FBI and GBI have another bulletin out on me for inquiring into bearing arms

[kwikrnu]

Several local law enforcement agencies have bolos and apbs which go into further depth. I wonder how many more of these have been produced and by which agencies? I'm sure I am not the only one who has been subjected to this type of scrutiny. Anyone who decides to exercise their right to bear arms might have these reports. It is one way the government can scare the citizenry into not exercising the liberty.


LINK

 

[Merk]

Is it legal for you to carry in the non-secured areas? That gets sketchy in some states. I can open carry in non-secure areas in the airport near where I live in Oregon. If it is legal they can twist in the wind and if they touch you then litigate against whoever arrests you, local or fed. Feds have no jurisdiction over local gun laws.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

How did you get a copy of it?

 

[kwikrnu]

Yes, it is legal to carry and I did on December 18, 2010 and ate luch in the airport with my slung, orange, ak pistol. I audio recorded it and is on my youtube page, LINK. I also recorded a conversation with atlanta airport cop regarding the legality, LINK

The problem is these government officials who use these bulletins to keep track of law abiding people engaged in law abiding activities.

 

[kwikrnu]

How did you get a copy of it?

Freedom of information act requests.

 

[kwikrnu]

My orange AK handgun

 

[ZanZibar]

You have balls of steel!

 

[SL89]

The old axiom "use it or lose it" rings true for our rights as well. That means ALL of them. +rep to you and here is to hoping more people start exercising their inherent rights!

 

[Tod]

Freedom of information act requests.

How did you know to ask and how did you know who to ask?

Thanks!

Kudos!!

 

[kwikrnu]

The state of tennessee has a specific act that requires government to release information. The request should be specific and narrow. I direct my requests to law enforcement agencies. They have 7 days to reply to a request and if they don't I can sue. The burden is on the agency to show they do not have to release the information. There is also a FOIA attorney for the state of tennessee who works with the public to get requests approved. I date all letters and send them certified return receipt so I have proof of delivery. I also request to go to the agency and view the records in person because it is cheaper and it takes up their time.
A few months ago I went to a state agency and had two state troopers and an attorney stand over my shoulder while I looked over some documents in a private conference room. lol

I recommend that everyone take a look at their own state laws and see what they are able to request and the process.

 

[Juscelino]

I understand that it was a Freedom of Information Act request. However, aren't you concerned about the fact that it states "Dissemination to the media or general public is not authorized"?

 

[Petar]

I understand that it was a Freedom of Information Act request. However, aren't you concerned about the fact that it states "Dissemination to the media or general public is not authorized"?

"Authorization" is not required for an activity that is not prohibited by a specific law.

Therefore, if they are going to intimate that sharing this information with the public is illegal, then the prudent question becomes:

Which specific law would this be in violation of?

 

[Juscelino]

"Authorization" is not required for an activity that is not prohibited by a specific law.

Therefore, if they are going to intimate that sharing this information with the public is illegal, then the prudent question becomes:

Which specific law would this be in violation of?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Gideon]

I will replace my original post after Kwikrnu answers a few questions to my liking.

 

[The Beastly One]

Is it legal for you to carry in the non-secured areas? That gets sketchy in some states. I can open carry in non-secure areas in the airport near where I live in Oregon. If it is legal they can twist in the wind and if they touch you then litigate against whoever arrests you, local or fed. Feds have no jurisdiction over local gun laws.

Constitutionally speaking, it is correct and legal to carry a firearm ANYWHERE with a few exceptions. You may not carry onto private property or into business where the owners have expressly forbidden it. The private citizen or citizen-owned business always has the right to dictate its own terms for doing business. The other instance is in the case of State or Federal property where it is posted for security purposes that a firearm on premises is forbidden, as in the case of jails, etc. In those cases the constitutionality of the barre is irrefutable and truly only instituted for real safety and security concerns, and evidence of the legality is that even law enforcement officers must surrender their duty weapons at the gates. As to the Feds intervention, it is a common practice of law, founded in the concepts of the contitution that federal law ALWAYS overrides State law. If a State, like California, legalizes something, like marijuana, and the federal law still prohibits it, then the feds CAN and probably will come to California and arrest anyone using marijuana, which is against the US Code (federal) regardless of the State law. That premise was fixed into the Constitution as a protection against illegally mandated State laws limiting the rights of a citizen in contradiction to the Constitution. Unfortunately, since the federal government has seen fit to begin legislating against our rights, progressive States that pass State level laws in order to restore our guaranteed rights often find themselves under the federal gun so to speak, in that, the feds DO have the real authority to act in superiority against state laws that stand contrary to federal ones.

 

[apex]

The notice was very clear to the police, that you did not say you were going to do anything, it was just an inquiry. Police should know if someone wants to carry a AK with them. Especially when you're doing it to taunt them. It sounds to me that you WANT them to start trouble with you. And who knows how you'll react when you get that trouble you're looking for. The point of carrying a weapon is not to make other around you feel uncomfortable.

 

[kwikrnu]

The notice was very clear to the police, that you did not say you were going to do anything, it was just an inquiry. Police should know if someone wants to carry a AK with them. Especially when you're doing it to taunt them. It sounds to me that you WANT them to start trouble with you. And who knows how you'll react when you get that trouble you're looking for. The point of carrying a weapon is not to make other around you feel uncomfortable.

If a poor black man walks in a rich white neighborhood and offends the residents is it the black man's fault? If the black man is proud of his fundamental right to walk where he chooses should an APB be issued on him? If the cops tell the black man to paint his face white and only then he should walk in the rich white neighborhood is that okay? There comes a point when people should not care what others think, I don't. I obey the law and people need to get over it or change the law.

 

[JoshLowry]

Thank you for your efforts in keeping watch on the watchers!

It truly poses a quandary for me:

Here we have a Stazi surveillance aparachik which appears to be growing in size and scope daily, and yet if we are not on the other side of the digital wall, we cannot comprehend the actual scope and size.

I look at it this way:

City.gov is the largest employer in my city - how many of them have access to my personal information?


County.gov is the largest employer in my county - how many of them have access to my personal information?


State.gov is the largest employer in my state - how many of them have access to my personal information?


Fed.gov is the largest employer in my country - how many of them have access to my personal information?

This does not even take into account contractors, NGOs, and foreign entities with cloud access to that same database.

Can one even estimate the number of people who are contributing and feeding from such a massive information base, and how can I verify the accuracy of ALL the information associated with me?

Are we talking 10s or 100s or millions of .gov minions?

It truly is mind-boggling!

Very important point!

 

[devil21]

Is it legal for you to carry in the non-secured areas? That gets sketchy in some states. I can open carry in non-secure areas in the airport near where I live in Oregon. If it is legal they can twist in the wind and if they touch you then litigate against whoever arrests you, local or fed. Feds have no jurisdiction over local gun laws.

One important distinction to be made here though. Any violation of law that is not codified specifically into USC Title 18 (federal criminal statutes) can be prosecuted by the feds if it is a violation of state or local law but occurs on federal property. Look up the Assimilative Crimes Act for more info. Generally your statement is correct but there are exceptions.

 

[AceNZ]

The notice linked in the OP says that the only reason it was issued is because the AK-47 is painted orange, including an orange tip, which makes it look like a "red gun" training gun, when it's not.

If you're trying to provoke them, I suppose that's as good a way as any. To me, though, it seems like a bad idea. Open carry; sure. Open carry with a gun that looks like a toy or a trainer; what's the point?