911 call: 'Two men came out of their car with rifles'
PORTLAND, Ore . – 911 calls show how several residents of Southeast Portland and Gresham were spooked by the sight of two men walking around with large assault-style rifles on Wednesday.
The two men, who were legally carrying the weapons, were staging a protest to draw attention to their Constitutional right to bear arms.
Even though they were legal, the two certainly caused quite a stir.
“Two men came out of their car with rifles strapped to the back,” one woman told a 911 dispatcher.
Another woman called police from a school and asked if she should put the building in lockdown.
Emergency dispatchers got so many calls that eventually they started cutting off callers to explain officers had made contact with the men and checked them out.
Some dispatchers also explained to callers that the men were exercising their legal rights.
“No permission, but they do have concealed weapons permits and are able to carry, so at this point police have been, like I said, kind of keeping an eye on them,” one dispatcher told a concerned caller.
Read more: Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms, but make folks nervous
Listen to more of the 911 calls:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
âThe strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Â Â
Thomas Jefferson , 3rd President of the United States
Â
This is why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution .Â
Â
Yes you two have the right to carry but how about trying to be a good ambassador to us pro gun advocates. Flaunting your rights in this manner is tying up police resources while at the same time providing the anti gun folks more reason to try and change things.Â
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/mesquita-ludwig-nra-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Â
Here's good idea folks. I'd be willing to contribute my fair share. How about others. How about contributing to Gabby Giffords new superPAC or the Brady PAC. Or better yet, how about an initiative on the Oregon ballot to limit the types of guns and ammo people can buy in this state. Better yet, a national iniative. That would be great. We'd just have to outspend the NRA to get our message across and drown out theirs.Â
Had they held hands whilst walking, everyone would have ignored 'em. After all, gay guys don't pack now do they?
@anathoth I would if I was gay. I'm sure a few of the gun nuts are also homophobic as well.
Education! Yes! Wouldn't it be nice if people were conditioned to not be alarmed when they see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle? Good thing these guys are out there!
 @pdx_echo Wouldn't it be even better if it was legal to keep those assault weapons loaded? Otherwise any old criminal could just walk up to them and gun them down!
Â
/sarcasm
@pdx_echo Yes, I think people walking near a school with an assault rifle should not cause any concern whatsoever.
Still milking this one are they...
Â
Here's something that irks me about this. I don't know these guys from a mental institution escapee, the fact that they can go to a private dealer, purchase weapons with no background check, then sling them over their shoulders and walk around in the city should be a concern to everyone, and I expect it is to the majority, even NRA members.
Â
And I know, there are CHL holders, probably everywhere, and even if this guy has a CHL permit then he should conceal the darn thing and leave his AR whatever home. I'd trust someone more with a CHL as at least I know they've SOME level of training, as far as I know these guys are just looking for potential targets before they load up.
Â
Anyone applauding this should have their head examined, we try to teach our kids about bad guys and how to react and this REALLY muddies the water. Someones 12 yr old (or a kid of "walking around age") shouldn't have to be afraid of walking down the street because there's guys like these.
Â
I would totally advocate to update the laws to something with more common sense and a little more civilized
Â
Bashing begins in 3....2....1...
@deejm2112 954 comments between the two articles on these guys and still going strong.
 @JTesla  @deejm2112 We have a lot more to go until we reach the 750 from the last one...
I think if we as a society were more accepting of gay men then we'd have fewer closeted gay men trying to overcome their natural tendencies with over-the-top machismo like this.
 @Solipsist01 So you think that gun owners are gay? I am old, tired, and handicapped. I am not gay. My pistol in the holster on my hip gives me a "fair playing field" against the increasing criminal threat. Who protects you, a cop five or ten miles away?
 @msglaigaie  @Solipsist01 Those two were incredibly selfish and ignorant in their decision.
 @Solipsist01  @deejm2112 All this talk...I might have to find me a fair maiden, whack her noggin and drag her back home......seems we're devolving that way.
@deejm2112 @msglaigaie....maybe so, but you can just smell the testosterone....watch out fair maidens....these MEN are wearing their peaCOCK feathers proudly....and NO, they are absolutely NOT interested in a M-M casual encounter on Craigslist regardless of what their ad might seem to suggest.
@msglaigaie....not all of them....just the ones that show up with rifles strapped to their backs in public to "prove a point".....it ain't about gun rights....it's about being MEN...manly men...
Â
They're just a bunch of self-loathing twinks that are deathly afraid that someone might challenge their manliness....so they do the most over-the-top macho things they can do and in the most public way...They want the WORLD to know that they're MEN!!!
Â
Really, they just need a hug and someone to tell them that it's ok to be who they are.
@msglaigaie....Don't you give a damn about their feelings? Do you really think it's fair that they be denied acceptance by us simply because we don't agree with who they love and how they show it?
Â
Guns don't kill people....homophobia does....every day these poor men die a little bit more inside. Imagine the lengths they go to just for OUR acceptance, and the real irony is that they themselves can't accept who they are.
Â
They willingly make fools of themselves with these absurd demonstrations of manhood that they "believe" will somehow make a difference but in actuality the cognitive dissonance only grows more difficult to endure.
Â
Next time you see a guy with a rifle....give him what he Really wants....give him a hug....tell him you love him just the way he is....tell him that he has great taste in clothing, and that's OK.
Â
Â
 @Solipsist01 I think the group of you keep harping on sexual orientation because you are having trouble with your own. I am surprised you are not accusing them of being Porsche drivers. This is no longer conversation, just your ranting..
@msglaigaie Crime has been decreasing since the early '90's not increasing.
We need to recruit some drag queens to go hit on guys like this when they show up with their rifles....should put a stop to it pretty quickly.....'course it might also bring more of them "out"
Â
 @Solipsist01 So you advocate sexual harassment?
in a legal sense, harassment applies to professional relationships....there's nothing illegal about one gay man in women's clothing approaching a closeted and armed gay man and complimenting him on the size of his "gun" in a highly suggestive manner.
@Constitution Warrior ....Let's not get bogged down with particulars....the real crime here is that these poor men have had to live a lie for far too long...it's time for them to put away the assault rifles and give each other the one thing they've been secretly yearning for....the warm embrace of another man.
 @Solipsist01 It does not just apply to professional relationships.  It applies to any person. Â
Interesting that neither of these guys live in Portland but they both felt the need to demonstrate there.
 @PhillyBuster Like the people in Portland telling me how to raise cattle or farm.
Â
 @Constitution Warrior Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't quite understand the comparison. Are Portland residents brandishing their own farming equipment in the center of your town to make a point or are you talking about legislation that is coming from the state government in Salem?
 @PhillyBuster  @Constitution Warrior  @JTesla Living in MA, it was required to have an FID card (firearms identification card) to own a gun period and I voluntarily registered my guns....no issues, nothing to hide, and if they were somehow ever stolen, at least there's a trail.
Â
I was surprised when I moved here how lax the regulations are.
 @JTesla  @Constitution I do not agree.  I know what many State Constitutions say to include Oregon.Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).
 @JTesla  @Constitution The words of Mark Twain come to mind...
Â
 "Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
 @Constitution Warrior  @JTesla The 2nd amendment most certainly gives us the right to bear arms, but it is not an open ended right. There have been and always will be restrictions on the types of guns you can own and where you can use them. Otherwise we'd have folks walking around with grenade launchers and .50 caliber rifles. It is a very small, yet vocal, minority that would like to abolish guns altogether. The problem is the NRA and many gun owners use that small minority as if it had some actual power. All most Americans want is more regulation to make us all feel safer, and I can't understand why a responsible gun owner would feel any different. What really worries me is how many gun owners say they'll refuse to register their firearms if required. If you are not a threat then why would you care? You register your car, house, pets, just about everything. Why such a fight against registration?
@Constitution Warrior Thank you for finally agreeing with me, that was like pulling teeth. I'll leave the discussion of the 10th Amendment to another day.
 @JTesla I have read it many times.  It says there can be restrictions but does not define those.  SCOTUS only rules on the arguments presented before them.  Since the Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government's ability to regulate firearms it would be left to the states.Â
@msglaigaie No really, read the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, it is the law of the land and that law allows for limitations. I don't think the CHL's should be required, I don't believe there should be limits on commercial sales of any firearm, but the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me.
 @JTesla  @Constitution That it has been done does not make it anymore legal. barry obama dictated immigration law and bypassed congress. Not legal, but he did it.Â
 @JTesla  @Constitution You have been drinking the koolaid, put it down. Please reread the Document. The Bill of Rights do not 'allow' or 'give' me anything. The Constitution tells the government what they cannot do. Such as INFRINGE
@Constitution Warrior I present you with District of Columbia v. Heller, feel free to actually read it. You and I may disagree with the restrictions that the court allowed, but that doesn't change the fact that restrictions were allowed.
 @JTesla  @Constitution Wrong.
@Constitution Warrior Talk about crying. The court ruled in the Heller case that your "right" under the 2nd Amendment can be infringed as limitations have been and can be placed on those rights. Also, a local jurisdiction can apply more stringent restrictions when the state allows said restrictions to be made locally, as is the case with this matter.
 @JTesla  @Constitution The court ruled in the Heller case.  A local jurisdiction can not apply a restriction over a State Law.SCOTUS has ruled many times that one right does not trump another. The Framers did believe speech was a natural right.  So whine and cry all you want.  But you can not infringe on my 2nd Amendment guaranteed right.
Â
@Constitution Warrior The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. One could also argue that rights contained in the 1st Amendment are "natural rights", and the people of Portland are simply exercising those (as are you).
 @PhillyBuster Furthermore, it is State Reps and Senators from Portland Metro who stated they are going to introduce legislation limiting my Natural Right to Bear Arms protected by the 2nd Amendment,
 @PhillyBuster I have the Constitutionally protected right to move freely.  The Right to Bear Arms is a Natural Right wherein the 2nd Amendment says it shall not be infringed. Â
 @Constitution Warrior  @PhillyBuster ...or harvest timber, or fish, or hunt....
Very poor judgement. Although I understand the point I don't agree with their approach. I don't think it lends a positive illistration of our right to keep and bear arms.
The fact that these two had a concealed weapons permit is not relevant in this case. You do not need a concealed weapons permit to carry a weapon that is not concealed. Any citizen who wishes to can walk down the street with a weapon in full view. Is it a good idea, probably not.
 @Pointblank Actually in Portland you may only open carry an unloaded gun without a magazine inserted into the weapon UNLESS you have a valid CHL.  It appeared at least one of these guys had an magazine in the pistol on their side thus the requirement for a CHL.
 @Siwash No, that is not what the law in Portland states. The ordinance isn't a ban on loaded carry, it's a ban only on loaded carry that creates a known and substantial risk to the public.
 @Pointblank You are wrong on this one.  One must have a CHL to carry concealed.  One does NOT need a chl to carry openly.  You are NOT allowed to open carry a LOADED weapon unless you meed one of several exceptions one of which is a CHL holder.   Below is the stature including a FEW of the exemptions
Â
14A.60.010 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place.
(Amended by Ordinance No. 184274, effective December 31, 2010.)
Â
A.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.
Â
B.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearmâs clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.
Â
C.  The following are exceptions and constitute affirmative defenses to a violation of this Section:
Â
1.  A police officer or other duly appointed peace officers, whether active or honorably retired.
 2.  A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
 3. A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
Â