Police in Rutland, Vermont arrested 26-year-old Joshua Severance for walking around town with a registered handgun clipped to his belt.

What Severance was doing was perfectly legal. But apparently, Rutland police forgot the law.

Severance, a veteran of the National Guard, was walking to his father’s house when police approached him. He said he feels his personal rights were violated and that he is disturbed by the incident.

As he should be.

Rutland Police

He said, “There was a cruiser sitting there parked, and it saw me. I had my firearm on my side, had my shirt off because I was hot, minding my own business just walking along, cops saw me. I can see pulling somebody over and asking them to look at the firearm or check the serial number to see if it comes back stolen but putting somebody in handcuffs and throwing them in a cruiser and treating them like a criminal from square one– I don’t agree with.”

After discovering that Severance’s possession of the gun was in fact legal, police continued to justify their actions. They played down the arrest by explaining their response was due to recent shootings in the neighborhood (unrelated to this incident).

Police Sgt. John Sly of Rutland said, “In this particular neighborhood it is not commonplace to have people walking down the street with firearms, either rifles, shotguns or handguns. It was suspicious; it was out of the ordinary.”

So what?

Severance did nothing to break the law. Just because something is uncommon doesn’t mean it is illegal.

Although Sly claimed it is “uncommon” to see someone walking with firearms, he also said these types of stops are “not out of the ordinary and are routinely conducted.”

The reasoning is laughable.

This incident in Vermont is just another example of an absurd police power-grab.

Do you think such police stops trample on the spirit of the Second Amendment? Or is it acceptable to stop someone carrying a gun out in the open?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Kristin Tate
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and BenSwann.com.Dedicated to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud.Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at www.TheLibertarianChick.com.

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • BoDeeDoe

    TAke them to court, otherwise it will continue.

  • Rizzo Just-Rizzo

    Ignorance of the law does make you exempt from the law. That goes for the police as well as citizens. The police should be held to an even higher standard on this subject, how can they perform their jobs properly when they are ignorant of the laws they are to enforce?

    • Van A. Stahr


    • Robert D Williams

      Hey, ya wanna put a negatory inna middle o’ that first sentence, or whut?

      • Michael Langley


  • cjhsa

    This has happened all over the country, so police saying they are unaware that open carry is legal in their state are full of crap. Bacon and donut scented crap.

    • Lord Mannyrossa

      It doesn’t shock me too much. People don’t realize how incredibly ignorant police in general are of the law. The supervisor on duty usually knows better but the SoD isn’t out on the street.

  • Daniel

    What baffles me is that officers like these seem quite uncomfortable with other people have firearms, but since it’s in their job description, no worries about their buddies carrying guns.

    Why can’t officers afford to trust to law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens? They trust their law-abiding, gun-carrying fellow officers.

    I think it’s a power thing.

  • Legatus legionis

    Laws against open carry are unconstitutional if they do not provide a method similar to CCW procedures. SCOTUS has held that States can require some form of registration to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights. However, lacking such a process is an infringement. For instance, you need a permit to have a parade to exercise your First Amendment Rights. I disagree with SCOTUS, but the alternative is jail. You are not allowed to plead jury nullification to a jury today. We are screwed……

  • Brandon Ahlgrim

    Because Vermont allows open carry, those police were in blatant violation of his 4th amendment and 2nd amendment rights. It’s civil lawsuit worthy. Supporting SCOTUS rulings cases: US v. DeBerry, Terry v. Ohio, and Delaware v. Prouse.

  • twojays

    I’m thinking what ego bravado to be walking down a street bare chested with a gun strapped on. A magnet attracting negative attention.

    • Jonathan

      is negative attention breaking a law?

    • Lord Mannyrossa

      Ya know people used to say that about women who were scantily clad who got raped. You want to know how well that sort of ‘you were asking for it’ rationale stands up in court? (Hint: not very well. Actually it’s not even admissible)
      Also nothing of what you wrote is illegal for him to do.

  • Van A. Stahr

    Citizens need to sue for civil rights violations every time this happens. You can’t just complain about it to the press, you must make them pay, and pay dearly.

  • Francis Marion

    This man is already conditioned to think that even a “spot check” on a serial number is even REMOTELY lawful. The police have to have reasonable suspicion that the weapon is stolen in order to have that privilege. The cops are in the wrong on this one, but the man in question is rather ill-informed as well.

    Bad all around.

  • Jonathan

    Isn’t this the “live free or die” state?

    • Chris

      No, that would be New Hampshire.

      • Jonathan

        I thought New Hampshire was where you are too stupid to pump your own gas…..Anyway, I did look up if you even need a permit to carry a weapon in Vermont.

        • Morndew

          No, that is NJ and Oregon (gas-pumping) lol.

  • http://markduddridge.wordpress.com Mark Duddridge

    Seems to me, its just another incident in the use of police to make people afraid of guns or wary of carrying out their constitutional, lawful right to carry.

  • Lord Mannyrossa

    It’s not even just the second amendment it is the 4th amendment as well. This is a joke. Every justification the commander gave is completely invalid. The man who was stopped needs to stop with the bull about letting them run the serial number too. NO. NO. NO. Hopefully he sues them for civil rights violations and maybe these cops will get the message that it is definitely not OK to drop a deuce on a person’s constitutional rights. Also if it’s a crappy neighborhood where shootings have happened, that is all the more reason to have a gun on you.

  • Letty

    in a way i see the concern but he could have gona a different route with it by asking telling evening yelling at him to stop and see what and why he was there with a gun (zimmerman all over again) only this no one got hurt or lost their life … if he were to be of any danger he would have known from the moment not just when he got closer the cop overeacted and thats how they accuse the wrong people and innocent lives are ruined in jail … if i were him id sue because obviously they are overusing their power and authority

  • Pat Jack

    Ben Swann! Good to see your project going so well and rubbin’ elbows with high class folks like Doctor Congressman Ronald Earnest Paul! Hi, Pat Jack here. Certainly there are enough people to launch a class action lawsuit using Federal law and jurisprudence, could be a pretty check for some lawyer who respects the Constitution of The United States of America, the police have got plenty of money, deep pockets and all that and willing to settle quickly. Let’s take it to the Supreme court, Federal level class action, all the way … and have the best, ACE reporter in the free world on top of it 24-7. There’s plenty of video around taken by those who have exercised their 2nd amendment rights only to be met with wrongful detainment, arrest and beatings, and of course the serious felony favorite of police officers, theft of a firearm, which incidentally is a felony violation … of the USA Patriot Act … like I said, gotta have a good lawyer who loves his country.

  • Jonclaw48

    Dear Ben,it is totally acceptable,especially if it is a US.Citizen not only are they a enemy of the state, see the Patriot Act, also it’s our duty to put the governing bodies on notice, I do feel for the young man and know the reason, seems to me a man of your integrity,would search these things out.we perish for lack of knowledge and scripture backs this up and so does the law of the land,If and I mean If,you mean to help instead of keeping things stirred up Please look into the part about the Patriot Act and US. Citizen AND share this Truth and Help other folks to understand this,there is more but I know you are a busy man and may not even respond but at least,consider what I have shared PLEASE!

    • Joe

      WTF are you talking about?? I do believe the 2nd Amendment supercedes the Patriot Act.

  • dddienst


  • Owen Beezley

    maybe its just some bullshit that has to do with a quota for the cops, maybe he has to try and arrest people and so he’s just going to arrest and citizen obeying his rights because he thinks it will make him look good even though i don’t why any cop would do that.

  • Mike Gallant

    Ridiculous. Unfortunately this sort of thing is becoming more and more common. Thanks for bringing it to the light.

  • Anthony

    they didn’t need to arrest him. they didn’t even need to detain him. simply asking the person to see how they respond in a manner which reflects that
    he is a legal and law biding citizen should be sufficient. a little common sense goes a long ways.

  • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

    Umm, isn’t Vermont an open carry state? http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=308

  • Awake

    Its sad that a serviceman that is following the law is not common around those parts ..

  • Justin Myrick

    Keep and bear arms. What do people think “bearing” arms means? Also, Kristin Tate is super hot.

  • McGunn

    To play Devil’s Advocate: If there really were recently shootings in the area, I don’t think what they did is unjustified. Sure they should have asked for registration instead of cuffing him, but at least they didn’t brutally beat him bloody like they apparently often do. Not saying that them failing to follow law is okay, but there are plenty of much more shocking stories out there all the time.

    • D.J.

      In most states… there IS no registration… nor should there be.

      The rights in the Bill of Rights are NOT privileges. They are not “granted” with registration. They do not require permission.

    • Disqus is crap

      Not unjustified, but cowardly and idiotic. Apparently they thought some shirtless guy was simply walking the street, in broad daylight, shooting people at random, wanted to be seen by the police, so he could approach them, have a brief conversation, then catch them off guard?

    • It’s Happening

      Let’s play devils advocate: What if the police officer actually knew Vermonts’ laws?

    • Dawn

      Simply carrying a gun does not implicate him in the previous crime. If there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved, then there is no probable cause to even ask him to prove the gun is legal.
      Officers should assume the law is being obeyed unless there’s a good reason to believe its not.
      Innocent until proven guilty. We are not intended to constantly prove our innocence.
      This is far more a 4th amendment concern than a 2nd.

  • jac

    It is sad and wrong how Severance was treated. Clearly, he was not disobeying any laws. However, given the paranoia today and the anti-gun culture begun in this country, especially by Eric Holder some 20 years ago (see link below), it seems wise to not tempt the power-hungry by openly carrying, unless the intent is to get arrested while being filmed for a Youtube video to try and change the public perception of gun owners. That’s not a bad thing. Just be ready to get harassed.


  • Tim Gregory

    Here’s the video from the local news station.


  • Greg

    If there were recent shootings then all the more reason to carry.

  • D.J.

    Nice to see this much chatter on a relatively new web property… Ben Swann is da man…

    It seems to me, that there is an increasing effort to sow discord within the American population, and the “anti-gun mania” is just part of it.

    I recently developed a product to sell on Amazon… a 1 point tactical sling, for AR or any other rifle. I posted a link to my Facebook page… first comment from a close friend was “weird”. I asked “why weird”? She replied… “I didn’t know you were into automatic weapons.” (Mind you, the product listing showed a simple rifle sling) I explained I didn’t personally know any citizens with automatic weapons… and neither did she, gun laws from the 30’s etc…

    Her reply “I don’t know anything about guns”. (No s***) Apparently, neither do many in law enforcement.

  • Danny Dzienny

    It’s perfectly legit here in Nazi America, police state USA! I’m completely sickened in which way this country is going!!!

  • jermstone

    I think it’s time for me to get my open carry license. Greetings from Oklahoma. We just recently aquired that right.

    • Ictoan

      Anything which requires a permit, license , or permission to do is a privilege, which can be taken away. A right you are able to at your discretion and need no permission to do from anyone.

      • squirebond

        No permit required to carry a handgun or long gun concealed or open in Vermont. The Cops are simply power hungry Pigs. Much worse than any terrorists.

      • jermstone

        You’re right. I worded what I typed wrong.

  • Samael

    I think they may have an obligation to ask him about it politely and ask for his conceal and carry license but never to detain him, let alone touch him. That is the outrage we are approaching. When police can stomp on our conceal and carry licenses and act like their badge makes them some material god walking in flesh.

    • chewinmule

      You need to check Vermont law regarding firearms. Last I checked, you don’t need a license to carry concealed or for open carry in Vermont.

    • Michael Blitch

      Vermont does not require any kind of license to carry open or concealed. Even a 16 year old may do so. Schools, Courthouse, and Federal buildings are the only location restrictions.
      Law enforcement should have known this.

  • Paul Carelli

    Uncalled for!

  • Frank In Spokane

    Two complaints with this story. 1. “Severance, a veteran of the National Guard …” Unspoken/presumed: “It’s especially heinous when a VETERAN’S rights are violated, because are somehow just a little better than ‘just plain’ citizens”? (Or is it simply ironic that this young man once (allegedly) “defended our freedoms” in the Guard, but now HIS are under attack? Which leads me to my second point … ) 2. Our stalwart “veteran” says, “I can see pulling somebody over and asking them to look at the firearm or check the serial number to see if it comes back stolen … ” Really? How about the cops pulling people over to see their cars, iPods or diamond earrings are stolen? Uh, NO! But Severance believes that somehow, because the property in question is a FIREARM [!!!], all presumption of innocence and your right to go about your business un-harassed by an agent of the State are suspended? Shouldn’t a patriotic veteran better understand the relationship between citizens and public servants?

  • Tanya

    It is not ok for police to violate the US Constitution and our 2nd amendment rights. The police need some serious retraining regarding respecting the Bill of Rights.

    • Notorious_bob

      what makes you think (while they will never admit it) that the police were not trained to make those who lawfully arm themselves, relinquish their arms? They need to disarm us all to prevent any threat to the tyranny.

  • Daniel Joseph

    Typical police response to someone usung their rights.. I would file a civil suit and sue the department.

    • Justsomeguy151

      Better yet, sue the individuals so they will have to get their own attorney, pay the fine and do the time and they won’t be able to hide behind a dept.

  • Andy

    I can understand that if the cops think its odd, they should check. A lot of the time, odd is a problem. However, it needs to be a serial check and FOID card or whatever is needed. I can understand a cop taking possession of the weapon while they conduct the check, but then when it comes back clear and clean, everyone needs to collect their things and move on. Why is it so difficult for people to do the right thing? Especially cops?

    • Dawn

      Technically it’s still a 4th amendment violation to even check. If open carry is legal, and he’s just walking down the street, then there is no probable cause to suspect him of any wrongdoing.

      • Chris

        By my Understanding Open carry is legal every where in the US , and if the state or fed decry other wise it is a 2nd amendment violation.

        • AZSDFT

          Open Carry is no longer allowed in California, Thanks to the re-elected Governor Jerry Brown. When it WAS legal there the firearm had to be unloaded, COMPLETELY. BTW, the reason he banned open carry…. “When people see a gun on someones hip, they think it’s loaded. So we will ban Open Carry”

    • Michael Blitch

      No, I cannot understand any serial numbers being checked. Would you tolerate being pulled over all the time just because they want to check the VIN to see if it was stolen? Unless there was some other reason to detain him, then there is no probable cause to do any kind of search.

      Also, why do you think a Vermont resident would have a FOID card, which only exists in Illinois?

    • Russell Bergeron

      no need to remove a fire arm from a holster ……. they can check without touching his gun. The more it is handled … the more an AD can happen.

  • Dawn

    They said there had been a string of recent shootings in the area. That sounds like a good reason to open carry to me. You’re not likely to be messed with if the bad guys know you can shoot back.

  • Rod

    I think it is the police who need not carry a gun. They shoot more unlawful citizens for no reason. IQs of 2. I am a former police officer and did not have to act like they do. If they are so afraid of not coming at night, they may consider a different occupation. They are more dangerous to us than terrorist!!!

    • Rod

      I meant lawful citizens, sorry

    • squirebond

      You are so right.

  • Razed

    Much better than the last post of yours I read. Keep up the good work.

  • momazilla

    The bullies with badges are afraid of the competition. They assume guilt as a justification for their own violation of the law. And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

  • Bob

    Abiding by the law is pretty much all we have as a society. Unless there is something particularly suspicious about a situation — more-so than simply having a gun — you can’t go around stopping people, it’s harassment and it’s unacceptable. This whole demonization of gun-owners has gotten out of control.

  • linlin

    It is no crime to walk in public with you gun in a holster. Here we do it all the time. We wear ours in a holster while shopping and everywhere we go.

  • Notorious_bob

    They need to fire the cop and the D.A. and the police chief. replace them with AMERICANS!(no, i mean real Americans)

  • jsteele98

    Ah, no big deal. Just the police making sure that the Peasants know who’s the boss.

  • Max

    What would the police officer have done had the individual approached his cruiser with weapon in hand demanding to see some proof that he in fact was a LEGAL policeman? It makes the same sense as does stopping someone walking around with a sidearm in plain view and not displaying any criminal intent!

  • squirebond

    The cops are the worst criminals. The cops are really nothing but terrorists with badges. They do no good at all. When seconds count the cops are a half an hour away finishing their donuts, and struggling to get their fat bellies behind the wheel. Dirty power hungry pigs is what they are even in Rutland. And of course it’s ok to wear a gun on your hip in Rutland and everywhere else in Vermont. These cops kidnapped this guy and they should be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly.

  • Dan

    I could understand if he had the gun in hand, you stop him and check him out. Same would go for somebody wielding a knife walking down the street. But a holstered weapon is perfectly safe and really not suspicious at all. Do they really think a criminal is going to walk around town showing off his holstered handgun? Of course not. A criminal would keep it hidden while a crazy person would have it in their hand.

  • Russell Bergeron

    maybe he was carring a fire arm in responce to recent shootings in the neighborhood also !

  • bossmanham

    Until departments start getting socked with some lawsuits for this crap, it’ll continue.

  • Joshua Fischer

    Agreed! This man needs to sue. Thug officers will not cease their bully tactics if they are able to get away with things like this unscathed.

  • KsWill

    Just to be clear, I think what happened was nothing less than a disgusting “color of law” harassment situation, but please do not add to the crappy journalism that the public has come to expect as truth. The man was handcuffed and thrown in the cruiser from everything I have read, but in order to be arrested you have to be charged with something. The man was detained, which would mean the police officer was investigating him for a crime; but after the police searched the weapon, checked the mans criminal status/history, and determined no crime had been committed he let Severance go on his way. That is bad enough on its own. What the cop did was in fact, after listening to the interviews and reading numerous stories on it, stop and detain a man illegally (I do believe there is even specific case law in that legal circuit which states that legally carrying a firearm does not constitute reason for detainment), but he was not arrested or charged. If you think I am arguing a fine-line/mute point, I encourage you to research the difference for yourself and know your rights under both circumstances. They are greatly different. It also helps to know when the cops are bs’n you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rick.keller.779 Rick Keller

      Just to be clear, most people know that police can detain an individual for up to 48 hours with out charging them. But just to be extra clear, most don’t give a rats ass, because it is still kidnapping, and some lawyer will make some big bucks of of the situation from our crooked system. I won’t shed a tear for a dead cop even when his moronic widow is blabbering about what a good man he was. Good men are not cops these days.

      • shawn haggard

        > Just to be clear, most people know that police can detain an individual for up to 48 hours with out charging them.

        But they do need RAS in order to bring them in.

    • AsylumEntertainment

      The act of depriving a person of his/her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of a crime.

      To seize someone by legal authority and to take into custody.

      Being put in handcuffs and then into a cruiser is an arrest as you have been seized and held in custody.

      To keep someone in official custody, typically for questioning about a crime or in politically sensitive situations.

      To be detained is what happens after having been arrested and can be done for up to 48 hours “IF” there is a legal reason to detain you or to have arrested you. Being that there was no crime and no reason to suspect him of a crime there is absolutely no reason to have arrested and detained him. It is one thing to stop and inquire. An officer is entitled to ask for an ID or ask why the person is carrying a weapon and even to “ask” if they may see the firearm but the citizen is within their rights to comply or refuse to comply. Unless there is a specific reason to suspect the individual of a crime then he or she must be free to go.

  • Quasar5

    there is case law after case law supporting a mans right to carry a legal handgun.. I wonder what police are being taught in the academies since they dont seem to know basic law…

    • ditchd0ctor

      I carry a laminated business card sized copy of the Second Amendment inside the lining of my holster just in case I have to teach anyone who might try to take that right from me. LEO’s.

  • Rusty

    The cops actually do not know the laws … they accept what they are told by higher ups. A law suit needs to be brought against the city … $$$ is all they understand.

  • guynoir

    Well it’s certainly obvious to me that since there had been some shootings in the area recently that the perpetrator is going to walk past a cruiser with an exposed holster and not shirt.

    They lept to some insane conclusion. I think he’s got a false arrest claim waiting for him.

  • JJ

    I hope he sues the shit out of them so their capt makes the entire department take PC classes for a month. LOL I understand the reason for inquire do to all the nuts out there, but YOU CANNOT detain someone on those principals alone or you are going against everything you swore to uphold…

  • nosralt

    Vermont has a Stop and Identify statute. Vermont
    Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983

    However, what happened here was surely a violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments. With the right representation, this man can clean this PD’s house.

  • briggman

    I don’t think firearms are registered in Vermont, are they?

    • jaredswilliams

      They are technically if bought at an FFL. But Vermont’s gun laws are lax, to say the least, as are my states, NH. It’s pretty sweet actually. I don’t really have to worry about silly shit here.

    • mrmike37

      If your firearm is bought at a dealer then it is registered. That is correct. However, there are no carry laws including laws which prevent conceal carry which many Vermonters do. What laws there are, are there to protect the deer; not to limit self defense! The police were WAY out of line.

      • briggman

        No, if you’ buy a weapon from an FFL, then the BATFE and probably the State Police/Bureau of Investigation/whatever could determine the weapons you purchased…but that information’s not automatically transferred to them…the BATFE has to come looking for it.

  • shadeslanding

    Detained is a reasonable of time to conduct a lawful inquiry and do it without handcuffing anyone – if you’re in handcuffs (not free to leave). Then you are under arrest.

  • In Truth

    Citizens must continue to sue municipalities who engage in violating their Constitutional rights, as well as making their improprieties known the world wide via social networking. If events like this continue to get more frequent, it will also get less and less safe to be a police officer, as their violation of the law will make citizens trust them less and less.

  • Andrew

    If the police have probable cause to believe that the person carrying the firearm is a felon, the firearm was stolen, or it was recently used to commit a crime, then I don’t mind them stopping to ask a question. This is absolutely absurd. I legally carry my firearm with me every day, and would be outraged if I was treated as a criminal for doing so.

  • rcon1

    I live in Lake Havasu City AZ, people open carry all the time here, we have virtually no violent crime. All the criminals in California wont dare come here. the local cops don’t harass anyone with a weapon they see it as normal and it works.But the government needs crime to justify there existence so of course the will be against open carry.

  • Bobby Powell

    I am SO glad I live in a free state! Watch as I carry a fully loaded M-14 in downtown Alpena Michigan as I filmed this episode of The Truth Is Viral.


    I hope the gentleman who was arrested gets PAID for the abuse he suffered at the hands of these Nazi cops.

  • Harry Case

    It is absolutely a violation of his rights under the Second Amendment and the law. He should sue for everything he can get.

  • L64FD

    In Connecticut, the state police commissioner went on record to say, “Anyone open carrying a firearm is committing a crime, as it is the definition of Breach of Peace … anyone seen walking with an exposed firearm is breaching someone else’s peace and they will be arrested for it each and every time!”

  • Joe Hughes

    Show off he should have had a loose shirt over it.

    • chris

      Doesnt matter open carry is legal so they can suck one.

    • jess

      like you havnt shown something off shoes,car,watch. he might have felt like showing his berretta off, its his right

  • Paul

    What did they charge him with? There is nothing illegal here, and they know it, yet they still arrested him. THAT is illegal.

  • Kim D Campbell

    Hhmmm. Would this be the same Joshua Severance that managed to shoot himself and his underage girlfriend about 3-½ years ago? And if so (it almost certainly is), one wonders what perhaps other important details are being left out of this story.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      I did a quick online search and found nothing.

      got linky?

  • R

    All of these power-pushing cops need to be put in their place. Fired, no pension. Nada. And hire REAL cops who wish to SERVE the public.

  • John Threetwo

    Does Vermont still claim as the State Motto, “LIVE FREE OR DIE?”

    • walt

      no but New Hampshire still does as they always have

    • Kim

      that is new hampshire’s motto not Vermonts

  • Donald Boxley

    “Conditioning”..Crooked enforcement thugs( not ALL of them) make up laws to excuse our illegal conduct to intimidate peope to decide it is better to cower then to stand up for their rights.

  • walt

    I think his constitutional rights as well as his civil right have been violated not to mention where was reasonable cause he did nothing illegal perhaps if police actually did their job properly there wouldn’t be shootings “in that area” how about unlawful stop illegal detention false arrest false imprisonment charge and sue the hell out of them

  • shooter348

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the mere possession of a firearm is not sufficient reason to detain someone. The officers in question should be sued for violating this mans fourth amendment rights.

    LEO’s like to use the term suspicious circumstances to explain these stops. They will claim “suspicious” just means something that’s out of the ordinary. In order to detain someone however, they need reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

  • Del Olds

    To harass, intimidate and subdue. What happen “To protect and serve”?

    • Malcolm Reynolds

      To Punish and Enslave…

      • dan

        too much transformers bro

  • gman68137

    But I’m sure the DoJ is looking into this, right? Someone’s rights being possibly abused and all. (sigh)

  • Malcolm Reynolds

    When police knowingly and willfully act outside the law and/or violate or constitutional rights, they should be fired immediately, fined(monies to be paid to the victim), and serve mandatory jail time. This should be written into law. Perhaps then LEOs will start behaving properly and conduct themselves as if they are merely citizens like the rest of us and subject to severe punishment if the abuse their “power”. Police should be held to a higher standard. Why aren’t these types of safeguards already in place? We need citizen watchdog groups to watch the watchers…

  • Freedom21

    The police were wrong to have done this, but they didn’t “arrest” Joshua Severance. They detained him for 15 minutes, though it still violates the law.

    • KendraPendragon

      The moment the cuffs go on it’s an arrest.

  • 1911HeadBanger

    If the gun had been concealed, he would have walked right past them and they would never have known. That being said, it’s obvious he was not hiding anything from Police, nor involved in illegal activity. So why the arrest? Even if they only detained him, they cuffed him, locked him in the back cage in a car and forced him to stay there. That act constitutes an arrest. If another citizen had done the same thing, it would have been kidnapping or false imprisonment.

  • Ted Truslow

    Everyone who is in favor of this suspect and opposed to the Police should be prepared for addition costs of policing. When people walk around in public with a visible firearm it generates calls to the Dispatcher from concerned citizens. These calls are given out to the closet patrolling units and a stop that will occupy the time of at least two to four Police Officers will be made. The additional time spent on verifying if the suspect is or is not a threat to the public is time consuming. If the suspect is released by the investigating officers and then becomes involved in a shooting. The releasing officers and their employing departments will be held liable for any damages that the suspect does after his or her release. So everyone if favor of having people walk around with visible firearms should forfeit the privilege of complaining about additional local taxes that will be levied to support additional officers in the field. This is an unneeded and costly way of walking around in public. If it is not illegal, then it should be made illegal.

    • Steve Adams

      Which country are you planning on moving to, Ted? You seem to have trouble grasping this “America” thing.

    • Levi Dietrich

      Wow, You are in a HURRY to See Tyranny grow. cops shouldn’t even be checking someone open carrying. it is LEGAL. We have a second amendment for a reason. Even if guns were completely outlawed, it will not stop shootings, Period. Cops are not obligated to protect anyone, according to a supreme court ruling a while back. So even if he walked two houses down and mowed down a few people, the Cops WILL NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, so that whole point is baseless. Every day you statists blow my mind with your level of ignorance, and your willingness to be oppressed. Disarmament only affects the good guys.

    • aroc91

      Your entire argument is destroyed by the simple fact that Black v. N. Carolina determined open carry as not being reasonable suspicion of a crime.

    • JJC

      this is America, you know land of the free…

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Dear Mr. Truslow, opposed to police, no; opposed to being powerless to protect and serve people in need, yes.

      Police officers are not obligated under law to protect citizens.

      For the most part, everything you wrote incorrect, naive, dangerous.

      Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 3 August 2013

      In the United States, you can get a pizza delivered faster than you can get the police to come to your home!
      To serve but not protect

      He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.

      But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

      But Obama says we are supposed to turn in our weapons and rely on the police to protect us?
      Warren v. District of Columbia

      Warren v. District of Columbia – 1981 – Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.

      When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

      By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]

      The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.
      Castle Rock v. Gonzales

      WASHINGTON – June, 2005 – The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

      The police didn’t respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnaping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

      For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

      Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

      Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, its police department, and the three individual police officers with whom she had spoken under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Federally-protected property interest in enforcement of the restraining order and alleging “an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations.” A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected Gonzales’s substantive due process claim but found a procedural due process claim; an en banc rehearing reached the same conclusion. The court also affirmed the finding that the three individual officers had qualified immunity and as such could not be sued.

      The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, reinstating the District Court’s order of dismissal. The Court’s majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

      The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.

      Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197

      According to the complaint, Yolanda Davidson was stabbed four times by Jack Blackmun while in a public laundromat. On three earlier occasions women had been stabbed at the same or nearby laundromats. The evening before Yolanda’s stabbing, two police officers had the laundromat under surveillance when another stabbing occurred; the police chased the suspect but failed to catch him. The next evening the officers had the laundromat under surveillance for the purpose of preventing assaults and apprehending the felon. The officers were aware of Yolanda’s presence in the laundromat throughout the surveillance. After about an hour of surveillance, they saw a man on the premises who closely resembled the attacker of the previous evening and, while watching him for 15 minutes, identified him as the likely perpetrator of that assault. As the officers watched, the suspect entered and left the laundromat “several times.” The officers did not warn Yolanda. Eventually she was stabbed.

      Yolanda seeks to recover from the city and the officers on the basis of causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect, and failure to warn. The causes of action in negligence allege that special relationships existed between Yolanda and the officers as well as between the assailant and the officers, each of which imposed a duty of care on the officers. fn. 1

      Defendants demurred, contending (1) that no “special relationship” giving rise to a duty of care existed under the allegations of the complaint, and (2) that, in any event, the action was barred under the immunity provisions of Government Code section 845, which absolve a public entity or employee of liability for failure to provide adequate police protection. fn. 2 Without indicating the grounds for its ruling, the trial court sustained the demurrer. On this appeal, plaintiffs maintain that neither of the defendants’ arguments support the trial court judgment.

      1982 -A husband and wife who were assaulted in a Laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn.

      The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.

      The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.
      Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6

      The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff’s decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

      Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.

      Appellant has failed to plead facts supporting an assumption that a special relationship existed between decedent and the San Jose Police Department. The allegation that the police had responded 20 times to her calls and had arrested her husband once does not indicate that the department had assumed a duty toward decedent greater than the duty owed to another member of the public. The police may have responded repeatedly to her calls, only to discover that she was not in danger. Absent an indication that the police had induced decedent’s reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide her with protection, it must be concluded that no special relationship existed and that appellant has not stated a cause of action.

      The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

      Linda Riss v. City of New York

      Linda Riss, an attractive young woman, was for more than six months terrorized by a rejected suitor well known to the courts of this State, one Burton Pugach. This miscreant, masquerading as a respectable attorney, repeatedly threatened to have Linda killed or maimed if she did not yield to him: ‘If I can’t have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you’. In fear for her life, she went to those charged by law with the duty of preserving and safeguarding the lives of the citizens and residents of this State. Linda’s repeated and almost pathetic pleas for aid were received with little more than indifference. Whatever help she was given was not commensurate with the identifiable danger. On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her ‘last chance’. Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused. The next day Pugach carried out his dire threats in the very manner he had foretold by having a hired thug throw lye in Linda’s face. Linda was blinded in one eye, lost a good portion of her vision in the other, and her face was permanently scarred.

      For all of these reasons, there is no warrant in judicial tradition or in the proper allocation of the powers of government for the courts, in the absence of legislation, to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public. Quite distinguishable, of course, is the situation where the police authorities undertake responsibilities to particular members of the public and expose them, without adequate protection, to the risks which then materialize into actual losses (Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75, 180 N.Y.S.2d 265, 154 N.E.2d 534).

      Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.
      DeShaney v. Winnebago County

      Rehnquist’s opinion stated that although the DSS’s failure to act may have made it liable for a tort under Wisconsin state law, the 14th Amendment does not transform every tort by a state actor into a violation of Constitutional Rights. Specifically, the act of creating a Department of Social Services to investigate and respond to allegations of child abuse may have meant that Winnebago County assumed a duty to prevent what Randy DeShaney did to Joshua DeShaney, and failure to fulfill that duty may have constituted a tort.

      In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders.

      1991 – In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.
      Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803

      Professor Van Alstyne has stated: “A public entity is not liable for injuries caused by ‘failing to enforce any law.’ Govt C § 818.2.public employees enjoy a similar immunity: They are not liable for injuries caused by ‘failure to enforce an enactment.’ Govt C § 821. ‘Law’ is broader in scope than ‘enactment,’ including not only statutes, ordinances, charter provisions, rules, and regulations, but also state and federal decisional law as far as applicable in California. Govt C §§ 810.6, 811. … The immunity in § 818.2 prevails over statutory entity liabilities that do not clearly indicate otherwise. Govt C § 815(b), 815.2(b). … For example, it supersedes the liability imposed by Govt C § 815.6 for failure to discharge a mandatory duty.” (Van Alstyne, California Government Tort Liability (Cont. Ed. Bar 1964) § 5.46, p. 154.)

      An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the ‘Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

      South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.)

      DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the State’s knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a “special relationship” giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain “special relationships” created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html

      The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.

      Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

      Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

      Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      As a side note, we have had a meth dealer in our neighborhood for two years now. From the chemical smells coming from their unit, it appears they are actually manufacturing. We have complained to the cops constantly. One of our neighbors son is a member of the Honolulu Police Department and he has filed a report. But nothing has been done. The police are too busy writing lucrative traffic tickets and “monitoring” the Occupy Honolulu people to actually deal with real crimes.

  • Steve Adams

    Where open carry is illegal, only criminals have guns. With cops like this where open carry IS legal, who even needs criminals? We need to evolve past the idea that a uniform and a badge make you a better person. They don’t. It’s just a job like everything else, and some people are not fit for their job, just like everything else. This officer should be suspended or fired but the unions never do the right thing. The “Blue Wall” only cares about sustaining itself at all costs.

  • Brandon Pinkston

    Anyone carrying a firearm besides a cop is a threat to the establishment and every other person who freaks out at the sight of a gun. Honestly it’s a pathetic response. To break them into the realization that carrying a firearm is legal – we all should carry one everyday.

  • ditchd0ctor

    As I renewed my pistol permit a few weeks ago, I asked the little lady clerk to clarify Alabama’s “open-carry” law and the new changes. A deputy that was hanging out in this office, and having nothing to do with issuing permits or any other business performed in this office, butted into the conversation. He said, ” Well, sure you can carry guns openly, but just be warned…it is a cop magnet!” His comment and his intentional intimidating stance and expression were very off-putting to me. I am a 43 year old woman who has served in the Army National Guard, suffered abuse and violence in the past and will die protecting my daughter from the same, plus I am a well-seasoned paramedic who has worked hand in hand with the county deputies for years. He knows me well enough to know that I would not intentionally cause problems of any type. I was raised a southern girl with a daddy who believed in teaching his daughters to change tires, oil, and clips. He also taught his girls to not take any bullshit from anyone…..ANYONE! So, bring it on! Approach me about my weapon for no reason and harass me again. I know a couple of great lawyers who would like to discuss it with the judge. One is a best friend and the other is my father in law.

  • Joseph C. Carbone III

    What is worse and in the same category: President Obama, a free man, terrorizes good citizens while criminals like him and these ignorant, possible mal-intended copies imprison and steal life, for a day or from this earth.

    A mockery of the people is that Bradley Manning stood trial, that President Obama is free, that a man can do what is noble and be hunted.

    Where is the reprieve; where is the voice of the people?

    Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 3 August 2013, mobile

  • SSGjughead

    I am a veteran and want to plant my American flag down my neighbors throat but the police won’t like me, what should I do?

    • ditchd0ctor

      Thank you for your service, SSG! I am also offended by my rights being trampled. I was trained as a child how to properly use a firearm for food and protection, then was retrained according to US GOV standards. As you know, I also had to be prepared for what the eff ever I was told to do with said firearm. I sure as hell won’t let that same government, who paid me an income to carry a firearm, harass or take away my right to wear my firearm openly as a private citizen. I WANT to make a potential attacker aware that he doesn’t have a chance with me. If my weapon is visible, then it is a deterrent. It is also within my rapid and easy reach. I don’t have to dig through my purse or reach under my clothing for access. Also, why would I make myself a focal point for the public eye by openly carrying if I planned on committing a crime. People who fear lawful firearms users should wake up! Be glad to have someone in your presence that is obviously prepared to return fire if the need arises! “Gun control” in my personal life dictionary means a firm grip and the balls to pull the trigger! I’m proud to be one of the three eyed monsters!!

  • Nikkikoley

    I think it would have been acceptable for the officer to approach him and ask for information about the weapon, then when they found out it was legal he could have just gone on his way. Because it also would not have been right to have allowed him to pass without notice if the weapon HAD been illegal There’s a fine line between an officer doing their job (apprehanding lawbreakers), and overstepping their bounds and offending law abiding citizens.

  • TeeJohn

    I live where guns have been carried in the open as far back as I can remember. It is not the gun that is or should be of concern, it is the behavior of the person carrying the gun. This police behavior is not going to stop until these officers are locked up for a month in county. If the police union bellows, put the union president in there with them.

  • Jokef1000

    If the police won’t obey the law then soon the citizens won’t obey it either.

  • Ted Truslow

    Levi, thank you for your response. You must remember, this is a cause and effect real world that we live in. Constitutional rights or no constitutional rights, this unnecessary waste of police time and research will mean higher local taxes for people like yourself when you least can afford it. When this happens I want you to remember what you just told me. Stand tall in front of the nearest mirror and thank yourself for the higher taxes you will be paying.

  • Patty

    People in the civilized northeast are not impressed by some narcissist who wants attention by walking around with no shirt on and a gun hanging from his belt. If this were done in the mountain states or the southwest, it wouldn’t get any attention, but if you need to carry a gun in the northeast section of the country (and it is your right), at least have consideration for the people who are frightened by the sight of a gun being carried around by a shirtless man advertising that he is looking for a gunfight. Rutland, Vermont is no O.K. Corral.

    • Mike Roberson


    • el

      Gee, Patty, people who are frightened by the sight of a black man walking through their neighborhood OK with you, too? You have an interesting interpretation of what’s “allowed” and what’s not. My take on walking around with a gun is that you DO NOT want a fight of any kind. You should also look up the circumstances of the OK Corral.

    • EMcK

      Wow. Talk about bigotry. The ‘civilized northeast’ has no use for open carry sidearms, but those uncivilized bumpkins in the mountain and southwest states ‘dun pay it no mind ‘tall’.

  • Steve G

    live in Vermont.. there are no registered handguns. All you need to
    conceal carry is a drivers license. There is no open carry in Vermont.
    Also even a felon can posses but not buy a firearm under state laws but
    not federal, which is stupid but true. I have doubts about this article. I got stopped once for open carrying in a mall back in the 80’s. I have had no problems since.

    • el

      Interesting. Is there a law *against* open carry in Vermont? So if your jacket blows open you can be arrested? That sucks. I know that the towns can make their own laws, or could, making it illegal to carry in their town, in certain areas, etc. I don’t doubt the article, btw. Open carry is perfectly legal in NH, but folks who do are often harassed by LEOs who imagine the law instead of knowing it.

    • Joe T

      Vermont has no ‘laws’prohibiting open carry, therefore open carry is ‘legal,

  • wdtony

    That’s why I have a CCDW license and conceal my weapon…. because I know I would be harassed by the police if it were visible. I have been pulled over for “walking down the street” at least 100 times over the last 20 years and I am always told that since I am walking at night that it is suspicious. I do not believe that action is reasonable cause for a stop and identify.

    Then again, look at it from the cop’s perspective…. their job is to protect and serve as guardians of the state of the people. I would probably have stopped him too if I saw a gun, just out of a sense of duty; however, I see no reason for an arrest or handcuffs….that is harassment in my opinion.

    I understand why the police do it but I don’t think they have a legal right to do so. It leaves me with a bad feeling when the police break the law, coerce and lie. Police are held to a higher standard in society, I think they should also hold themselves to that standard.

    • Rod Martin, Jr.


      I was stopped by police one night in Los Angeles. It was 3am, and I was walking home from work after a grueling, marathon project. I was 19 years old.

      I was with a 20-something friend. We were deep in a philosophical conversation and, because no one else seemed to be around, we weren’t paying much attention to anything.

      At one point, a Rampart Division police car pulled up next to us and asked us to stop and show our ID. I didn’t have any. They said that we had walked against a red light when crossing the street half a block back. They also said that it was suspicious that we were walking at 3am. And they said that it was unusual for a white man and a black man to be walking together. Yikes! How racist!

      Okay, so they got us on crossing against a red light at 3am when no other vehicles were around. Busted! We were “criminals!” But all of the other talk was irrelevant garbage.

      They finally apologized to my friend when he showed his Chicago police identity. Suddenly, they were far more courteous.

      • wdtony

        Wow, great story! I try to give them credit because I am sure patrolling at night can be boring, but if that’s the case I would be more than happy to talk about the weather for an hour…. instead of criminalizing being out at night :)

  • Carden

    Being out of the ordinary isn’t probable cause. Carrying a gun is not probable cause. There was no reason to stop this guy whatsoever. Just start presuming everyone is guilty? Learn the law officers, then do your job. And JUST your job.

    • EMcK

      Exactly. What bugs me the most is the assumption of guilt. It’s not ‘uncommon’ to restrain someone in handcuffs until they ‘check out’? Christ, that could be broadened to fit nearly any situation.

  • Carden

    All this talk about “the officers can stop you and ask questions about the gun and they are just doing their duty” is garbage. What if there has been a couple car thefts? Should they stop everyone in town to make sure they aren’t driving the stolen car? Give me a break. THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP THIS GUY. Whether he was wearing a shirt or not is irrelevant. So now we don’t like someone’s attire so they suddenly become suspect? Please stop this nonsensical logic. Until people protest this abuse of power it will continue to get worse and worse.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    Do the police routinely stop you to ensure your car wasn’t reported as stolen? Then why do they routinely ASSUME a firearm is stolen, and the gun owner is guilty until he proves himself to be innocent?

    This practice is even more disturbing given that our US Constitution and most state constitutions specifically recognize the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and offer no such specific protections for transportation, vehicles, etc.

  • Glenda LaHaye

    I think police officers need to revisit the oath they took. And then they need to honor it.

  • Rod Martin, Jr.

    They trample not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th Amendment.

    One thing I don’t like about such stories is that they tend to rub our noses in the negative. Focusing attention on injustice usually ends up creating more injustice. What you put your attention on, you tend to create more of. That’s human nature and it’s part of creation. It’s negative goal setting.

    Instead of journalism old style, how about adding a new dimension to the reporting. Don’t leave a sour taste in our mouths. Add a sidebar clearly labeled “opinion” or “activate” and place there the things we can do that will give us what we want. Paint us a picture of “smooth sailing all the way.” Give us the address of the Police Department there, the State Attorney General and anyone else who might kick some oath-of-office sense into those police officers. Perhaps we could have the officers suspended or even arrested for breaking the law. Accountability with our government is a beautiful thing.

  • Mike Roberson


  • SCSharron

    Maybe more of us should be walking around with our guns, so it’s not such an unusual sight…

  • SCSharron

    Couldn’t he sue the police for violating his civil rights?
    If we don’t stand up for our rights & freedoms, who will stand up for us?

    • Shane Thomasson

      Unfortunately we have this thing called soveriegn immunity which blocks the individual wrongdoer in govt from being penalized for criminal actions. The usual response for something like this is “suspension” aka paid vacation. Then an internal agency will rubber stamp it as a perfectly legal action, even if witnesses and video show otherwise. If a lawsuit is successful, payment comes not from the wrongdoers but from taxpayers. This needs to change.

  • dspncr

    I can see cops asking questions and being sure it is legal. I get it- a firearm is more sensitive than a car. I am thankful that they are checking. There are some people that are carrying firearms that NONE of us are comfortable with. As an avid shooter/owner I would say it sounds like the cops shouldn’t have gotten so extreme from the beginning. But did the gun owner show attitude? If I was a cop I would certainly be more protective if the person I had asked these questions of was being “defensive”. I know cops are real people and, even though they are thoroughly trained, can allow emotions and public pressure to steer their decisions.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Dear friend, it seems you are okay with losing your rights for no good reason.

      ‘You are thankful they are checking’ to see what, if the guy lost his right to be a human?

    • dirtty

      So you’re okay with checkpoints? How many criminals do you know that walk around with a firearm on their side?

    • nomark

      Maybe you have never heard of United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee.

      The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added.]

      While the above decision is from a 1st Amendment case, in today’s world, the rest of the Bill of Rights can be no less regarded. If you are not standing up for your rights (aka Rosa Parks) you don’t have any!

    • http://www.markgwoodworth.com/ Mark Woodworth, Ph.D.

      I guess i can pull a cop over for carrying a firearm. NOTHING odd here, its legal. The cops were wrong. Get it?

  • Clintok

    The city police are accountable to the mayor. I am going to write a respectful email to the mayor and inquire about any additional details. His information is below. I would ask that those who are unhappy about it maintain an air of professionalism and respect, which is the best way to apply civil pressure in the event of something like this.

    Name: Mayor Christopher C. Louras
    Email: mayorlouras@gmail.com
    Work phone: 773-1800

    Thank you,

  • DalasKnight

    I think police had better get used to seeing people carrying firearms! It is going to become more commonplace as time goes by!

  • Iconic Freedom

    Unless there is injury, there is no cause of action, thus no reason for the police to stop anyone. it’s the CORPORATION, ruling as monarchy and feigned government.

  • libertynorth

    No need of this at all.

  • probasketballtalk

    It’s sad when your friends blindly side with police and government and act as if government has never supressed their citizens.

  • SRQTad

    Wow! I lived in Rutland 50 years ago as a Kindergartener at NE Elementary. Shot my first gun with my Dad while we were there (NOT at somebody’s range). Nobody thought anything of it… I thought VT was still and open-carry State… My how times change.

  • highlanderjuan

    Was the cop within his legal bounds seizing Joshua Severance and his firearm? This is a section of the Vermont Constitution:

    Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and
    the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

    This is a section of the Vermont statutes – it has been around for about 25 years:

    § 2295. Authority of municipal and county governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, hunting, fishing and trapping

    Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter. (Added 1987, No. 178 Adj. Sess.), eff. May 9, 1988.)

  • highlanderjuan

    Was this a Terry Stop?

    Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968) — In what has since been coined a ‘‘Terry stop,’’ the Court held that when anofficer can point to ‘‘specific and articulable facts’’ that support a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous and that ‘‘criminal activity may be afoot,’’ a brief detention and pat-down are permissible. The lynchpin of the Terry Court’s analysis is reasonableness, and the Court emphasized that the officer’s conduct must be justified at its inception and reasonable in its scope. As the lone dissenter, Justice Douglas criticized the majority’s ‘‘water[ing] down of constitutional guarantees’’ in relaxing the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause.

    Absent reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous and that ‘‘criminal activity may be afoot,’’ a brief detention and pat-down are not permissible.

  • nomark

    Vermont is an “Vermont carry” state. Which means you can carry open or concealed anyplace unless it’s posted firearms are not allowed. I think this cop forgot what state he was living in, probably figured it was NYC or Chicago.

    Also the “victim” got it wrong. The cops have no right to “run the guns serial number” to see if it’s stolen unless they have probable cause it was. In fact since it was openly carried, the likelihood that was stolen was even less. That would be a violation of his 4th Amendment.

    Furthermore a “terry stop” is one in which the police have some reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Walking is not a crime. Walking w/o a shirt is not a crime. Walking w/o a shirt and with a gun it not a crime, but it’s one they want to be a crime. A “terry stop” is supposed to be for the officers safety, not the rousting of the public for exercising a constitutionally recognized right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KevinBCav Kevin Cavanaugh

    I agree with parts of the article but not all of it. One comment here said something like, “who would be walking around with a holstered weapon if they were a robber (or murderer for that matter)? Well, police can’t make that assumption. Anyone armed with a weapon – in a holster or tucked in the waist or even in one’s hand, can be dangerous to citizens and authorities. I agree that the officer could have asked to see the weapon to call in the serial number to verify it is not a stolen weapon and to verify ownership.
    Here is the glitch however – if the officer did not stop the individual and a few blocks down the road the person with the gun robbed a convenience store or entered his own wife’s place of employment and shot up the place or simply began shooting at passing cars – citizens everywhere would be up in arms that the police did not do enough to protect them – in fact, they would want that officer’s head on a platter.
    Where I disagree with law enforcement is when they “throw someone into a cruiser – especially if it has not been determined a crime has been committed. My guess is that the man was not thrown in the cruiser – he probably was held and placed in the cruiser – maybe some force was used if the man resisted in some way shape or form. A witness might be able to clarify whether force was used or if the officer encountered a lot of resistance. If the gun owner displayed a lot of “attitude” it could have resulted in some kind of confrontation that neither individual wanted.

    • americanvirtues

      Doughnuts kill people, the government should shut down doughnut shops because they lead to obesity related illnesses, my uncle ted died in that neighborhood the week before this happened.

      The police are public servants that must follow the law, not harass and in”terror”gate. protecting the citizens within the boundaries of said laws.

      You should watch the HBO series “The Wire” it really is an eye opener.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Dear Mr. Cavanaugh,

      There is truly little wonder why this country is traveling backwards.

      “Police can’t make that assumption.” Exactly, police have no right to bother people who have done nothing wrong. Why have not you understood this?

      Property and your papers are personal business. A serial number on someone’s property is confidential unless that person is reasonably suspected to have committed a crime.

      If someone with a gun or a hammer is intent on doing harm and there is no known aggression, it is the responsibility of the community, neighbors, and households to be prepared, and the police and sheriffs to stop wasting resources on frivolous calls.

      Wasting resources is where the money is made and power is grabbed, so I do not expect them to stop the unlawful behavior that you are supporting in your writing until people like you understand the principles that founded this country and reject these behaviors of theirs.

      You would do well to liberate yourself from the bureaucratic corporate-minded government mentality that uses ignorance to corral people into adolescent dispositions: losing life, liberty, and happiness. Because, what they are taking is the understanding of self-empowerment, independence, and others personal resources for themselves.

      May God forbid, that one day you are powerless when you need to be empowered, and consider that these policing policies are potent tactics of harassment.

      Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 5 August 2013

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

      So should police stop every person in a car on the off chance that they might be a drunk driver? After all, if that person kills somone a mile down the road and that officer COULD have stopped it when he saw the guy driving by doing nothing wrong…

    • http://www.markgwoodworth.com/ Mark Woodworth, Ph.D.

      moron. the law says he is in his rights. 2nd Amendment. Stop being a toadie.

  • Sally_Oh

    Because there was a recent shooting in the neighborhood, the cops should have gotten out and shaken his hand!!! That would have been an appropriate response.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

      No, an appropriate response would have been to do nothing, since the man wasn’t breaking any laws. The job of the police is to enforce laws. If they had lginitimate reason to believe he was a suspect in a crime (matching a description, etc) then that would be a different story. However, assuming that a man with a gun is a shooter days later, is like pulling you over for a past hit and run just because you’re driving a car.

      • Sally_Oh

        I stand corrected. Thank you. I was heading down a slippery slope…

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

          Wait, now I’m confused. Apparently I was incorrect in reading your initial post as sarcasm?

          • Sally_Oh

            Not sarcasm: I was thinking the cops should have shaken the guy’s hand, thanking him for being another force for good. But I think your response would be the most appropriate: NOTHING.

        • http://www.markgwoodworth.com/ Mark Woodworth, Ph.D.

          you were fine.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Absolutely agreed, who better to encourage and show support than one involved daily in protecting and serving…


    Even dumb cops that F up are protected by the system, if they where held accountable for being stupid, they would stop doing stupid things, It was an illegal search and arrest, if they put handcuffs on you are under arrest ain’t ya, sue the dumb shits. Everything is illegal in this free country, every week it devolves more and more, we are truly doomed. Cops don’t seem to have to know the rules, just enemy citizens do, I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse, o, only when it is to THEIR benefit. sue em, all of em

  • James Panzo

    The only thing missing from today’s police uniforms are the swaztikas.

  • Jordan

    This was illegal activity by the police, and Joshua should sue the department’s pants off for violation of civil liberties.


  • Jimmy

    Need to flood the department with calls!

  • Aaron Mullen

    The police department does not have magical free money to give out from a law suit. Money received from a suit would come from the community. So are you saying that every member of that community owes this guy money because he was detained for a short while as the Police Officers erred on the side of caution? I think an apology should suffice.

    • http://www.markgwoodworth.com/ Mark Woodworth, Ph.D.

      The police are agents of the town, and yes, if the cops do stupid or illegal stuff, the town pays…..’i guess you would not mind getting detained for a “short while’ —having your ass arrested— when doing something perfectly legal? Sheesh.

    • Chad Miller

      An apology and fire the officers involved. Police are not above the law and this could constitute kidnapping charges if you want to get technical about it.

    • aroc91

      They didn’t “err on the side of caution”. They blatantly defied federal court rulings. It has been determined that carrying a firearm is NOT probably cause and thus, by itself, is not enough reason to detain or arrest somebody.

    • Ken Phillips

      YES The mayor is elected by the people.The police chief is appointed by the mayor. The mayor is under the obligation to act in accordance with the law and the will of the people. If there’s a problem it is the responsibility of the people to get their fat asses out of their recliners and fix it. If they fall short then the offended should be compensated BY THE PEOPLE!! DUH!!

  • Scootimus

    I think that the officer should be able to ask a simple question. “Excuse me sir, do you have a carry permit for that firearm?” If yes, “May I see that, please?” If no, then a law had been broken and an arrest made. Done!

    • godansean

      No carry permits required in Vermont. Open carry and concealed carry do not require permits. So the officer is out of line detaining someone SIMPLY because he is carrying a firearm. If I am not mistaken, probable cause that a crime (injury to person, and/or damage to property) has been committed is within the jurisdiction of law enforcement; not arbitrary harassment.

      • Tom Jones III

        Open carry is the law in Vermont. There was no probable cause to stop and detain this person, let alone cuff and put into a patrol car.

  • Anthony White

    Pigs like this are exactly what is going to start the next civil war..

  • burlofearl

    this fat ass pig should be charge with harassment. this is totally uncalled for and the pig should be written up. these damn pigs go out of there way to harass law abiding citizen instead of locking up criminals.

  • ded2me

    I am surprised the man was not beaten and tasered multiple times for this heinous crime. After all, these guns have a mind of their own. Spontaneously jumping from your hip to blast everyone in sight.

  • mf

    You do have the right to resist an unlawful arrest………;)

  • tgbotg

    I sincerely doubt someone who is guilty of those kinds of shootings that the police used as their excuse would openly and blatantly carry their firearm around with them like he did. If you’re guilty of something like that, it’s more likely he would have tried hiding it or finding another route to wherever he was going.

  • Roger Ek

    Meanwhile, just two states away in Maine, a man was arrested for terrorizing for possession of a toy gun. Police all over our country are locking up people for doing what “is not commonplace”. We are losing our freedom. Law enforcement is doing exactly what it has been trained to do.

  • Cammie F.

    This really has more to do with how sheltered our Police and Citizens are from what our true liberties are. We have been trained thru media/Hollywood to think it’s dangerous to have a gun. And because we have stopped carrying weapons in public it has become abnormal to see one and so therefore the Un-informed react strongly. The Police Dept. in this situation reacted poorly but so have we as Americans. To hide, comply, and act as if the PC culture is smarter than our Bill of Rights and the Constitution shows what we really have done! So we must begin to take it back… Stand up… educate… and make aware our liberties by USING OUR LIBERTIES!

    • George W Dodson

      Dito. Thank’s

  • Jonathan Schreiber

    If the officer were to have walked up and asked him some questions pertaining to the legality of the firearm that would be great, just an officer concerned about his community doing his job. IF the gentleman had not complied to answering questions about the firearm, or refused to let him inspect it, for serial number etc, then treating him like a potential criminal would be warranted. If he was being cooperative however, cuffing him and putting him in the squad car etc is an abuse of power. Our criminal justice system says we are innocent until proven guilty, if the story is accurate it definitely sounds like this was not the case in this situation.

  • ed

    .No, it’s not reasonable stop him. That’s why they stop you today because people left their guns in the closets and now when they see somebody with a gun they think they have the right to stop them, they don’t any part of freedom you don’t exercise, you will lose. They have no right to ask you any questions people study your Constitution and Bill of Rights.Don’t tell me about today’s times! the ones responsible for today’s times are in Washington DC that you lap their shoes every time they speak.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Something went wrong. The comment above is for you. JCCIII

  • Joseph C. Carbone III

    1995 Video of Eric Holder: We Must ‘Brainwash’ People Against Guns

    see video: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-against-guns/?sa=X&ei=xrEHUpfcJ4m6yAGG74D4AQ&ved=0CA0QqwQ

    Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 11 August 2013

  • Ken Phillips

    If someone is not breaking the Law then the gestapo should leave them the hell alone!! Just that simple . The law should not be open to random interpretation .

  • Sean Rallis

    is my hometown!!! I am shocked. Most of the cops there are very
    friendly toward privately owned and carried weapons. I have been pulled
    over with a veritable arsenal visible in my car, and never had an
    officer bat an eye. Very disappointing, especially since the very act
    of carrying a weapon is specifically protected due to the Vermont
    Supreme Court’s 1903 “Vermont Carry” ruling, which prohibits the
    regulation of carrying firearms. No municipality can enact any law or
    ordinance banning the carry of firearms, and the state or municipalities
    may never require a license for carry. This is a complete and total
    fail by the police.

  • Tom Jones III

    Now you know how blacks feel about “stop and frisk” . . .

    • Kevin Mitchell

      Making stop and frisk a race issue is dangerous; stop and frisk is illegal because it is unconstitutional not because they are not frisking enough white people. An illegal policy applied racially does not get better when it is applied evenly. Just stop the policy all together.

      • Tom Jones III

        Excellent point, Kevin. Thank you for clarifying what is true here – stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

  • Dan H

    Cops need to learn the law before enforcing it.

  • MVT1234

    What the article DOESN’T tell you, is that he was kicked out of the national guard for illegal drug use… And I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want somebody who was using illegal drugs to be carrying a firearm around my neighborhood. Just sayin.

    • USpolicestate

      The US drug laws as they are today, have only existed for a few decades.In the early 1900’s, anyone could buy and use any drug they chose when retail corporations like Sears sold coke, heroin, thc elixers by mail order and pharmacies sold them OTC. Also, up until 1968, anyone could mail order a rifle,shotgun, handgun by mail having it sent straight to their house with no FFL license holder as the middleman. I scratch my head in wonder of why there are so many people that have to hold to the fake 2 party system of being a Repub or Demo. Things need to be taken back to a time when real LIBERTY existed and get the hell out of this US nanny police state ideology of partisan politics. You’re the type that would agree with the Oregon sheriff Mike Winters denying Cynthia Willis her CCL renewal when finding out she was approved for MMJ. Guess what happened to the sheriff when Cynthia appealed his denial ? The sheriff LOST, and Cynthia got her CCL renewal. THAT is the way it should be. THAT is freedom. As I mentioned above, there was a time in the US when the Govt and police did not hassle people over such issues. You probably also have no problems with the US holding 25% of the world’s prison population either making it the world’s leading number one jailer nation. Things like this is why I’m a 3rd party Independent Libertarian.

  • The FC

    Registered Handgun?? This is Vermont, there is no ‘Registered’ guns… You don’t need a permit to carry a handgun concealed or open in VT.

  • jerrymcqke349

    The guy says, “I can see pulling somebody over and asking them to look at the firearm or check the serial number to see if it comes back stolen. . . ”

    Why? You don’t see police stopping cars all the time just to “see” if they’re stolen. You don’t see police stopping people just to “see” if their smartphone is stolen. Etc. Ridiculous. And, Vermont is SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Carry state!

    • Dave

      Living in Florida, a constitutionally guaranteed CCW state and a place where we are fighting for open carry which should also be constitutionally allowed (but I digress) I tend to agree with you.

      I al so agree that this situation and occurrence is absolutely horrendous. But I wonder, where do you draw the line between my resonant rights and an officer’s sworn duty to protect and serve the public? Would he be remiss if he didn’t stop and just try a concentual encounter?

      Doing nothing is not acceptable. Could you imagine the media coverage if the man did do something terrible and the media pointed to an officer who saw the man heading in that direction and didn’t stop to ask him?

      BTW, we do routinely stop vehicles to make sure they are safe, not stolen, sober, etc; we call them check points. Sure, FBI statistics show us criminals don’t usually open carry, but the unusual nature of the incident may warrant further consensual investigation.

  • jerrymcqke349

    The guy says, “I can see pulling somebody over and asking them to look at the firearm or check the serial number to see if it comes back stolen. . . ”

    Why? You don’t see police stopping cars all the time just to “see” if they’re stolen. You don’t see police stopping people just to “see” if their smartphone is stolen. Etc. Ridiculous. And, Vermont is SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Carry state!

  • arber

    complete bullshit. only in america this happens!

  • JackBuckeye

    Hey Vermonters, just flood Rutland with open carry Freedom and Unity Minutemen. That’ll show em!

  • Christopher Michael Moore

    There is a right way for a cop to talk to a citizen legally carrying. Be nice. Ask to check the number in case it was stolen. Develop a friendly rapport with the individual. Next time the cop sees the person who carried, all he has to do is wave, say hello, and how are things. Developing a rapport with the citizens is better than intimidating them.

  • Dennis Davis

    That guy needs to pack his bags and move down to Georgia. Get away from those communist Yankees up there in Vermont. Everybody can wear a gun if he wants to in Georgia.

  • wjp

    Who cares…the author of the article is HOT!

  • jcrawford

    I would file a lawsuit from wrongful arrest. They cannot stop a person walking solely because they see a firearm. That is against the law!! You would think Rutland police would know this, yep I would have an attorney file a suit against them making him look like a criminal on the streets. If the sole reason they stopped him was even to run the serial on the firearm that is illegal also, watch the video below and reference the mentioned cases.


  • Jerome Cook

    John Sylvie a douche bag piece of shit if he stoped me I would have balls hanging from a trophy. He’s a Rutvegas slap nut dumb ass fat pig. Sue his donut eating ass.