It might be legal to walk around with a rifle in the neighborhood, but it's not smart, and it's extremely insensitive. I believe Oregon law requires a concealed weapon permit holder to present his/her license upon request of a police officer. These guys refused to do that. Really dumb. They're lucky they didn't get shot.

600 years of Guns
125 years of semi-auto Guns
40 years of tabloid media
30 years of spree shootings...

So... you do the math.

Don't know your def of spree shootings, but mass murder with weapons - firearms or otherwise has been going on waaay longer than any of the other stats you list. And it will continue even after Obama and Feinstein trample your rights into the dust.

I would imagine the information leading the police to a particular situation plays a big part in the way they react after arriving. If the perps are reported to be despondent, threatening, committing a felony, and/or high on drugs the police may react one way. If two guys are nonchalantly walking down the street with rifles slung and are cooperative when police arrive, you would hope to get a calmer response. Risky move by these dummies for sure, but I would not try to read too much into the police response or lack thereof.

A. The city can't afford The judgment if the cops fired on these two;

B. Despite the examples of Captai....err, Lieutenant Todd and Chief Reese, the street cops aren't stupid. Unlike unarmed black guys, these guys might defend themselves if fired upon by our thugs in blue.

The YouTube video posted by one of them shows the whole incident from the beginning. Even when one kid tries to shake the hand of a cop upon their introduction (the cop declined to shake his hand due to the cop having a cold). In today's environment, regardless of being within the law, if these 'open carry' staged events continue, I easily see another CCW person engaging them with a drawn gun, even if a cop shows more restraint. Maybe the cops' restraint was due to the video evidence being collected?

Could end deadly for them, even if they are within the law. Kinda like Portland bicyclists, dead right.

Frank, what part of 'concealed' is happening here?

The neighborhood schools also went into lockdown thanks to those two idiots. Because of course it makes sense to terrify a bunch of school kids, especially after Sandy Hook. Idiots.

Well, that's easy. These guys looked like their families had the money to sue. And is it just me, or does the general Portland Police response remind you of Bill Hicks's assessment of Jack Palance in "Shane"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbO0f9uaWZE

“Historically, knights have worn their weapons on the outside," That's funny because this summer I did see a guy in downtown Portland wearing a Kilt and carrying a sword.

Harry - cold shmold, oldest line in the book to get out of shaking hands with someone you would rather beat the sh!t out of.

Just like when police arrive to find dimwitted protesters burning our flag in the streets. These guys were there to make their stupid point, and the cops had to put up with it, despite what they really wanted to do.

Sam T. - under Oregon law, the reason these yahoos can walk around with loaded rifles in the city is by virtue of the fact that they hold a concealed handgun license. Otherwise - it's illegal. I guess one could argue that the Oregon law is unconstitutional (2nd amendment) Don't know if it is or not. The Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and doesnt have the militia mumbo jumbo. confusing, no? No wonder the cops look puzzled.

As long as nobody gets hurt, I think I glad these guys are doing this. They are educating the public - about the insanity of our gun laws.

Conservatively as I may lean, I draw something of a parallel between the 1st amendment and yelling "fire" in a theater, to the 2nd amendment and this activity.

Causing people unnecessary worry or concern for the sake of making your point, even to the lock down of a school, is just wrong. Regardless of rights. If these guys were carrying their guns to trade at a gun show or something, that's one thing. But parading around with them - legally or not - is more injurious to their cause than anything.

Then again, our fair city allows illegal activities, like protesters camping in parks and closing down streets. So the city has helped set a precedent for aberrant behavior and testing limits.

I've got to agree, PDXLifer. The real issue isn't whether they have the right to bear those arms in that fashion. It's whether they're smart enough to realize that their little act-out fit in public doesn't exactly help their case. (Similarly, I've argued for years against the idiots who bring big snakes or lizards to the grocery store or to music events "to educate the public", no matter how badly herpetophobes may react to a Burmese python or savannah monitor in public. That isn't education. Education is setting up events that allow people to come up of their own accord and learn without having the snake shoved in their faces. As with these two, this is purely a cry of "Look at MEEEEEEEEE!")

"Idiots."

Yes, they really are idiots. I looked at his youtube channel the other day. Read about him in The Oregonian but turns out he's a local Southern Oregon boy.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/rifle_toting_activist_in_portl.html#incart_river

From the link:

Drouin, on his Facebook page, says he was home schooled and offers the following description, which contains spelling errors: "I am a full flesh libertarian and a gun right extremest. We the people should control our government and bring us back to when we had and own our Life, Liberty, and Property. I hate socialist, dictators, and corrupt Government. We are losing are rights every day while not knowing it and then it become to late."

Maybe these two guys oughtta join the military and go to Afghanistan or wherever. Oh wait, going to a war isn't something spineless pseudo-patriots who are really cowards usually want to do.

Whats really scary is the fact that most people don't even think twice about a government agent walking around with the same type of weapon plus body armor.

So - does the "open carry" law mean i can walk around in a bathrobey looking garmet with a keffiyeh on my noggin and a few kalashnikovs (the semi-auto type) in front of the World Trade Center (i'm talking about the WTC in Portland where "open carry" is legal)?

"Why didn't the cops just open fire?"

Maybe the cops thought those MIGHT be cell phones?

Those guys are white.

"I think I glad these guys are doing this. They are educating the public - about the insanity of our gun laws." I agree I too think it's insane that our gun laws allow these two to carry around loaded assault rifles in public. If I had seen this I probably would have needed a change of underwear.

Has anybody actually looked at the laws? There's nothing about the concealed handgun license that allows you to open carry a longarm, or even a knife. It's a CONCEALED (not open) HANDGUN (not longarm, knife, or other weapon) LICENSE (not permit, the government doesn't grant you permission because you already have it from the Constitution). I have no idea what the law in Oregon is about open carry, but I hope the police officers know, and the fact that they let the men continue their open carry probably means that open carry does not violate any Oregon law.

With tens if not hundreds of 911 calls ordinary citizens were no doubt alarmed. And the nearby Creative Minds Learning Center went on lockdown and there were police resources diverted in Portland and earlier in Gresham.

I was thinking that this could be a form of disorderly conduct (aka breach of peace) so I looked it up and found:
ORS 166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;

(b) Makes unreasonable noise;

(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;

(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;

(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;

(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or

(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.

To this layman, it seems like what these guys did falls short of this --- sub(e) is close but no cigar. I wonder if the Legislature will discuss including non-concealed carry in the public way or within x hundred feet of a school?

From another forum, an answer to Tom's point about open carry and the concealed weapon permit:

"Isn't this crazy. We live in an open carry state yet the city of Portland and about 5 other cities have modified their laws making it illegal to open carry unless you possess a Oregon Concealed Handgun License. We must continue to fight for the 2nd amendment."

I meant Kai's question, answered above.

Thanks for posting that, Bingo.

Not to hijack the thread, but the text of ORS 166.025 (Disorderly conduct) pretty much describes "occupy" all of the time.

Wait there were people with guns and no one got hurt???

My shocked face!

“Was I looking threatening?" says Mr. Homeschooled. No, you were looking like an insane person stalking the streets with high-capacity people killers slung on your back. What possible purpose could openly carrying these things down an urban sidewalk have for the casual observer. Nutjobs who commit mass shootings are also able to put on a calm outward appearance. The only rational response to these morons was to take cover and call 911. Because crazy doesn't show on the outside.

Sure, it's legal. So is walking down the sidewalk and saying f___ you to everyone you meet. It's stupid and rude, and ruins the day of everyone you encounter. Congratulations to these guys for demonstrating that any idiot can buy a gun. Poster child for home schooling.

Not much more to add to what's above, but regardless of personal philosophies, rights anymore seem to be argued as more defining of the appropriateness of an event than responsibilities. I think that's back-assward.

These young men are only 22 years old....frontal lobe brain development is incomplete at this age. This may explain their behavior.

In the video of the PPB encounter with the guys in Sellwood I thought the cops (notable Off. Dave McCormick) behaved very professionally and calmly represented their interest in stopping them and asking their questions. He said to the guy " I want to you try and step back and understand the position of the public...they are nervous..." It seems like this appeal to empathize with others fell on deaf ears, but I applaud the officer for trying so well..

If you make it through to the end of the video a different Officer tells the kid to check out "Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership". Advice from a police officer, how considerate! I Googled JPFO and found that they describe themselves as "America's most aggressive defender of firearms ownership" and who denounce the NRA for not being more vigilant and strident in 2nd amendment defense.

I found it strange that the PPB officer give this unsolicited suggestion to "check them out" to a guy who travels from Medford to Portland to provoke the public.