Carry a rifle in public?

[OKNewshawk]

The only problem I have with option #3 is the "NICS false positive" reference.
A. Are you trying to describe a false denial? Then I'd call it a "false negative."
B. If you're denied for a handgun, you're denied for all weapons. You're not even allowed to own or possess ammunition, thus carrying a long gun would be illegal.

 

[Ethan N]

The only problem I have with option #3 is the "NICS false positive" reference.
A. Are you trying to describe a false denial? Then I'd call it a "false negative."
B. If you're denied for a handgun, you're denied for all weapons. You're not even allowed to own or possess ammunition, thus carrying a long gun would be illegal.

Meant false denial. Are you saying that if you get a false denial, you can’t be in possession of firearms? I would have thought it wouldn’t affect whether you can lawfully possess firearms because the underlying reason for the denial is untrue.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

It's true, unless and until you prove it to be incorrect.

 

[Aries]

That would obviously prevent you from buying a firearm at that time... but if they wanted to charge you with possessing one you already owned, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution that it was unlawful?

Theoretically, I mean...

 

[Ethan N]

That would obviously prevent you from buying a firearm at that time... but if they wanted to charge you with possessing one you already owned, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution that it was unlawful?

Theoretically, I mean...

Theoretically, that seems sound and it’s what I would assume. Perhaps the point is that won’t stop them from arresting you and seizing your guns. Or perhaps there’s some insane provision in the Brady Act that actually makes possession a crime if you receive a NICS denial.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

One of the major complaints about NICS checks is that it seems that seldom are denials followed up by LEO. If denied, it is for a reason that normally would prevent an individual from possessing firearms, but I haven't heard of any effort to enforce it, nor have I heard of an officer doing a NICS check in the field. So it seems to be a moot point.

 

[SMS]

I don't really like any of the poll options....and did we define "okay"? Are we talking permission from the State or personal standards and values?

I do not think it should be illegal to do so, but I think it is socially unacceptable and deviant behavior to carry a long gun in public (private land is not "in public") in any situation except hunting, participating in sporting events, extreme civil disturbances, disasters, or some Hollywood version of TEOTWAWKI.

I've carried a rifle professionally for blood and money. I've never felt the need to do so while going about my daily business in private life here in the United States. Do it if you want. I won't call for the State to ruin you but I won't cheer for you, look up to you as a defender of my rights, or give you whatever glory it is you are seeking.

 

[Ethan N]

I don't really like any of the poll options....and did we define "okay". Are we talking permission from the State or personal standards and values?

Sorry, I forgot to include an option for civil disturbances/disasters.

Great question on what we mean by “okay.” I think what I had in mind is that “okay” means it wouldn’t violate your personal values for someone to do it, whether you would choose to or not. It could have been interpreted by some to mean it’s something they themselves would or might do, but I doubt many or any interpreted it that way.

(private land is not "in public")

I guess I included that because carrying on personal private property may be in full view of and close proximity to the public, but you’re right.

 

[OKNewshawk]

That would obviously prevent you from buying a firearm at that time... but if they wanted to charge you with possessing one you already owned, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution that it was unlawful?

Theoretically, I mean...

That would depend if the ATF follows up on the denial. I was denied once, solely due to sloppy recordkeeping at a local PD in New Jersey. It wasn't until I could prove that the restraining order they though was in force had been lifted a decade before the gun purchase that I was able to get an appeal granted.

I had taken possession of the gun (a FNP-9 that I miss to this day) when one Monday morning I received a phone call from Agent Harris, ATF Tulsa. Since he identified the type of gun I had purchased, I knew I couldn't bulls**t him. Thankfully, the FFL, Roger Koenig of the late, lamented Bullitt Firearms (where I bought the gun,) took it back and held it for me until I decided to sell it back to him at a time when I needed money more than a gun that was out of my reach.

I'm sure that if I didn't comply with Agent Harris's request to give up possession of that gun, he would have taken a greater interest in my case and, if I had any other guns, I would have lost them and maybe even gotten in trouble with the ATF.

Also, as I said before, prohibited persons are not even allowed to possess ammunition, much less guns.

Sent from my LML413DL using Tapatalk

 

[OKCHunter]

I did not read through all the posts but doesn't choosing option 2 include all other options except the last one? That was the way I understood and no other selections were needed.