others not so much.

[Xithras]

34. Seems stupid to me.

I'm very pro-gun rights. I've hunted most of my life, grew up in a household where it was a way of life, and have introduced my own children to firearms at an early age. I own many different types of weapons, and above all else stress common sense and SAFETY when my kids are anywhere near my firearms (or their own...my older two now own their own .22 plinkers). Despite all that, I would never let them shoot alone. I would never let them carry a firearms when I wasn't around, and I certainly wouldn't willingly allow them to alarm other people by carrying them around town with the sole object of provoking people.

Common sense should prevail here. I don't know what Idahoans were thinking when they made this legal, but something tells me they didn't think it all the way through. We don't let 15 year olds vote or drive cars because they aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsibility yet. Why the hell would someone think it's a good idea to let them carry weapons capable of killing people without supervision?

[Codeine]

36. Oh, I agree it's stupid,

I just felt the characterization as "loophole" was incorrect.

[beevul]

55. Common sense varies from state to state...

I understand that when you said "I don't know what Idahoans were thinking when they made this legal, but something tells me they didn't think it all the way through. We don't let 15 year olds vote or drive cars because they aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsibility yet" you meant in idaho.

I grew up in MN. We had to be 16 to get a drivers license there. Same for AZ. (lived there a while). Here in NE it appears folks can get one earlier. Also, I recently went on a trip to the black hills in SD and was told that kids could get a DL as early as 14 there.

It seems to vary by state quite alot. Is it possible that kids are deemed "responsible" in the context of driving or firearms based on state/local societal factors? Here in NE for example (at least around where I live) kids get out of school and go home and spend many hours working the farm with the rest of the family. Likewise with firearms, here, kids hunt with the parents from quite an early age.

If true, that would highlight the disconnect between the view of someone from say NY versus someone from NE when those 2 views were both involved in the discussion of a 15 year old carrying a gun, or driving. I am not saying either of those views represent yours, but I would guess yours falls somewhere in between them.

It is an interesting topic to dissect.

[19jet54]

69. All politics are local, I guess?

[KansDem]

35. I don't know about Bible studies...

But in Kansas City, they wouldn't be able to take their guns into the public library or (some) neighborhood stores. I don't know about city parks and on walks around town.

[AlCzervik]

39. Locked and loaded for the Lord.

[bluerum]

49. File this one under the "Why do dogs lick themselves" category. eom

[saigon68]

68. LOL eom

[Blue_Tires]

65. such a young age to be THAT insecure

"deterring crime?" do they think their lives are in peril as they walk the streets of Mayberry err, Post Falls? did Post Falls turn into Newark or East St. Louis or Gotham overnight?

I know and respect his rights, but it would have been refreshing if in the interview they admitted that: 1. They love walking around like some wannabe tough guy gangsters while making others uneasy, and 2. They have not yet learned what it means to be a man -- this ain't it

[LanternWaste]

71. Didn't you know that it is these two fine young fellows

Didn't you know that it is these two fine young fellows, and these two fellows alone that have, through armed intimidation of the terrorists, prevented Post/Bedford Falls from turning into Pottersville?

:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

87. yes, it's one of those strange paradoxes

Here are all the folks in this thread spouting the usual line about how wherever it is that the twerp brothers live isn't California or New Jersey -- you know, places where there's lots and lots of crime -- and so they don't need any gun laws ... and yet there are the twerp brothers, toting their guns around to protect themselves from criminals.

Sometimes ya just can't figure these things out at all, can ya?

[pinniped]

72. Their dad sure sounds like a whackjob.

He's probably hoping for something to happen so he could sue for billions.

[Blue_Tires]

73. Sue? He's probably hoping for something to happen so

he can start the Ruby Ridge of the new millenium

[pinniped]

105. Since he moved to Idaho, he probably moved into Randy Weaver's old compound.

.

[Paladin]

77. The Residents Have A Perfect Right To Be Alarmed

By choosing to openly carry firearms, these kids have gone beyond any notion of personal defense or principled Second Amendment promotion; they're all the way into blatant public intimidation and actively inviting trouble. And the fact that they have parents who allow such behavior is proof that they're bearing those weapons without anything remotely approaching proper supervision.

I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time one of our resident gun militants cops a huffy attitude about being accused of a "Guns For Everybody" accusation. When it comes to gun ownership, there doesn't ever seem to be a case where somebody is too young, too mentally ill, too blind, too criminally inclined, too stupid, or any other circumstances which might give sensible people pause......

[Pavulon]

78. Unless there is a law on the books

I see no harm. I was around people with automatic weapons and explosives and never had a problem...

Sounds like a small town.

The persons mindset and actions with a weapon are more relevant than their age.

[iverglas]

80. well hell then

He's 15. Give him a car to drive and a plane to fly, and put him on the voters' list and tell him to get a job.

After all, The persons mindset and actions with ___________ are more relevant than their age.

Of course, one might easily say that his mindset and actions are what are in fact very relevant here, and are indeed sufficient proof that he shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet.

[beevul]

86. Are you aware...

that 15 and even 14 year olds in some states can get drivers licenses and and 16 year olds can get solo flight licenses, and can hold jobs with limitations?

A plane seems to me a much more dangerous thing than a 22 rifle.

Of course, one might easily say that his mindset and actions are what are in fact very relevant here, and are indeed sufficient proof that he shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet.

The fact that he chooses to excercise his second amendment right by bearing a small caliber rifle, is "sufficient proof" that he "shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet"? Is that what you are saying one might easily say? It sure looks like it is.


The question is, would you actually say that, or just say that someone might?

[iverglas]

88. what I am aware of

is that you made assertions, since I happened to read that post just before this one. I don't generally take "I was told" as an authoritative source for stuff.

And the fact that it is done doesn't mean it should be done. Certainly 16-yr-olds should not be flying planes alone, and 14-year-olds should not be driving motor vehicles. I don't really give a crap that someone licenses them to do it, if someone does.


The fact that he chooses to excercise his second amendment right by bearing a small caliber rifle, is "sufficient proof" that he "shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet"? Is that what you are saying one might easily say? It sure looks like it is.

I'm sure it does. To you. Through whatever strange prism you have donned today.

What I was actually saying was the fact that a teenaged boy -- or anyone on this earth -- chooses to walk around in public in an urban area with firearms dangling from or attached to his/her body, on prominent display for all of the townsfolk to see, is proof positive that he is an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole, although that might not be entirely his own fault, and that he should not be allowed near firearms until he has become a decent reasonable human being, whenever that might be.

[Redneck Socialist]

91. "...he is an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole..."

"What I was actually saying was the fact that a teenaged boy -- or anyone on this earth -- chooses to walk around in public in an urban area with firearms dangling from or attached to his/her body, on prominent display for all of the townsfolk to see, is proof positive that he is an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole, although that might not be entirely his own fault, and that he should not be allowed near firearms until he has become a decent reasonable human being, whenever that might be."

Open carry is legal in may places, including Idaho, why does carrying a gun make him "...an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole..."

[iverglas]

93. I give up

Open carry is legal in may places, including Idaho, why does carrying a gun make him "...an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole..."

Did somebody say it did? I mean, sure, I'd say that pretty much anybody who carries a firearm around is an asshole. But that isn't actually quite what I said.

What does the fact that something is legal have to do with whether someone who does it is an asshole?

It's legal for me to fly a swastika from my rooftop. It's legal for me to call people of colour names on the street. It's legal for me to do just all sorts of things. I'd still be an asshole if I did some of them.

Having a right to do something really, really doesn't mean that one is not an asshole if one does it.

It's legal to vote Republican in the US, right?

[Pavulon]

95. Where do you live?

if you live in ny metro this act has a different impact than in idaho.

Again unless the person is threatening what is the difference.

I choose to carry a concealed weapon from time to time (legally) and there is no difference.

[Redneck Socialist]

97. LOL!

What I was actually saying was the fact that a teenaged boy -- or anyone on this earth -- chooses to walk around in public in an urban area with firearms dangling from or attached to his/her body, on prominent display for all of the townsfolk to see, is proof positive that he is an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole..."

Pardon my confusion. :eyes:

I have to say Iver that your posts are generally amusing, but I love, absolutely dog-gone love your 'I didn't say what you say I said' conversational gambit. It's highly entertaining.

[beevul]

94. WOW

what I am aware of is that you made assertions, since I happened to read that post just before this one. I don't generally take "I was told" as an authoritative source for stuff.

And the fact that it is done doesn't mean it should be done. Certainly 16-yr-olds should not be flying planes alone, and 14-year-olds should not be driving motor vehicles. I don't really give a crap that someone licenses them to do it, if someone does.


The fact that he chooses to excercise his second amendment right by bearing a small caliber rifle, is "sufficient proof" that he "shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet"? Is that what you are saying one might easily say? It sure looks like it is.

I'm sure it does. To you. Through whatever strange prism you have donned today.

What I was actually saying was the fact that a teenaged boy -- or anyone on this earth -- chooses to walk around in public in an urban area with firearms dangling from or attached to his/her body, on prominent display for all of the townsfolk to see, is proof positive that he is an immature self-centred sociopathic asshole, although that might not be entirely his own fault, and that he should not be allowed near firearms until he has become a decent reasonable human being, whenever that might be.

And that assertion I made actually turns out to be true. Please let me know if you need a cite. Really beside the point though.



I hope you except police from your little tirade there. Beyond that, I don't see you quoting any authorative sources showing how or why he is "sociopathic" or self centered. I mean...you told me all that, but like you said, you don't "generally take "I was told" as an authoritative source for stuff", and I can't imagine in a million years that you'd be expecting others to. Perhaps you just forgot to add it.


Perhaps you can save us both time and just explain how this:

"The fact that he chooses to excercise his second amendment right by bearing a small caliber rifle, is "sufficient proof" that he "shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm for quite a few years yet"? Is that what you are saying one might easily say? It sure looks like it is"

Isn't exactly what you were getting at.

[iverglas]

81. exactly

I keep asking and asking and asking: don't children (and people with criminal convictions, and psychotics) have the RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES?

So then, if they do, how can it possibly be legal to prohibit them from toting guns around -- let alone prohibiting them from having the things altogether?

Here's my answer, I guess, right in this very thread. People who are agreeing that 15-yr-olds should be permitted to wander around in public festooned in firearms.

I want to know, though, whether they'll go all the way and admit that 5-yr-olds and criminals and crazies got the same right.

[beevul]

82. You are reaching.

By choosing to openly carry firearms, these kids have gone beyond any notion of personal defense or principled Second Amendment promotion; they're all the way into blatant public intimidation and actively inviting trouble. And the fact that they have parents who allow such behavior is proof that they're bearing those weapons without anything remotely approaching proper supervision.

If you can show that they INTEND to intimidate people, please do. Otherwise, all you have is people intimidated through no intention of the individuals in question. And they are going to have to live with it, because the actions of the 2 individual in question are lawful. Besides that, one of them is an adult.

[Redneck Socialist]

90. "...they're all the way into blatant public intimidation..."

I didn't realize guns were so scary.

[-..__...]

83. Ohh the horror!

Two citizens exercising their Constitutional rights...




At least the police chief is level-headed about the situation...

The public and law enforcement will need to grow accustomed to the sight, Hayes said.

"I don't think it's necessary to overreact to two individuals who elect to exercise their right to carry a firearm," he said.

[iverglas]

84. hahahahaha

From the article:

Zach Doty, who has short-cropped hair and a fuzzy mustache and goatee, talks earnestly about gun regulations and routinely sprinkles his arguments with quotes from historical figures, including "An armed society is a polite society."

I see they study classical literature in their home studies. Or maybe they just have all the right-wing gunhead sites on the internet bookmarked.

Robert Heinlein, that towering figure of modern history. Anybody want to place to bet that neither of these little pukes could name a book by him -- or by pretty much anybody else?

[Redneck Socialist]

89. LOL!

I see they study classical literature in their home studies.

:D

[iverglas]

85. it gets better

The brothers have the support of their father, Jude Doty, who has a history of bucking the establishment. Jude and Angela Doty, who have seven children from ages 3 to 18, moved to Idaho two years ago during a protracted legal battle with Washington state concerning alleged violations of child labor laws.

The family shares a philosophy: "Home birth, home school, home business."

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries cited Jude Doty for allowing Zach and Stephen, 13 and 11 at the time, to work on construction sites. State fines eventually cost Doty, a house mover, his residence in Yakima.

I'm breaking my cardinal rule of posting without reading the thread, and others have probably noted these things, but I'm just all agog.

Hey - it isn't their age, it's their mindset, right? Put 'em to work as soon as they can hammer a nail. That's what kids are for. Oh, and for spreading your filthy right-wing ideology, too:

Jude Doty, 50, says he supports his sons in their public carrying of firearms, although he regrets making others in the community uncomfortable.

"The boys haven't caused any trouble," he said. "People's thinking needs to be changed."

Yeah. Get enough followers, and you can put everybody else in re-education camps to change their thinking. Or just shoot 'em if they don't like the idea; after all, if they haven't had the sense to exercise that right to promenade around festooned in firepower, then it's their own damned fault if they're defenceless against people trying to make them change their thinking.

Obviously these people belong to some whackoid cult or other -- the boys go to those bible studies -- but interesting how the article doesn't name it.

Of course it's always interesting how it's never the children of left / liberal / progressive / d/Democratic parents doing these things ... and yet there are people at this liberal / progressive / d/Democratic website applauding them every time.

The kids are exploited and abused. They're still nasty little creeps.

[Major Hogwash]

111. That means it is much worse than I originally thought.

They sound to me like Aryan Nation wannabes.

This is pretty much the same way Randy Weaver isolated his family before he became famous.
Post Falls is a magnet for the disillusioned, disenfranchised, poor white male syndrome that plagues that portion of the state.
It is mountain country, sparsely populated, heavily forested, therefore a prime area for survivalists to disappear in.

I am surprised that they are allowed to go to church with weapons, but that area of the state has had a history of nutjobs preaching hate.

Richard Butler died in 2004 and the movement has gone underground somewhat.
They are struggling to find a new leader.
The last 2 leaders of their movement are either in prison or awaiting trial on different charges.

[iverglas]

92. in the words of the cherub Zach himself

This is the best fun I've had all day.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum20/2184-4.html

I'll probably keep my public servants calling me Mr. Doty, just so they understand who's boss. But using high and lofty titles like Mr., Prof., Esq., Dr., etc., tends to (inadvertently) alienate people from those who don't use such titles; important titles may also denote pride in those who always use them of themselves...

I know Mr. isn't anything more than simple respect and courtesy, but you're all friends. Call me Zach or Mr. Doty, whichever you like better, but please don't feel obligated to address me in any particular fashion ;)

The rest of your letters seem like flattery, but I liked reading it anyway :lol:. Just don't overdo it; King Solomon knew what he was talking about when he said flattery is like spreading a net for someone's feet (Prov. 29:5)!

Thanks for the encouragement guys. I'll try to keep you posted more often.

Yours in Christ,
Zach Doty

Wtf would Jesus do? Puke, I think. And then smack him real hard. Let's see him use that Glock against his lord and saviour.

And the little darling's very own thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=679662

Apparently he's getting himself all worked up for a lawsuit.

Do we get the impression that somebody can't get a girlfriend?

See what abstinence training leads to ...

[IChing]

98. Boy this thread was fun to watch

Where are we on anger?
Where we are on justified violence?

That causes LETHAL VIOLENCE ON THIS PLANET
in order to find peace and safety.

[Codeine]

99. Today's utterly incomprehensible post brought to you by

IChing, ladies and gentlemen. A big hand for IChing!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[IChing]

100. I am at awe at your political acumen within the

consciousness of your limited awareness that is guided
by commonly agreed-upon standards of justice vs
yours that is resolved by the calculus of power.


I hope the prince of your peace
will not be the king your wars

I think peace is the answer
you choose confrontation and
exhibits of violence.

Yes you do.

[Codeine]

101. Amazing.

It's like a random word generator that only has access to Deepak Chopra books.

I'm not sure exactly how I've chosen violence and confrontation, though. I don't own a gun; heck -- I don't even like the darned things.

[IChing]

102. The power of your Mediocrity is Unleashed.

in posts and in what you put down as a claim in what is important to you.

"I'm not sure exactly how I've chosen violence and confrontation"

the mediocrity statement you have chosen for yourself
is well selected from what you have written.

[IChing]

103. You have spent how much time on this thread?

Look people when he started and what he achieved!

"Mediocrity is Unleashed"

[Codeine]

106. I've clearly spent more time than you

simply because making actual sentences containing actual thoughts is more time-consuming than the random word-association with which you amuse yourself.

But don't stop on my account, darlin'.

[Codeine]

104. As soon as you've formed a coherent sentence

give me a call.

I'd go ahead and respond to your "argument," but it's increasingly clear that you're too high to form one.

[IChing]

107. You spent 11 hours on this thread?

Got ya............:) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Codeine]

108. Yes,

I sat and stared at this thread and nothing else for eleven hours. Didn't read any other threads, didn't go to work, didn't watch "Mythbusters" on my Tivo, didn't walk the puppy or make dinner or start a load of laundry, just sat and stared at this thread.

You sure did get me. Shine on, crazy diamond. :eyes:

[IChing]

109. It must be your "Conflict simulation wargames" bio

that gives you the mediocrity you say, that is important
enough to advertise on who you are.

you have spoken..........enough

:) :rofl: :rofl:

[Codeine]

110. Jeezus christ

That's what you're babbling about? Do you know what historical conflict simulations are? It's not yahoos running around with paintball guns or people dressing up in costumes or whatever.

[MadHound]

113. I'd rather that they carry it out in the open for all to see

Than to carry concealed. Frankly I think that open carry is more honest than conceal carry. And no, I would have no problem with kids. Hell, I come from a place and era where it was common for most farmer to be carrying long guns in their trucks, and the good ol' boys at high school had them racked up in the parking lot. Simpler times I suppose.

[Robb]

115. I'm surprised no one has brought up the Black Panthers ...

BP party members back in the day brought rifles to public events. I'm having trouble drawing further parallels, however.