Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms, but make folks nervous
»Play Video
PORTLAND, Ore. - Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs caused a bit of a stir in Southeast Portland on Wednesday.
Calls started coming in just before 2 p.m. about two men spotted with rifles in the area of Southeast 7th Avenue and Spokane Street. And the staff at the Creative Minds Learning Center ordered children to stay away from windows and doors and told their parents they were in lockdown.
When officers arrived, they found two 22-year-old men who were, indeed, carrying rifles openly on their backs. The men did have valid licenses to carry - they are Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders in Oregon - and told police they were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights (the right to bear arms) in an attempt to educate the public.
The open carrying of firearms is legal in Oregon and carrying a concealed firearm is legal with a valid CHL, but officers told the two men they were making people nervous and causing alarm. The men, however, would not back down from their stance.
The two were not arrested but the Portland Police Bureau would like to remind folks that while what the men were doing was legal, actions like that do tend to generate 9-1-1 calls and a police response.
According to police, the men - Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce - have done this type of thing before. Drouin has a YouTube channel chronicling his encounters with police while carrying weapons.
Many neighbors KATU News spoke found the incident inappropriate.
"That's not the purpose of the Second Amendment – to frighten citizens, to frighten women and children," said Susan Anglada Bartley, a mother of a 9-month-old girl. "And I don't think there's anyone who can argue, especially after the tragedy where so many children were killed – nobody can argue that it's not scary to have people marauding around Sellwood with guns."
I have read more than once where the pro-gun people are suggesting that they need guns to protect themselves from our government. In my mind, when I hear that, I understand they are saying they want to be able to shoot police and members of our military and claim some sort of 'defense' argument as justification.
Â
Â
 @jbloe We're not "suggesting" it... that is the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Members of the military and law enforcement who honor their oath would be on our side.
@PleaseBeSmart That may have been something that worked in the days when the US had what amounted to a 'Well regulated malitia'. If you are thinking that any citizen - no matter how well-armed - has a chance against today's police and all the various military organizations in existance in the US today, you are kidding yourself.
 @jbloe If you think the military and police won't be splintered, you are kidding yourself. A lot of them take their oath seriously.
A gun dork is the worst kind of dork. They weren't even on their way anywhere.
 @Jeremiah Ronnie Lee Brooks I was unaware a demonstration had to have a destination.Â
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Jeremiah Ronnie Lee Brooks If they want to make a demonstration, how about carrying a sign saying "Support gun rights" so at least people know what you're doing ... honestly, pro-gun people should be very concerned about knuckle heads like these two. I'm a big supporter of gun rights ... but come on, these guys are whack jobs that give gun supporters a very bad image. What happened to showing respect for the weapons and the responsibility owning and handling them brings to individuals. Just check out Drouin's YouTube channel ... he comes off as barely literate and quite frankly scary and unstable.
Â
Funny thing is ... would @PleaseBeSmart have the same feelings in his neighborhood if these guys were black wearing hoodies?Â
Â
I bet @PleaseBeSmart and @Jason Marks are in fact the two yahoos parading around like a tools.
 @Will White Not likely, since I'm a chick. I have opened carried at times though.
I was raised around firearms, so seeing someone walking down the street with a holstered pistol doesn't necessarily raise alarm (it's all about context, really), but a rifle? There's no obvious need for someone to have a rifle with them in town and the sight of one is what sets off panic among the population. "Why do you have that? What are you going to do? You must be up to something bad."
other people have rights too, besides gun nuts, testing the constitution. Â they have the right NOT to see this in public streets, shopping malls, restaurants, etc, ....and what i mean when i say, the right NOT to see is, unqualified civilians carrying assault, military weapons. Â period. Â policeman never asked if weapon was loaded. Â was it?
 @inliner Where did you get the silly notion that you have the right to not see guns in public? Also, it's none of the policeman's business if they guns were loaded. Even if they asked the individuals do no have to answer.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed Apparently the cops don't know they're CHL holders rolling up on the scene, but they do know they're roaming a neighborhood that is not their own? Riiiight. =/ I never said they didn't have the right to ask. I said they didn't have a right to an answer. If I were asked by an officer if my gun were loaded, my response would be to tell them I have a CHL.
 @Fed up Fed "The men did have valid licenses to carry - they are Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders in Oregon.."
 @Fed up Fed In Portland, yes. It was established that they were CHL holders though, so they have no right to know if the weapons were loaded or not. It matters not.
marauding -
present participle of ma·raud (Verb)
Â
1. Roam in search of things to steal or people to attack: "marauding gangs of looters".
2. Raid and plunder (a place).
The Creative Minds Learning Center......across the street. Â Â
Â
perfect, "drama" right in front of  you.Â
Â
Look at all the idiot adults flying into a full panic "calling in" to some anti american 911 operator who thinks that the right to bear arms is "unfortunate" and saying " the state police are trying to "do something about it. Â "
Â
What is "IT" and what can the state police do about "it" Â Arrest law abiding citizens. Â Here is a novel idea, lets rewind and PRETEND we have rights under the US Constitution and not play ignorant by calling in , uninformed about what is legal to do and what is not. Â The adults "calling in" are truly the unfortunate ignoranus'
Â
luckily, children aren't as stupid as adults.Â
 @Jason Marks beg to differ, this post is more ignorant than the law abiding adults who also have rights and interpret the 2nd amendment differently, because, we respect the meaning of the word REASONABLE.  it's time the NRA gets this word through their gun toting loving k numb skull.Â
Constitutional rights or not; and amidst a national debate regarding firearms notwithstanding, the two have obviously and blatantly behaved irresponsibly.If this is an example of safe and conscientious weapons ownership, they have failed a very simple test -- consideration and respect for the safety of others.
 @Greg How exactly were they endangering others?
 @Greg No, I think you've failed a very simple test. How was what they were doing making you unsafe? If anything, their actions were making the streets safer. With the attention these guys were drawing, any criminal would want to be miles away from them.
 @Greg Oh of course, silly me, arrest them for being inconsiderate.
Â
Prisons would be full of people who cut me off, cut in line, give me the finger, say rude things, lie to me, cheat me... GOLLY where does it stop.
Â
A holstered or shouldered gun is not irresponsible.
Â
Arrest the police then, they have holstered weapons.Â
Â
Greg thinks he is the only one to determine what constitutes constitutional rights.Â
Â
Greg, go back to CHINA where you came from.Â
 @Jason Marks  @Greg why  don't you secede from the union already and leave us normal people alone?  arrest the police then?  they're well qualified, trained people who undergo numberous mental health testing, qualifying, interviewing, background checking, even before they're hired.  never mind what they go through before they hit the streets... you're ignorance abounds.
 @Jason Marks I think you have a problem with your reading comprehension because Greg didn't say anything in this post about having them arrested, nor did he say anything about the police and their weapons. And for the record, I think his point is spot on. Don't scare a neighborhood of people and put a school on lock down in the name of demonstration. It's uncalled for. Like most people, I don't trust anyone I don't know and not knowing these men or what their purpose was my first thought would be that they're coming to do something terrible. People are so concerned with their rights they can't see that people were genuinely afraid and that's just wrong.Â
 @Fed up Fed My bad. I missed a post when I was scanning. Apparently you are cool with having your lies documented, so good on ya. :) Name calling isn't too nice though.
 @Fed up Fed LOL. Well someone is getting hostile. I'm not sure why you're talking about Pentagon literature, but I'm talking about the definitions of "assault rifle," "assault weapon," and now "bump fire," and "full auto." You literally can go look these things up in about a minute. Bump firing is a technique. If you suck at it you can use a rubber band to help you, but in no way does that convert it to full auto, as full auto and burst capable fire multiple rounds with a single compression of the trigger. It's not just firing quickly. Try again.
 @Fed up Fed Aaaww, deleting your posts... don't like your lies documented? LOL.
 @Fed up Fed   I am confusing nothing. Assault rifles are fully-automatic or burst capable. AR-15s are not. It can fall under the purely political term "assault weapon," but that really depends.Â
 @Fed up Fed Really now? You're a veteran and a former firearms instructor and you don't even know they weren't carrying assault rifles? =/ As for my opinion that "people are ignorant of the laws, their rights, and don't tend to be exposed to positive examples of gun carrying," ... That is simply my experience and my opinion. When I open carry people look shocked, and people have thought I was breaking the law before. In my experience, people are obscenely ignorant of many laws, including gun laws.
 @Scruffy Scirocco You have to have a CHL to open carry in Portland.
 @Striker There are plenty of places where carrying firearms is perfectly common and people aren't remotely frightened. There are parts of Alaska where no one is alarmed if you walk into a bank with a gun. You seem to be forgetting that humans are pretty good at reading body language. Just because the people of Portland aren't used to it doesn't mean it's wrong. The more people see it, the more comfortable they will be.Â
 @Striker There's something wrong if people are "genuinely afraid" of seeing citizens with firearms. There are legal standards for brandishing weapons, intimidation, menacing, etc. These gentleman were doing none of that and it isn't their problem if people are scared. The way I see it, that is all the more reason to open carry... people are ignorant of the laws, their rights, and don't tend to be exposed to positive examples of gun carrying.
 @Striker  @Jason Marks You don't need a permit for open carry in Oregon. The 911 operators should have asked what they were doing, and in the absence of a crime told them to clear the line for a real emergency.They way the system was intended to work, if you had a problem with their behavior, you should arm yourself - openly if you don't have concealed carry permit - and followed them to make sure they didn't get into any mischief.
 @Jason Marks No, actually that's not what the resulting issue of this story is about, you and the others who think like you are the only ones trying to make it solely about politics and rights. And how were all the frightened people who called 911 supposed to know that these two men had permits for their weapons and that they weren't there to commit a crime? Tell me that. Are they mind readers? Should they have walked up to two strangers with deadly weapons and asked them what they were doing and if it was legal for them to have their guns? And if the men were in fact there with ill intent, which no one would have known, should someone have risked getting shot to confront them on their own without aid of the police? I don't think so. Two people did something completely stupid after a bunch of mass shootings and scared a bunch of people, that's the only point I see. And before it gets said, because I know it will, I didn't say anything about taking away anyone's guns, didn't say they did anything illegal and didn't say anything about arresting them, I'm saying THINK about what you're doing and what kind of affect you will actually have on people. You don't know what people have been through and you don't know what your actions will do to them. You don't know if children will see you and be scared to death. They didn't think about anyone else and that's the problem.Â
 @Striker  @Jason Marks the summary context of the article is: people calling 911.  What do you call 911 for?Â
Â
Some people call to complain about poor service at the drive up.Â
Some call to ask the time. Some call to request help moving a washer and dryer.
Â
BUT, here, people call because they want to report a crime in progress, that is what 911 is for.
Â
So then, the callers think a crime was committed and someone should be arrested. Â
 @Striker it may not be said, but that is what they want.  Take away their guns.  In case you haven't noticed, that is what the debate is about.  Taking away 2nd amendment rights or banning classes of guns the Supreme Court has already ruled to be illegal to do.  All you have to do is listen to the president and vice president say this, even they apparently do not know what the supreme court has already ruled on.Â
They aren't assault rifles, shame on you...better to scare the readers huh?
Do you shop are Fred Myers? Target? The Mall? The theater? Do you go to any schools or hospitals? Do you like to get to restaurants? Wall Mart? These are places we can openly carry our weapons. So when you see us, think twice about risking our tax dollars. Stop judging us based on how we look and based on how unprepared our schools and privately owned businesses have been. Get used to it. And get over it.
 @ThePinkGoat "when you see us"????  are you kidding me???  you guys sound like the little bullied boys in school who are having their up-comance ..i think you're all mentally unhinged and need further background checks.  and i won't get used to it, or get over it until you're required to.
 @ThePinkGoat While the government can't legally restrict your right to carry, private citizens and companies can deny you access if you are openly carrying. That's their right.
Frankly, I think that if you feel the need to exercise your misunderstood 2nd Amendment, go to a place where they do braisenly do so like a shooting range or one of the states with an over abundance of testosterone and victim mentallity. I think all these guys were upto was terrorising a community that use guns for hunting and self defense. What happened to their right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Â It sounds like that Contitutional Right is under assult from people that aim to intimedate them. Please recall, the only President to take your weapons away was a Republican by name of Bush. Â Get a grip and stop all the bullying.
 @lilspike how was your rights infringed by these fellows carrying? How did they infringe on your life or liberty? They made you unhappy, obviously, but you have no right to happiness, you only have the right to pursue it. That right ends when you start interfering with other people's rights. Maybe if you would quit being such a busybody, and start taking responsibility for your own rights and arm yourself, we would all be in a safer society with more liberty.
 @Scruffy Scirocco  @lilspike liberty is NOT solely defined by gun ownership,  has it occurred to you that you're infringing on other people's lives who also have rights?  the right to walk down the street, go out and enjoy a movie or to a restaurant and not see military style weapons in the hands of civilians ????  our interpretation of the 2nd amendment includes the meaning of the word, REASONABLE.
 @lilspike Please define the 2nd Amendment and what part "THEY" misunderstood IT. EXPERT are ya????
 @ThePinkGoat  @lilspike one word in the 2nd amendment is constantly overlooked by you gun nuts, do you know what the word REASONABLE means?  walking around with military style weapons by untrained civilians , scaring the general public, simply to "make a point" and see how people will react, is beyond comprehension you bunch of cowards.  go do it in LA or another big city, or better yet, join the armed forces.  i'm a responsible gun owner, and a REASONABLE person.  hiding behind his youtube camera for attention, yes, attention, this clown posts his videos, not for sole purpose of record, but is trying to make money on youtube.  fear and loathing in oregon.
 @inliner  @ThePinkGoat  @lilspike "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The mom mentioned in the story, Susan, is totally wrong. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment IS to tell people that they have the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS!!!That is just exactly what these wonderful young men were doing. If all of society did the same there would be no "panic" there would be no 9-1-1 calls, and there would be no home invasions.
fine, let's be even more politically correct. Â i don't mind if they carry muskets! get real.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed If you're going to start parsing the second amendment,then you're going to have to get into the minds of the framers. Their well-regulated militia was the average Joe Citizen - shopkeeper, banker, farmer, craftsman - turned out with his personal weapon for the community defense, as they did at Lexington and Concord. You need to read what Jefferson had to say about it, that the right to bear arms was the only thing that stood between a citizenry and tyranny. He wrote that the public must always have the ability to overthrow their government should it become necessary. Further, you could not be more wrong about SCOTUS. In McDonald Vs. the City of Chicago, SCOTUS clearly stated that local gun control laws do not have precedence over the second amendment. Please stop inventing things to make your erroneous points.
Kudos to these men. They weren't harming anyone!Â
 @Mom4Freedom Actually they are hurting the reputation of ALL the other responsible gun owners who actually do not agree with this type of public education.
If they are not hurting anyone you should read all the comments here from responsible gun owners that do not agree with them.
Â
 @Poochie  @Mom4Freedom And how do you know that the people posting on this blog are responsible? Do you know them all personally? No you don't. Therefore your comment has zero barring.
 @Poochie  @Mom4Freedom I'm a responsible gun owner, and I have no problem with what they did. They were NOT running around with them in their hands, pretending to fire upon innocent people. They were openly carrying them, strapped to their backs.
 @advocatus diaboli There is still a proper definition for "assault rifle."Â
 @Fed up Fed  @advocatus  @advocatus self defense is a great reason to have a AR-15 on hand at anytime. Do you know when the next crime will happen?
Who are you to say what is reasonable and what is not. I think that requires a vote. Are you American or a communist? Do you believe in our fright to bare arms? Our right to use ANY type of weapon that is legal to defend ourselves? I bet the teachers at Sandy Hook wished they had a gun on hand to defend themselves before they were shot dead unprepared.
 @Fed up Fed You have been brainwashed by the media. Think for yourself. Everything you see on TV is questionable. Here is something you should look up, "Problem/Reaction/Solution. Wake up!!!
 @Fed up Fed When will you stop using Sandy Hook as a reason to ban guns? Sandy Hook was a tragedy, caused by insane individual. So why judge the rest of us, the majority?
 @Fed up Fed  @advocatus I'm not defending THEM, I'm defending their right to carry openly in such a way.
Â
I'm sure that the kids, parents, and teachers were distraught. I'm not going to argue that, and if I hadn't been raised around firearms - I probably would have been too, if I'd been in their shoes.
Â
Secondly, I can't really assess as to whether what they were carrying qualifies as "assault rifle", since that term has been so loosely thrown around. My neighbor would say a converted AR-15 to a .22LR would qualify for an "assault rifle".
Â
I get that firearms can be frightening, but they are a fact of life in the United States. While some people may wholeheartedly disagree with their decision to open-carry near a school, the fact of the matter is: they didn't break the law. Not only that, but they displayed to others that not all "assault rifle" toting people are "psychopaths". The media would like us all to believe that anyone wandering around with a rifle of some sort is a psychopath, but it just isn't the truth.
 @Fed up Fed There's a huge difference between running around with the guns in hand and having them strapped to their backs. It's just like going to a town where people have hunting rifles strapped to their backs, they aren't in hand for immediate use.
Â
As for a soldier fresh out of combat, I have two of them living with me - neither one of them agree with your assessment. No immediate threat. But perhaps they've acclimated properly to their surroundings, I'm no expert.