Posted on Mar 29, 2018
I have conflicting feelings over this. I know that open carry is a thing in Texas, but who crossed the line, if anyone?
131K
2.92K
1.1K
477
477
0
CJ Grisham, President of Open Carry Texas, Army veteran and recent candidate for State Representative in District 55, along with a couple of other people was arrested yesterday in Olmos Park, TX (Bexar County). He was tazed and subsequently injured in that arrest with a head injury and was hospitalized. I was told that the head injury was a large gash on the back of the head. He also suffered numerous scrapes on his wrists and arms.
Grisham and crew were legally opening carrying pistols and long guns in response to an event last week when an Olmos Park police officer drew guns on and detained someone with a protest sign solely for the reason of open carrying a pistol (which turned out to be a training fake).
Grisham had a phone conversation with the Olmos Park Police Chief, Rene Valenciano about their policies, etc. in which the chief seemed entirely unconcerned with his officers illegally detaining people for a perfectly legal activity. (The conversation will be linked in the comments below).
Grisham and crew went to Olmos Park yesterday and were legally and peacefully open carrying and got arrested for it. There is a video of the arrest. There was no articulated probable cause for the arrest. The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
Between the phone call and video from the site, it's very clear this was an illegal arrest by an oath breaking police officer and they will be held accountable.
Grisham and crew were legally opening carrying pistols and long guns in response to an event last week when an Olmos Park police officer drew guns on and detained someone with a protest sign solely for the reason of open carrying a pistol (which turned out to be a training fake).
Grisham had a phone conversation with the Olmos Park Police Chief, Rene Valenciano about their policies, etc. in which the chief seemed entirely unconcerned with his officers illegally detaining people for a perfectly legal activity. (The conversation will be linked in the comments below).
Grisham and crew went to Olmos Park yesterday and were legally and peacefully open carrying and got arrested for it. There is a video of the arrest. There was no articulated probable cause for the arrest. The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
Between the phone call and video from the site, it's very clear this was an illegal arrest by an oath breaking police officer and they will be held accountable.
Posted in these groups: 
Open Carry
Bexar County
Open Carry Bexar County
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 432
18
18
0
What ordinary none activist don't understand is that their is a difference between an officer telling you to do something while your not arrested or detained and an officer giving orders under legal authority.
I guess some people believe it illegal to film cops from 20 - 40 feet away when no law was actually broken.
People need to learn their rights.
If your not part of the "crime" scene and pose no danger (they know who CJ is and that he is nonviolent given his long history of interactions with LEO) then why would the officers ask him to back up? They did not specify how far. I think they wanted him to back up until no one could see their abuse. Evidence justifies that accusation.
How do yall know that he was even saying no to the officer? He could of had someone talking in an ear peice and he responding. Someone off camera asking him and he responding. Cameras don't pick up all sounds.
But no. So many would rather convict him without having all the facts. It shows their true Allegiance.
I even think some people here think the NRA truely believes in the 2nd Amendment. Lol. What a laugh. Plenty of evidence to show they don't.
How many Infringement laws and policies have they supported? Too many.
I guess some people believe it illegal to film cops from 20 - 40 feet away when no law was actually broken.
People need to learn their rights.
If your not part of the "crime" scene and pose no danger (they know who CJ is and that he is nonviolent given his long history of interactions with LEO) then why would the officers ask him to back up? They did not specify how far. I think they wanted him to back up until no one could see their abuse. Evidence justifies that accusation.
How do yall know that he was even saying no to the officer? He could of had someone talking in an ear peice and he responding. Someone off camera asking him and he responding. Cameras don't pick up all sounds.
But no. So many would rather convict him without having all the facts. It shows their true Allegiance.
I even think some people here think the NRA truely believes in the 2nd Amendment. Lol. What a laugh. Plenty of evidence to show they don't.
How many Infringement laws and policies have they supported? Too many.
(18)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Harry H. - STFU Sergeant, I was totally able to understand what was being said. The Major is completley right.
After reading some of your comments in this discussion, it appears to me you are a snowflake troll, that supports what the Nazi Police did in this situation. Based on this, if it were in my power I would investigate YOUR behavior in any situation overseas. I'm willing to bet you most likely did the same thing to innocent civilians over there as well.
After reading some of your comments in this discussion, it appears to me you are a snowflake troll, that supports what the Nazi Police did in this situation. Based on this, if it were in my power I would investigate YOUR behavior in any situation overseas. I'm willing to bet you most likely did the same thing to innocent civilians over there as well.
(0)
(0)
TSgt James Warfield
Wow as Is stated earlier, when I see statements like this from a military personal, especially since you went after the NRA, scare me. Like I said in other posts, I felt safe for years thinking the military, would never go against our constitution, or those trying to defend it.
(0)
(0)
SPC Curtis Underwood
TSgt James Warfield - If the Democrats succeed in removing the second amendment, establishing socialism etc., The this has to be considered a domestic attack on the constitution. Then we who have taken the oath have to take up arms to restore the constitution.
But there will be a lot of military people that will blindly follow some generals order(probably inserted into command after the take over) and fight the civilians even thought they are breaking their oath.
This has worried me also. I am to old to do much good in the field now. But you can bet I will be there with all the support I can give. If the fight comes to me then I will fight till I die which would not be very long.
But there will be a lot of military people that will blindly follow some generals order(probably inserted into command after the take over) and fight the civilians even thought they are breaking their oath.
This has worried me also. I am to old to do much good in the field now. But you can bet I will be there with all the support I can give. If the fight comes to me then I will fight till I die which would not be very long.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
I am responding as a retired lawyer (and note that I am a Life Member of the NRA) as well as a moderately successful historian focusing on particular (military) firearms and "private arms trafficking".
There is a vast difference between what one CAN do under the law and what one SHOULD do. As a one-time Class 3 (machine gun owner), I COULD HAVE carried the machine gun, fully exposed, into a bank. But SHOULD I have?
I understand the concept of "peaceful assembly". ANTIFA pisses me off (they aren't "liberals", from what I read; they are anarchists). When a community has a group of armed individuals (some probably carrying the "dreaded black rifles") in a public park, there is going to be a police response. Under the "Terry" case, one can be detained and frisked for reasonable suspicion. In encountering a group of armed individuals, I do not think a court would find it unreasonable for an officer (or group of officers) to order visibly armed individuals to take a position that would make it difficult for the individual to use the lawfully carried weapon against the officer during the course of the "investigative stop". Of course, the above depends somewhat on whether a permit for the demonstration was required and obtained.
I am, of course, presuming some facts not given. However, I believe that some degree of common sense, discretion, and responsibility (maturity) has to be shown by firearms owners. The backlash from those who are suspicious of or fear firearms could be devastating.
There is a vast difference between what one CAN do under the law and what one SHOULD do. As a one-time Class 3 (machine gun owner), I COULD HAVE carried the machine gun, fully exposed, into a bank. But SHOULD I have?
I understand the concept of "peaceful assembly". ANTIFA pisses me off (they aren't "liberals", from what I read; they are anarchists). When a community has a group of armed individuals (some probably carrying the "dreaded black rifles") in a public park, there is going to be a police response. Under the "Terry" case, one can be detained and frisked for reasonable suspicion. In encountering a group of armed individuals, I do not think a court would find it unreasonable for an officer (or group of officers) to order visibly armed individuals to take a position that would make it difficult for the individual to use the lawfully carried weapon against the officer during the course of the "investigative stop". Of course, the above depends somewhat on whether a permit for the demonstration was required and obtained.
I am, of course, presuming some facts not given. However, I believe that some degree of common sense, discretion, and responsibility (maturity) has to be shown by firearms owners. The backlash from those who are suspicious of or fear firearms could be devastating.
(13)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
The police can no longer stop you and pat you down. The reason being police officers used that as a means to search the individual. Many arrests had been thrown out of court due to profiling! Every union representing police and Police chiefs associations tries to stop issuing concealed carry permits. After being stopped by the police you are required to identify yourself as a person with concealed gun. If you choose to let it get out he has a weapon, you just broke one of the tenants of the concealed carry law and are subject to arrest and confiscation of the gun you were carrying, I do not know if ever returned or not, but probably did after the court appearance.
The biggest thing the police Officer better articulate is why they were detained and treated the way they were treated. He/she has to express the circumstances as per his action. It sounded like the police were back pedaling and throwing laws out there that would cover their butt for their stupid actions. It is not obstruction for not following the cops orders, and has to be more thing going around warranting a person loosing their Constitutional rights. Remember why we fought the British, basically the same thing but on a larger scale.
The biggest thing the police Officer better articulate is why they were detained and treated the way they were treated. He/she has to express the circumstances as per his action. It sounded like the police were back pedaling and throwing laws out there that would cover their butt for their stupid actions. It is not obstruction for not following the cops orders, and has to be more thing going around warranting a person loosing their Constitutional rights. Remember why we fought the British, basically the same thing but on a larger scale.
(1)
(0)
Pvt Robert L. Lamoreaux
I don't believe that the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio) has been overturned, and it may have been expanded.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1st Amendment. No permits required to peacefully assemble. Again we do not have to ask the governments permission to protest their illegal behavior.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Sam Stasik
SGT (Join to see) - Going somewhere, a public park, carrying, whether concealed or open, does not look like a peaceful assembly to me personally. The peaceful assembly amendment was passed because in those days people were being arrested for being part of a group discussing things, sometimes only three people. Again, guns in an open, public park does not look even remotely like a peaceful assembly, rather it smells of someone trying to provoke a situation to try and prove a moot point. I would also like to point out that back in the 1770s it was always the good of the many over the good of the few (one), now that notion has been overturned so the good of the few radical issue pushers can take over the good of the many. To bad we don't still teach Civics and History to our kids!
(0)
(0)
Its not the what, OCT claimed to want, its the who and how. They do more damage in a single month then real advocates can do good in an 18 month ramp up to the next TX legislation session.
A declared Anti gun group wishes they could do as much damage as OCT does every year to advancing Tx Gun rights.
We would all be better off if CJ and his follows dropped off the map.
Was Olmos Park city council in the wrong YES, and they were set to vote and remove the Ordinance, the same day as the OCT event, but see that does CJ no good, he can not get his name in the news cycle if the problem is handled quietly and effectively
A declared Anti gun group wishes they could do as much damage as OCT does every year to advancing Tx Gun rights.
We would all be better off if CJ and his follows dropped off the map.
Was Olmos Park city council in the wrong YES, and they were set to vote and remove the Ordinance, the same day as the OCT event, but see that does CJ no good, he can not get his name in the news cycle if the problem is handled quietly and effectively
(13)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
FYI, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT not a privilege. You DO NOT ask the states permission to exercise a right. Any and ALL gun laws are illegal.
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right, it CONFIRMS it and says the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on that right. The Founding Fathers lived through a time where a tyrannical government tried to do the EXACT same thing these Nazi cops did. They KNEW this situation would happen in the future and planned for it. The actions of today's police and politicians both, are the REASON we have the secured right to keep and bear arms. This means not just owning them, but CARRYING them as well.
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right, it CONFIRMS it and says the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on that right. The Founding Fathers lived through a time where a tyrannical government tried to do the EXACT same thing these Nazi cops did. They KNEW this situation would happen in the future and planned for it. The actions of today's police and politicians both, are the REASON we have the secured right to keep and bear arms. This means not just owning them, but CARRYING them as well.
(0)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
SGT (Join to see) - Your one of them god gave me a gun people and that's fine. You don't listen to other peoples opinions, typical for your kind.
But gun laws are legal. The second amendment was written by man, approved by those with the AUTHORITY GIVEN THEM By men (and woman), and validated by the courts we established to determine and interpret our laws. Your argument was tried and denied in the courts. It's over, gun laws exist, their legal because we the people say they're legal. Move on already.
You hate cops, ok, but Cops are not Nazis, they are public servants that enforce the law and protect our communities. The police are disrespected, underfunded, undertrained, and under siege by people like you that couldn't walk a mile in their shoes.
Getting back on topic, Was the chief of police wrong on the day of the 1SG's 2nd Amendment audit? Yes
He didn't try to de-escalate the situation, he knew about the event because the 1SG called him, and still he went in like it was an armed revolt. The chief was wrong.
But the 1SG yelling at the cops was childish and uncalled for. His refusing to comply with an officers instructions was not only dangerous as tensions were already high, but gave the officers an excuse to go hands on.
Comply, record, report and take legal action. The 1SG unnecessary risked getting shot over nothing, the law had been changed.
And yes you're going to jump on the word comply, oh my god he said comply your thinking, but it's not 1776, as much as you want this to be some big revolution nonsense, following the instruction of the police officer, yes even when he was technically wrong is the legally appropriate manner in which to deal with this situation, especially since weapons were present and the police were already amped up.
We have laws, regulations, and procedures. We the people wrote them, approved them so we should follow them. The proper and safe thing to do was follow the instructions of the chief and file the correct complaints and take the correct legal action later.
But gun laws are legal. The second amendment was written by man, approved by those with the AUTHORITY GIVEN THEM By men (and woman), and validated by the courts we established to determine and interpret our laws. Your argument was tried and denied in the courts. It's over, gun laws exist, their legal because we the people say they're legal. Move on already.
You hate cops, ok, but Cops are not Nazis, they are public servants that enforce the law and protect our communities. The police are disrespected, underfunded, undertrained, and under siege by people like you that couldn't walk a mile in their shoes.
Getting back on topic, Was the chief of police wrong on the day of the 1SG's 2nd Amendment audit? Yes
He didn't try to de-escalate the situation, he knew about the event because the 1SG called him, and still he went in like it was an armed revolt. The chief was wrong.
But the 1SG yelling at the cops was childish and uncalled for. His refusing to comply with an officers instructions was not only dangerous as tensions were already high, but gave the officers an excuse to go hands on.
Comply, record, report and take legal action. The 1SG unnecessary risked getting shot over nothing, the law had been changed.
And yes you're going to jump on the word comply, oh my god he said comply your thinking, but it's not 1776, as much as you want this to be some big revolution nonsense, following the instruction of the police officer, yes even when he was technically wrong is the legally appropriate manner in which to deal with this situation, especially since weapons were present and the police were already amped up.
We have laws, regulations, and procedures. We the people wrote them, approved them so we should follow them. The proper and safe thing to do was follow the instructions of the chief and file the correct complaints and take the correct legal action later.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
CPT Clay Autery - I did not know what OCT was until he got arrested, does well for any cause.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Sam Stasik
SGT (Join to see) - Why do you always feel the need to put people down and be so profane? In response to one of your earlier comments about Luke, Jesus also said to turn the other cheek and to give unto Rome that which is Rome's. See, cherry picking the Bible will get you any result you want, but you have to use it in the correct context or it is negated. I know you'll have a snarky reply to this, so bring it on Brother, I'm loaded for bear today!
(0)
(0)
12
12
0
In Texas, anyone over 18 has the right to open carry a long gun except in posted gun free zones. To open carry a side arm you must have a CHL. That is it in a nutshell.
(12)
(0)
11
11
0
So your saying if you don't like the law be quiet, stay in your room and call your representative who has already passed a law against the exact ordnance. If that doesn't work beg a judge to hive you standing against when that approach is against current judicial procedure.
It is really frustrating to us activist when people who know very little about their true rights and laws pertaining to activism and getting real change tell those who been doing this for years how to do it.
Seems like they jyst are too arrogant or not true individual freedom lovers.
It is really frustrating to us activist when people who know very little about their true rights and laws pertaining to activism and getting real change tell those who been doing this for years how to do it.
Seems like they jyst are too arrogant or not true individual freedom lovers.
(11)
(0)
SSG Jeffrey Leake
I didn't write the article MAJ Von Arney. I simply shared it. I don't live in Texas, so I'm not thoroughly up to speed on the States gun laws. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do anything. You might want to step down from your soap box Sir.
(3)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
Maj Von Arney, Your an activist really? so that means you can not comply with an officers instructions? Here let me help you, that would be a NO. Your message is lost in civil disobedience. What should have been a discussion on the failure of the police to adhere to the current law becomes a discussion on CJ failing to obey an officer while armed.
(3)
(0)
1SG Cj Grisham
SFC Matthew Parker - You spelled "failing to obey an unlawful order by an officer" wrong.
(0)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
1SG Cj Grisham - Did I? That's what I get for typing at all. Its why I stay away from texting, fat fingers and impatience.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Olmos Park Police Chief UNLAWFUL arrest CJ Grisham
This is the UNEDITED Facebook Live (with comments) of the Olmos Park Police Chief commiting a FELONY by slamming CJ Grisham to the ground and tasing him when...
The complete, unedited encounter and illegal arrest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gww5_c1EikA&t=381s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gww5_c1EikA&t=381s
(10)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
I hear CJ running his suck, I hear his friends yelling crap at the officers and I see officers losing their temper. "I told you guys you were going to learn" WTF is wrong with you yelling that crap.
Then I see and hear them refuse to comply with orders from an officer.
You escalated not deescalated this situation. Cops were wrong, but Cj caused this.
You also hear the police tell the fire department the area was not secure, open carry is legal, great, but armed men yelling insults does not help. You gave the police the "fear defense" for their actions.
You also hear the police say they quelled a rebellion, really a rebellion? it was an open carry event from someone who had called the chief. amateur hour.
Both CJ and the police chief need a timeout.
Then I see and hear them refuse to comply with orders from an officer.
You escalated not deescalated this situation. Cops were wrong, but Cj caused this.
You also hear the police tell the fire department the area was not secure, open carry is legal, great, but armed men yelling insults does not help. You gave the police the "fear defense" for their actions.
You also hear the police say they quelled a rebellion, really a rebellion? it was an open carry event from someone who had called the chief. amateur hour.
Both CJ and the police chief need a timeout.
(3)
(0)
10
10
0
If this person wants to protest a law, or the actions of a law enforcement officer, the courts are the correct venue. Not walking around loaded for bear after having a confrontation prior.
I have seen so, so many conservatives tell people if a police officer tells them to do something, do it. Argue in court later.
Theses kind of scenarios are going to get out of hand someday and people are going to die.
I have seen so, so many conservatives tell people if a police officer tells them to do something, do it. Argue in court later.
Theses kind of scenarios are going to get out of hand someday and people are going to die.
(10)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
As long as the police know they can do this and not be punished for it, the courts are never the correct issue. Far to many police are just assholes with itchy trigger fingers, they WANT this to happen.
(0)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
SGT (Join to see) - That is BS of the highest caliber. No police officer wants a violent encounter. Far to many civilians and anti police Sergeants who can't wear a beret properly are assholes that want a reason to be violent. Police are investigated out of the public eye, fired and see jail time.
You want to know why police are quick to draw a weapon today? Go ask them. Try speaking with one, take a ride along and see what they deal with day in and day out.
Are there bad cops yes, but just as many bad civilians and criminals as well.
Pick a side, police or criminals.
You want to know why police are quick to draw a weapon today? Go ask them. Try speaking with one, take a ride along and see what they deal with day in and day out.
Are there bad cops yes, but just as many bad civilians and criminals as well.
Pick a side, police or criminals.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
SFC Matthew Parker - I agree, basically. However, I would pick law over either side.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC Matthew Parker shallow perspective. There is a Escalation of Force matrix "tree" for a reason. But what is becoming glaring evident is Police Officers are going to red/black without probably cause/threat. Once the gun is pointed at you, it's no longer about legality it's about life or death to that person. Dont get me wrong when I was a Police Officer In the 90s the none trained conversation tableside was "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and go home at the end of shift to your family. This attitude seems to have amplified in the past 10 years by police which is a problem. How does law enforcement change this perception?
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
The lawyers will figure it out. Hopefully before activists from either side resort to war in the streets. I sometimes think that's what some want, and that never ends well. Issues as large and potentially dangerous as this need to be handled in court, and with some cool and unarmed heads from both sides. They got lucky this time.
(10)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Matthew Parker - I don't show respect to someone who works for me and violates MY orders or the law. Goes both ways. Respect is earned, not bestowed.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CWO3 (Join to see) - Do you honestly think the police would listen to a group of citizens armed with soup spoons? The situation with the police is WHY the 2nd Amendment exists and the Founding Fathers KNEW this.
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - See Erik Thompson's post above mine. Soup spoon was a reply to his post.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CWO3 (Join to see) you seem to fail to grasp the only armed (gun in hands) persons were.law enforcement, so only one side was Escalating this incident. When anyone points a weapon (gun) at you, they intend to kill you. It is actually against most department's policies to use lethal force (brandishing) unless the officer believes his life is at IMMEDIATE threat.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
Not usually a fan of open carry, though I do like the option especially when headed to the range or on an outdoor activity like motorcycle riding, hiking, fishing, or camping. I just don't think it is necessary to advertise what I have when I have it. I assume that everyone is carrying and I think many people assumes that anyone could be carrying especially here in Arizona.
If things go down, I don't want to be the first person targeted because I pose the immediate threat since I am the most visible. Conceal carry is what I do most often, so I don't have most people paying extra attention to me. People are often too unpredictable with what is right in front of them. All i need is for some mentally disturbed person going for my gun because it is readily available to him and in his line of site.
As for this police chief and his officers, they need some education that a lawsuit should help out with.
If things go down, I don't want to be the first person targeted because I pose the immediate threat since I am the most visible. Conceal carry is what I do most often, so I don't have most people paying extra attention to me. People are often too unpredictable with what is right in front of them. All i need is for some mentally disturbed person going for my gun because it is readily available to him and in his line of site.
As for this police chief and his officers, they need some education that a lawsuit should help out with.
(9)
(0)
MSgt Sam Stasik
No one outside the military needs to have an AR-15 - they are not made for hunting deer or squirrels, they are made for hunting people - period.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Tommy Amparano
MSgt Sam Stasik - I disagree. Determining what someone else "needs" is a slippery slope. Also, the second amendment is not about hunting deer and squirrels.
(3)
(0)
SPC Curtis Underwood
If You restrict open carry in any form you have defeated the second amendment.
The second amendment has already been restricted by laws made back in the 1950's not allowing full auto weapons to be owned by legal, upstanding citizens that would never use them in any form other then in a have too case. Only Way to own them is go through an extensive bunch of red tape taking years to get approved.
There are some good reasons to openly carry a long gun. Example you own a store, it has been robbed several times and your life has been threatened then you can bet I would have a long gun, hand gun and any thing else I could use for protection with me at all times. Another example is you testify against some criminal and put him away and his gang threatens your life.
Now do you still want to restrict open carry of long guns?
AR15's are not and never will be a military rifle for three reasons, they will not hold up to the riggers that a military M16 would, they are not full auto, and they do not have the attachments available that the military weapons have, such as grenade launchers under barrel etc. I own an Ar15 and was trained on M16's so I know the differences. Auto selector make the M16 a military weapon AR's do not have this so it is basically a dressed up long gun.
The second amendment has already been restricted by laws made back in the 1950's not allowing full auto weapons to be owned by legal, upstanding citizens that would never use them in any form other then in a have too case. Only Way to own them is go through an extensive bunch of red tape taking years to get approved.
There are some good reasons to openly carry a long gun. Example you own a store, it has been robbed several times and your life has been threatened then you can bet I would have a long gun, hand gun and any thing else I could use for protection with me at all times. Another example is you testify against some criminal and put him away and his gang threatens your life.
Now do you still want to restrict open carry of long guns?
AR15's are not and never will be a military rifle for three reasons, they will not hold up to the riggers that a military M16 would, they are not full auto, and they do not have the attachments available that the military weapons have, such as grenade launchers under barrel etc. I own an Ar15 and was trained on M16's so I know the differences. Auto selector make the M16 a military weapon AR's do not have this so it is basically a dressed up long gun.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Frank Staples
MSgt Sam Stasik - Wow, I totally disagree with you...A ton of people around here hunt deer with AR platforms. They also plink, target shoot, shoot competition, etc., so an AR is simply another firearm available to the law abiding public. If you delete ANY firearm because of it's look ( aka: Gropey Joe Biden ) then you are denying the Second Amendment to the public.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
We have hired a law firm to ensure that Justice is served and this Police Department, especially the chief, is held accountable.
(9)
(0)
1SG Cj Grisham
MAJ (Join to see) - We are currently in the discovery phase of the lawsuit. They refused to settle in good faith.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google