Armed Man Drives Through Charlotte Riot with Gun; Open Carry is Legal – VIDEO

By Dean Weingarten

Armed Man Drives Through Charlotte Riot with Gun; Open Carry is Legal
Armed Man Drives Through Charlotte Riot with Gun; Open Carry is Legal
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- There are riots in Charlotte, North Carolina, sparked by the shooting of an armed black man by a black police officer.

A motorist caught by rioters blocking the street, briefly displayed what appears to be a handgun.

From dailymail.co.uk:

A video of the alarming moment was posted on social media by writer Heather Head in the midst of the chaos.

‘White dude drives into crowd of peaceful protesters, draws gun, allowed to drive away alive. With my own eyes. #CharlotteProtest,' she wrote alongside the shocking clip.

The man was surrounded by protesters who were marching against the deadly shooting of black man Keith Lamont Scott by a cop on Tuesday afternoon.”

It is legal to openly carry a firearm in North Carolina, but not in a riot or organized protest, if the carry is intended to further the civil disorder.

From the UK Daily Mail:

The law states: ‘You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck.

‘You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people.'

The Daily Mail is using a shorthand version of the law, found on the Internet.  Their source appears to be criminaldefenselawyer.com.  The full statute shows that more is required to make the carry illegal. The law referenced is statute 14-288.20.

(b) A person is guilty of a Class H felony, if he:

(1) Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

(2) Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ unlawfully the training, practicing, instruction, or technique for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.

Presumably, the law would only apply to the willful carry of a weapon in a civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance, with the purpose of furthering the civil disorder.

It would be absurd to require an armed person to abandon their arms in the middle of a riot that they become inadvertently caught up in.

The video illustrates the effect of deterrence. After the motorist displays that he is armed, he eventually is able to move through the crowd without being stopped, as he was initially.

In the video, it appears that a police officer on a bicycle rolls up to the driver, and has a brief exchange before the driver drives off.

It is worth noting that the all of the people in the street who are “protesting“, are violating North Carolina law. It is illegal to obstruct the highways and roads in North Carolina, as it is in every state.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 20 thoughts on “Armed Man Drives Through Charlotte Riot with Gun; Open Carry is Legal – VIDEO

    1. Not a single person who brandished a gun in any of the riots across the country has been physically assaulted. Agree with it or not, it works. Cant say that about all the unarmed folks who got beat down and hit in the head with bricks and robbed.

    2. E.A. : There is a reason ‘brandishing’ is generally wrong. Because when the weapon is ‘out’ and being waved around, it becomes a ‘threat’ to you. And don’t the cops generally shoot the perp, when he takes out his weapon and points it at them? Do you want to make THAT illegal..with your ‘common sense’ question. Likewise with you. If the perp whips his weapon ‘out’ and points it at you, you will feel ‘threatened’ and most likely justified in shooting that perp without waiting for him to shoot first. Carrying is not a threat to me. Brandishing in front of me IS. I will respond with deadly force to a brandisher pointing at me. Not so with a ‘carry-er’. YEP….that’s ‘common sense[‘.

      1. Generally wrong and generally illegal. I fully support the 2nd and never leave home without my weapon, yet somehow just stating the law about brandishing makes us commies or something worse. As you point out, open carry and brandishing are not the same thing. I can’t believe how many of these folks can’t understand that simple difference. I guess they only know one definition of “carry”. Makes me wonder how they would carry a tune.

    3. Open carry is open carry. Brandishing is yet another “common sense” infringement to our right to keep and bear arms. He is using his firearm to stop an attack that he perceives as feasible, as several of the factors preceding uncontrolled violence so common lately have already occurred, and he is not necessarily ventilating anyone as he does. Isn’t it time to stop compromising for a “middle ground” between common sense gun control and our RKBA without infringement from those prohibited to do so? Because, if you look closely, the only ones that have compromised so far, and keep being asked to compromise more, all the way to “give up all your rights”, are us, the gun owners. Steady advance, like that of government and those fond of the idea of disarming us, hardly qualifies as compromising.

    4. Tionico:

      IF he was innocently ‘stuck’ in the crowd by making a wrong turn….- then I can see doing what he was doing. IF he drove into the crowd on purpose – then he’s an idiot.

      You are nuts if you ‘jump into the lion’s den’ to make a point. However, if you FALL in, then ‘whip it out’ and get the hell outta; there!

    5. This is NOT a “Brave” man. He is an idiot. WHY invite a possible deadly incident? Has he such a low feeling of self-esteem, that this is the only way that he can feel Good About Himself? AGAIN: These people are protesting the Murders, by the Cops, of Unarmed People of Color. Maybe if the man would take a moment & try to understand WHY these people are so frustrated & upset, he may NOT resort to such foolish actions (Which in America, ALWAYS results in the use of a firearm.). That is if he can think long enuf w/o his head starting to hurt & exploding.

      1. You are the idiot! This individual was caught in a threatening position, one that has been occurring around the country where individuals are being killed or severely beaten by these unruly dirtbags, and YOU expect him to be “NICE”? Criminals understand only one thing, and that is that you mean business when it comes to your self preservation. You are a f-king dipshit!!!!!!!!

    6. I met a young Louisiana transplant, in Charlotte, that used the same tactic during the Rodney King riots, in Los Angeles. It worked then, too. I wonder…..

    7. Open carry of a pistol/revolver means in a holster, not in the hand. This is brandishing. Not that I wouldn’t do the same.

      1. if that’s what it takes for these paid imported rioters to leave off their mayhem, then let it come sooner rather than later. Their rioting IS illegal, as pointed out in the article. Their destruction and threats to innocent lives is further illegal. The disparity of force concept makes such an unruly large crowd a significant lethal threat. Fifty people on one wil ALWAYS end up with the one dead or seriously hurt. We’ve seen it before.

        Personally I am convinced that law enforcement need to put on their Big Boy Pants and do what they are paid to do…. protect life and property from damage by these paid imported rioters. How many more cities will be destroyed before SOME city government wakes up and says “NOT HERE, NOT TODAY’ and meets lethal force with superior lethal forct?

      2. Open Carry means carrying it openly. I refuse to be embarrassed, or intimidated by you people who hate self defense and support crime.

        1. No idea why you immediately try to tar me as “you people who hate self defense and support crime”. If very much support self defense and the 2nd and do not like coddling criminals.

          I said “Not that I wouldn’t do the same”. That means that in the same situation, I would likely let the mob know that I was no pushover, just like he did.

          I stand by my comment that open carry of a handgun DOES NOT mean holding it in your hand. You can do that with a rifle and it’s open carry, but a handgun out of the holster is brandishing. Look it up.

          1. There are different forms of brandishing. In this instance it is in preparation for self-defense. Brandishing laws are meant to prevent people from using a weapon to intimidate or threaten others, but not in the case of imminent threat by the others! That is why it is NOT considered brandishing if you draw your weapon on a home invader and hold him for the police!

    8. Macho-Man. But COULD have turned U G L Y ……What would he have done if some dumb-ass thug kicked the side of his car? Get out and threaten him with a gun? Try to ‘arrest’ the thug? Then when 15 of them surrounded the car – shoot ’em all??

      Don’t be stupid, Macho-Man. May make you feel good for a moment….and we all feel good about standing down some thugs…..but what if..?

      Not worth it, in the long run.

      1. Innocent uninvolved driver getting caught in such a gang riot is facing a lethal force threat. We’ve seen it happen in other such riots. The truck driver in the Rodney King riots i LA, dragged from his tractor and beat to death for no reason but that he happened to be there.

        Presenting a firearm when faced with an emergent lethal force threat is justifiable Just one more of the couple million such incidents per year.

        What frosts me is the hoity toity Brit “reporter” getting her knickers all in a twist because, given the choice between highly likely death or serious injury when rioters illegally blocked the street, or displaying lethal force to assist the rioters in making an informed decision (only six rounds in that revolver, but WHO will volunteer to stop Round One? Then who will take Round Two, etc?) she condemns this man for choosing the latter. Has she forgotten the moslem on white riots in London and surrounds a couple years ago, where the Bobs were arresting and charging innocents for defending themselves with the best “weapons” available to them (bats, sticks, etc… ) against the hooligans in control of the cities? What, would SHE lay down and let them have their way with her and LIKE it? Barmy, she is.

    9. He’s a brave man for getting out of the car. Cowards, when amassed in numbers, usually attack from behind in a vicious fashion. I should think any citizen, having seen footage from the Rodney King riots, and the attempted murder of Denny on national TV, could conceivably assume his life was in danger when caught up in an illegal demonstration that violated his Constitutional rights and state law. Fortunate for them he did not fire. If these illegal protests over the killing of criminals continue, it is only a matter of time before someone gets shot attacking an innocent person.

      1. if that’s what it takes for these paid imported rioters to leave off their mayhem, then let it come sooner rather than later. Their rioting IS illegal, as pointed out in the article. Their destruction and threats to innocent lives is further illegal. The disparity of force concept makes such an unruly large crowd a significant lethal threat. Fifty people on one wil ALWAYS end up with the one dead or seriously hurt. We’ve seen it before.

        Personally I am convinced that law enforcement need to put on their Big Boy Pants and do what they are paid to do…. protect life and property from damage by these paid imported rioters. How many more cities will be destroyed before SOME city government wakes up and says “NOT HERE, NOT TODAY’ and meets lethal force with superior lethal forct?

    Comments are closed.