Springfield PD: Demonstrator with AR-15 is within the law
»Play Video
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- A Medford man has taken his second amendment rights demonstration to cities around Oregon by filming walks down their streets with a semi-automatic rifle strapped to his back.
In a series of Youtube videos the man calls himself the "Marked Guardian" and he said that he hopes his videos educate people about the right to bear arms in Oregon.
The open carry video posted Jan. 22, the man (addressed as Warren) brought his AR-15 and sidearm to the streets of downtown Springfield.
"Hey guys, this is the marked guardian, I’m out here in Springfield Oregon I'm gonna exercise my right to bear arms,” Warren said as he turned around to display his firearms.
After viewing the video, Sergeant Richard Lewis with the Springfield Police Department told KVAL News that the man knows that police will try to contact him.
“We’re going to show up, he knows this,” said Sgt. Lewis.
The “Marked Guardian” talks to officers on camera about his second amendment rights.
“I wanna show that there's professional officers that know our rights and are constitutional,” he said in the video recorded in Springfield.
Sergeant Lewis said that the man’s demonstration is completely legal with Oregon’s open carry law.
“He can do what he's doing … I guess the question is, is he's trying to make a point and is it the best way to make that point?" Sgt. Lewis said. “It’s upsetting to people … we choose to live in a society where that's not commonplace."
Springfield police said that Warren has been touring the state with this demonstration and they said they were expecting him to show up.
This guy just loves attention. He also attacks anyone on youtube that disagrees with him, and they were being polite about it too. What can you expect from a guy like this? Just look at him. He's obviously suffering from some kind of retardation.
Hey Baldr dash...you call him an "extremist pro-gun nutcase"!! What does that make you...an extremist anti-gun nut case?!!! Absolutely!!! You have proven yourself to be time and time again!!!
Open carry is the result in some that are leagal to carry a gun but unable or do not want a conceled handgun licence..   You don't want to see guys with guns on thier shoulder? Do away with the requirement of having to have a CHL.   Its sad when someone exercizing thier right, has LE called...    Thats just the same a calling the LE when you see a car going down the street... My hope is that every law full citizen that owns a gun start exercizing thier right to open carry and then just maybe these liberal idiots witll get used to the principals this country was founded on.
Â
I heard it was just a giant cigar lighter replica.
KVAL posts these stories just to stir up the gun-nut buffoons
@godless anarchist Typical liberal - riding on the coattails of someone else's hard work. hahaha
 @OregonOrator seems there are more post from the gun-nutz than the  nongun-nuts.
Â
@godless anarchist Ah, seems like you've run out of anything to add to the debate. Liberals usually do like that. Run out of what few  substantive arguments they may have and then resort to straw-men, name calling and the like.Â
Â
That all you got?
 @OregonOrator Seems some people want to hold on to their penile enhancement devices.
@godless anarchist Good! It's about time you idiots got a come-uppance.
KVAL posts these stories just to stir up the anti-gun buffoons.
This comment has been deleted
@Postone Yep. I've always maintained that if body count and the deaths of legions of innocent children truly was the real concern of anti-gun nuts as they try to claim in their rants and tirades, they'd be out protesting the 110 people who die DAILY, many of them children, in auto accidents. But no, they try to obfuscate the debate by using words like "conflate" (haha) instead of actually responding to your point.
Â
It's a typical liberal manuever. Run roughshod over your opponent with emotion instead of logic, common sense and knowlede of gun laws and guns. The Baldr-dash thing is a perfect poster child for this.
@OregonOrator ---I actually think BO may be a shill creature of the so called gunnutz to make the non-gunnutz look feeble.
A grass roots alliance of Western/American protestors back in the 90s were finally able to convince the Japa. authorities of manditory child/baby seats to a country that was infamous for having the highest traffic deaths per 1000 capita in the world. (particularly Kita-Kanto Japan).
The alliance of ex-pats was mostly of the non-gunnutz crowd. And, yes there were a lot of rants and tirades. Especially from US parents watching countless cute little faces deformed beyond recognition...because all hospitals in Japan are in the red and crave customers anyway they can get them. A sad note for their National healthcare system.
The lib to conservative spectrum is not linear, it is multi-dimensional with so much overlap and obverse to what defines where any given person may be categorized, that using it to lable people for any gun agenda is guite farsical.
 And, OO is the one most lacking in responding to any point that cross examines OOs often faulty categorizing logic and outright defamation.Â
Former co-worker of mine bought an, "evil black rifle," an AR15, back in the 80's at a local mall, slung it over his shoulder and proceeded to shop. Â No one panicked and no police had to be involved. Â Times sure have changed...
Warren, I support the 2A as much as anyone. I am a former Police Officer and am an NRA firearms Instructor. I understand the point you are making. BUT, you have to realize that you are, and will continue to generate calls of concern, if not outright panic by various people. The Police MUST respond to these calls and investigate the situation. You KNOW this, that your actions are going to cause alarm to people (rightfully so) and cause a Police response. This is the problem, in how you are creating alarm to the public and prompting unneccessary Police activity which may take them away from more serious activity or delay their response to such. I strongly applaud your support of our 2A right and your zeal in promoting such. I do feel you should modify your method, and I think the Springfield Officer made an excellent point regarding some signage which communicates to the public what you are doing. While it may not eliminate all panic calls to the Police, it will help to educate the public that have no idea why some guy is walking down the street with guns They may never know or understand otherwise. The adverse drawback to your actions is people raising an issue that may lead to laws/restrictions on open carry in Oregon. I'm not telling you to stop what your doing, just think about it, the detrimental aspects, and consider the signage which will further your cause of educating people.Â
@RockDB Spoken like a cop.
Â
'nuff said.
 @OregonOrator  @RockDB What happens when another guy or 2-10 guys with rifles slung over shoulder show up at a public event? What if some are bad guys?  I like to look at what is right with our country. Folks packing fire power around is usually for war zones.
The police sergeant says it is legal and we will make contact with him-- sounds like harassment to me.
It is great that this guy thinks he can just exploit every law he wants. However, he is expecting the police to show up and folks to call about him. He is taxing law enforcement that are already running thin. If you are going to carry, conceal. Why upset the general public, cause a scene, and create work for our already overwhelmed Public Safety? What a jerk.
 @Hank Exercising your rights is not exploitation of the law. Since law enforcement is already running so thin, perhaps we should stop responding to calls of people following the law.
I think that Officer did a good job explaining that people do not know the difference of someone who is creating mischief and someone who is "exercising" their rights. I, for one, want the police to respond to every call of an armed person that comes in. However, if many of them are crying wolf, it is a unneeded burden and a waste of us taxpayer's dollars. The definition of exploit is "Make full use of and derive a benefit from". That is exactly what this guy is doing here. He is making full use of his Constitutional rights as well as benefitting from them. However, by doing so, he is also creating a possible situation where public service might not be available to others because of the confusion that he is causing.
 @godless anarchist You're right. I also exploit my 2nd, 4th, 5th rights. I also exploit the right to privacy. I do indeed hold onto my rights.Â
 @MP SGT  By his definition, you are "exploiting" your 1st amendment rights.
@Hank "Â The definition of exploit is "Make full use of and derive a benefit from".
Â
Sounds like the definition of a right to me.Â
Â
Try again. Your first few attempts have been futiole.
 @Hank By that definition, you are "exploiting" your 1st amendment rights.
I man with a gun on public property. Where is the outrage?
This comment has been deleted
footeb1,
Your lack of skill with the English language is sad. Your comments might make sense if your spelling was not horrid and sentence structure was not so erratic.
 @footeb1 you are a fool, you need to live somewhere else where you feel safe, no one owes that feeling, and frankly I personally could care less what YOU think, shows you how far apart we are all getting from each other in this country, that's why I had to think twice about responding to you, get it!
This person is making a point that you should all be making right now. so how can you judge him and what he's doing, looks like he has a rifle shouldered on his back, typical for carrying a long gun like that, so guess there's some sort of pose he should be making for all of you. Even if it was loaded, it's not your place to start making assumptions based on what a picture, hell in Israel, here and just about everywhere else, this how men and women carry their weapons around, OH, and they are loaded and ready to fire, and kids, etc., are running around the feet of these bad armed people, their safer than being around any of you idiots!
Â
 @footeb1 Yes it is a bad protest for us people that good and safe gun owners. A loaded weapon is secure as long one is not in the chamber. I can walk around with a loaded gun and it can be secure. Like you said these idiots are just that Idiots, especially if they have one in the chamber? If I saw them on the street I would tell them to go home because they are ruining it for ME!!
 @BeavnDuck  @footeb1 Excuse me...but I carry a loaded, chambered gun and it is VERY secure. Those who exercise their LEGAL right to carry openly are not "ruining it" for you. A right not exercised is a right lost. How many rights would you choose to lose? Where in the article did it say that his gun was "loaded and ready to fire" anyway? Do you know that this is a standard way to carry a rifle that many militaries employ? There is nothing wrong with it. If you guys truly own guns, you need to grow a pair and stand up for your rights and stop being such wimps.
@BeavnDuck @SwiftlyJust Fuel to the fire? Well too bad. The liberals started this lunacy; it's about time gun people started striking back.
 @SwiftlyJust I do have and will  the nerve to walk up to person a tell them that they do have the right carry a gun. But to carry a gun like that for a protest is adding fuel to the fire of the Liberals and anti-gun people.Â
 @BeavnDuck So do I:) As a matter of fact, I am one. However, I would NEVER presume to walk up to another person on the streets and tell him OR her that they should "go home" and not exercise their legal rights. It would be offensive and rude...and it just shows a serious lack of character. I may not have a real "pair"...but I DO have the nerve and the patriotism that it takes to stand up for your rights!
 @SwiftlyJust  Yes i agree with you!! and yes i own several guns and know how to carry them. And  not is not matter of growing a pair, I know alot of women that know how to shoot and carry a gun without a "pair" of which you you are calling for.
This comment has been deleted
 @footeb1  @BeavnDuck Yes he can prevent it from happening. Have you ever had a pack back? did any one get in it when it was on you or take it off your back? No you would feel some touching it.Â
Another extremist pro-gun nutcase out to alarm the public for his political purposes. Â He's only doing a disservice to his "cause". Â I've talked to many moderate gun owners in the past weeks, and all of them have condemned these nuts and have said that such behavior has only convinced them that a new Assault Weapons ban is justified.
@Baldr Odinson I guess it just takes and extremist to know an extremist, right? Did the guy hurt anyone? Did the guy intend to hurt anyone? Would you defend his life at the possible cost of your own life? You need to do some serious reflection. We are the strongest, most generous country in the world, why on earth would you want to bring us down?
exactly who was alarmed?
i saw him. i was not alarmed.
i consider myself VERY moderate and i do not condemn this action, i aplaud it.
 @Baldr Odinson This silly drone of nonsense that the Constitution must be banned is for ignorant people.  Its just not going to happen.  Throw out the 2nd?  Well what do you do with the 14th?  Throw out the 2&14 then someone else comes along with their deluded thinking and says we must abolish another part. Â
Â
If you don't like the constitution, get out of my country.Â
if we are going to throw out the constitution, please start with the first amendment.
then maybe all these idiots would shut up because it would be against the law.
hahahahahah
thanks, but i will keep my second amendment rights thank you very much.
 @Jason Marks No one in leadership is suggesting that.  Just more of your trolling, fearmongering nonsense.  Read the proposals.Â
 @Baldr Odinson Fear-mongering nonsense? He's responding directly to the article. =/Â
@Baldr Odinson " condemned these nuts " This troll is so quick to hate on patriotic Americans... Perhaps she would be better suited for china... or maybe she is a communist paid troll commenting FROM china.
 @Paul Kersey.  @Baldr I live here in the Eugene area, and no one pays me.  Perhaps someone is paying you, though.  I know for certain that the gun lobby does that.
It's not an assault rifle (by definition an assault rifel is capable of automatic fire, which AR-15's are not capable of). But proper terminology is not a media strong point. that said, even though this is completely legal, I don't think it is the best way to make his point. But, that is just my opinion.
 @Reality By legal definition, as defined by many states and the prior Assault Weapons Ban, the term "assault weapon" includes the AR-15 and many other semi-auto rifles.  http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
 @Baldr Odinson Oh for chist sake, Baldr. We've been over this so many times. Assault WEAPON - Purely a political term, currently defined in the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. Assault RIFLE - Has rifling, is designed to be fired from the shoulder, uses an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazine, and IS FULL AUTO OR BURST FIRE CAPABLE. Stop correcting Reality. He's talking about the definition of assault rifle, and is correct.Â
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Baldr Odinson PBS, As you can see, I have given up on having any kind of a "real" dialogue with Balder and have just decided to point out what a complete idiot he is instead. He will steadfastly refuse to learn or believe anything that doesn't fit into his narrow agenda, so it is just fruitless to waste time trying to explain things. It's easier...(and way more fun!) to just treat him in the manner that he deserves (and expects) to be treated. Personally, I suspect that he likes it.
by that pathetic uninformed definition, my ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon because of an $85 rifle stock i put on it.
 @edwierd drescher I was thinking the same thing about my tin can killing 10/22
 @Baldr Odinson Your tired definitions and links to pure crap are boring and WRONG. Just because your liberal agenda loving government determines that they can lump all rifles into one category...doesn't make it right. As usual...you're a loser.
Â
 @Baldr Odinson  @Reality Any gun is an "assault weapon" . If you read the assault rifle ban, its banning cosmetic features.  There is really no functional difference between an "assault rifle" and a semi automatic rifle. The ban focuses more on cosmetic features that give it the appearance of a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal to own. Connecticut has a state law that mirrors the federal assault weapons ban, and the gun used in the Sandyhook shooting was purchased under that law.Â
Â
I don't agree with what this guy is doing, I don't think its the best way to make a point at all.
by some definition, a sharp stick or a rock could be an "assault" weapon.
 @Lindsey87 Thank You!!
 @Baldr Odinson You need to look at the true meaning what a assault weapon is and not what the media feeds you.Â
 @Baldr Odinson  @Reality W ether you call it Potato or Potatoe..
Â
is a right to keep and bear it.Â
@Baldr Odinson... Never EVER commenting on any OTHER story or topic other than ones with big scary "guns" involved - makes you highly suspect of being a paid troll.
 @Baldr Odinson  @Paul Kersey. Baldr, how many people like your comments and how many call you out on you fallacies? That should give a pretty good idea on who the troll is here.
 @Paul Kersey.  @Baldr I'm not paid by anyone to comment.  You seem to reply to all my posts, so does that mean YOU are a paid troll, then?
Â
As far as which articles I comment on, there are so many articles about gun crimes, I can barely keep up with them, much less other topics.