Shotgun-armed teen charged with obstruction in Aurora after open-carry stop

“I think this is an uphill battle for this young man,” said Kris McDaniel-Miccio, a law professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law

By BRANDON JOHANSSON, Staff Writer

AURORA | A shotgun-toting Aurora teenager is facing a misdemeanor charge after he refused to give police his name or show ID when they stopped him for open-carrying a 12-gauge shotgun Sunday.

Steve Lohner, 18, was charged with obstruction after the incident Sunday afternoon near East Iliff Avenue and South Buckley Road. He is due in court Aug. 26.

Lohner, who videotaped the entire encounter with police and posted it to youtube.com, said he plans to fight the charge but does’t have a lawyer.

Steve Loner of Aurora in a picture he provided to the Aurora Sentinel. Police said they insisted on seeing his ID because he looked younger than 18, the legal age to carry a gun in Aurora.
Steve Loner of Aurora in a picture he provided to the Aurora Sentinel. Police said they insisted on seeing his ID because he looked younger than 18, the legal age to carry a gun in Aurora.

Aurora police Officer Frank Fania, a spokesman for the department, said that while it is legal to openly carry a gun in Aurora, it is illegal for juveniles to posses a gun. In this case, Fania said the officers needed to make sure Lohner was at least 18.

Police did not confiscate the weapon, which was loaded, and Lohner was not arrested.

Lohner said he has been carrying the Stoeger P-350 12-gauge shotgun around his neighborhood regularly since he bought it following his 18th-birthday in June. He said he was once beat up in the area, and another time someone pointed a gun at him, so he likes to carry the weapon for protection.

Since he wasn’t committing a crime, Lohner said he didn’t think he needed to show the officers his ID or tell them his last name.

In the video, police ask for his name and date or birth several times, consistently being polite and apparently jovial. Lohner refuses, insisting he doesn’t have to because he’s done nothing wrong.

“I don’t like to willingly hand those things over unless I absolutely have to,” he said later.

Kris McDaniel-Miccio, a law professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law, said that in most cases, people stopped by police don’t have to turn over an ID.

“You only have to produce ID if police have reasonable articulable suspicion that you either committed a crime or are about to commit a crime,” she said.

But in this case, if police weren’t sure Lohner was carrying the gun legally, they could demand to see his ID, she said. The case will likely hinge on whether Lohner looks like he could be younger than 18, she said.

“I think this is an uphill battle for this young man,” she said.

On the video, one of the officers tells Lohner he looks far younger than 18, possibly as young as 15.

Lohner said he has never had anyone tell him he looks that young.

A screen image from a YouTube video posted by an 18-year-old Aurora man. The man was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun on Colfax when contacted by police. He was charged with obstruction when he refused to tell police his name or show them his ID.
A screen image from a YouTube video posted by an 18-year-old Aurora man. The man was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun on Colfax when contacted by police. He was charged with obstruction when he refused to tell police his name or show them his ID.

The incident Sunday wasn’t the first interaction Lohner had with police. He said he has been stopped under similar circumstances more than a dozen times, all in that same area, but never before charged with a crime.

Fania said that while carrying a gun is legal, Lohner has regularly tied up police resources by doing so. In Sunday’s incident, Fania said officers responded after a resident called and reported a man walking down the street with a gun.

Lohner said he will continue to carry a gun, not just for protection, but to educate people about the fact that carrying a gun is legal in Colorado.

“The police cannot be there to prevent every crime,” he said.

Lohner said he videotaped the incident Sunday as he does any interaction with police.

“I tend to record every police interaction for the purposes of evidence,” he said.

Lohner said he knew officers were going to stop him because he was listening to a police scanner and heard officers discuss him, but he said he wasn’t baiting officers to contact him.

“I try to avoid police contact whenever possible,” he said.

  • http://www.opencarry.org Wayne Crawford

    If he can get a judge that can read, the case will be thrown out and the police officers will be charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights.

    5-5-1 Obstructing Government Operations.

    (a) No person shall knowingly obstruct, impair, or hinder the
    performance of a governmental function by a public servant by using or
    threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference or
    obstacle.

    (b) It is an affirmative defense to violation of this section that:

    (1) The obstruction, impairment, or hindrance was of unlawful action by a public servant;

    (2) The obstruction, impairment, or hindrance was of the making of an arrest; or

    (3) The obstruction, impairment, or hindrance was by lawful activities in connection with a labor dispute with the government.

    • joseph

      Wayne, maybe you should cite Aurora’s code in this case.

      • Kenneth Rogers

        Thankfully in the State of Indiana it’s actually against the law for a local ordinance to trump a state law.

        • Dber

          Same thing in Colorado re open carry, except Denver.

      • http://www.opencarry.org Wayne Crawford

        I would, but Aurora doesn’t have any ordinance using the word “obstruction”.

      • Dber

        Colorado Code:

        18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer

        (1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the
        peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority;

  • MrColorado

    Props to Aurora police for handling this extremely well and professionally.

    • John

      The police did not handle this correctly. He has no obligation to show ID if he has not committed a crime. They have no proof he has committed a crime. Looking younger than 18 while carrying a gun is not a crime. People need to know their rights and stand up for them.

      • John Galtius

        They justify it by saying it’s a “Voluntary Encounter,” which is fine as long as he is free to go.

    • John Galtius

      What part of the encounter did you agree with? The part where they stopped him illegally? Where they restricted his movement? Where they tried to bully him into agreeing to a search? The part where they lied to him? The part where they charged with with a crime in retaliation for him standing on his rights? Which part really makes you smile?

      • MrColorado

        Good grammar and English. Zero knowledge of the law.

  • CaliforniaRightToCarry

    “On the video, one of the officers tells Lohner he looks far younger than 18, possibly as young as 15.” If it is illegal in Aurora for persons under 18 to carry a shotgun and that was their “probable cause” for stopping him then he has a Fifth Amendment right not to provide an identification.

    See HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. (03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

    • Ace

      The case you cite was the cornerstone for requiring those reasonably suspected of a crime to identify themselves. That case further clarified that the required identification was NOT a 5th amendment issue. Did you even read the case you cited?

      • CaliforniaRightToCarry

        I am well aware of what the court said. In Hiibel, the court said that the Fifth Amendment was not implicated in the facts of that particular case. In this particular case in Aurora then there is a Fifth Amendment problem with the case. There is also a Fourth Amendment problem given that a person who looks like he might be under legal age in and of itself provide for probable cause.

        And that includes the assumption that it is illegal for 15 year old’s to openly carry a long gun at that particular time and place.

        • John Galtius

          Which it is not. There is no age limit on carrying long guns.

    • John Galtius

      Colorado does not have a minimum age to carry rifles or shotguns. There is no age issue here. The police lied to have a reason to confront the man. They also violated state law… “Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person’s ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6]”

      So the polce violated the law, falsely charged him with a crime, and assaulted/harassed him.

  • Rickforfree

    I don’t think that there is a law that says that a person needs to be of a certain age to possess a shotgun. There is a Colorado statute that says juveniles cannot possess a handgun but not one for shotguns or rifles. If you know of a law that prevents juveniles from carrying a shotgun please reply.

    • Ace

      There is. 18 is said age.

      • Rickforfree

        Can you cite the statute, please?

        • John Galtius

          He can’t because he’s lying to you.

          • Rickforfree

            Yea, he already admitted that.

      • John Galtius

        Ace, why are you lying to people?

        Colorado does not provide a minimum age to possess rifles or shotguns.

  • http://www.kacweb.com/writing.html Kenny Chaffin

    Hmmmm, this should prove interesting….

  • DeskEditor

    EDITOR: interesting report. Does Colo have a ban on 15 year olds possessing long guns? I would doubt that – most states let 14 year olds and over have long guns. FYI no state may require people to carry ID says S. Ct. (Kolender v. Lawsen). And in Hiibel case S. Ct. held that stating one’s name is the most the police can require of persons stopped under reasonable suspicion – but even then – only oif there is a state law reuqiring that persons state their name. Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder, OpenCarry.org, 703-945-0824

    -Mike@OpenCarry.org

    • Ace

      See: Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District

      • Rickforfree

        Please cite the law that prohibits an 18 year old from possessing a shotgun. You have said several times there is such a law so you should have no trouble citing it.

        • Ace

          18 USC 922(b)(1) sets the minimum age for sale or transfer of a firearm. While there is no minimum age set to possess a rifle or shotgun in Colorado, our videographer tells the police that he purchased his shotgun. It would therefore be reasonable to conduct an investigatory stop if you believe the sale or transfer of the firearm was unlawfully made to an underage person.

          The big picture point that I’ve been trying to hammer home is that these sorts of acts are not going to help in the war against more restrictive gun laws. The gun owners in Colorado right now need to be responsible and respectful, because our numbers are far outweighed by those who would just as quickly ban all firearms.

          • Rickforfree

            So, when you said several times that the minimum age to possess a shotgun was 18 you were not telling the truth?
            Were you intentionally misleading us?

          • Ace

            I misspoke and I did not properly explain my initial point. Sorry.

          • LUV2SKICO

            In Colorado, an unsupervised minor under the age of 18 may possess a handgun in the home with written authorization of the parent or legal guardian for purposes of self defense. They may also possess the weapon outside the home under certain circumstances such as firearms training, competitions, etc. again with written permission.

          • Dber

            I don’t see how he was being disrespectful and I disagree with gun owners being outnumbered.

          • LUV2SKICO

            So you’re all for cops stopping MMJ licensees leaving a dispensary or stopping recreational pot shop patrons if they are wearing a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners shirt? It’s illegal for them to possess or purchase guns or ammunition so it would be “reasonable” to infer from the organization emblazoned on their shirt that they are gun owners.

            If you think for a moment that Obama’s DOJ is looking the other way for MMJ, see 18 USC 922(d)(3) and ATF open letter to FFLs here:
            http://nevadaguntrustattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

          • John Galtius

            Ace, you cannot fight a war for your rights by being nice, or respecting the limits you oppose. That you think you can just tells me you’ve lived wrapped up in padding and have no clue how the world works.

          • Aldo Elmnight

            “because our numbers are far outweighed by those who would just as quickly ban all firearms.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/colorado-lawmaker-concedes-defeat-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • Croi Dhubh

    “Shotgun toting”? Great unbiased, bang-up journalism there. Him looking 18 or not isn’t against the law. There is nothing saying you MUST provide ID to an officer. He can’t be charged with obstruction because he was within his rights. The officers committed an illegal stop.

    If Aurora is tying up resources by being stupid and not following the law, then maybe it’s Aurora’s problem, not the citizens. I hope he makes a LOT of money off of APD so they learn their lesson like Golden, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs.

    • Dber

      Cops only ask for ID because they are lazy and have no probable cause, otherwise they would just take him to the station and fingerprint.

      • Ace

        To both of you, reasonable suspicion existed in this case. This 18 year old appears younger in the above picture. I would guess 16. While provable cause is required to make an arrest, only reasonable suspicion is required to make a stop. A reasonable belief that this boy is 15-16 is valid suspicion to stop and verify age given that it would be unlawful for a person less than 18 years to possess a shotgun.

        A lawful stop does allow law enforcement to require identification. After these officers verbalized their reasonable suspicion, the child in this video remained defiant and rightfully bought an obstruction charge.

        • Rickforfree

          The “child” in this video is old enough to join the Marines and go to war. That’s some child.

          • Fed up

            Depends on age doesn’t it? I say send him to the recruiter

          • Rickforfree

            He is 18 years old and doesn’t deserve to be called a child. Whether or not he is sent to a recruiter is not your decision.

        • Colorado Gun Owners

          This had nothing to do with age. The officer stated he wanted to see his license because the guy was walking around with a shotgun and “creating a disturbance”. After being refused his unlawful demand for ID he switched to trying to unlawfully take the shotgun. After that was refused he went back to the ID.

          • John Galtius

            See, he was fishing. If the kid shut up and said nothing but, “Am I Free to Go?” this would have ended differently.

            You do NOT have to answer the questions of the police.

          • Margaux Milchen

            And they can hold you for no reason for up to 72 hours. Smh

          • Nick25

            You like to spread the nutty around, like a great big jar of nutty peanutbutter! You goof!

          • Fed up

            Can just see a bunch of 15 year olds running around with loaded shotguns. My god!

        • LUV2SKICO

          Reasonable suspicion? Let’s see, a person is wearing a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners shirt and walks out of a MMJ dispensary or legal pot shop. Does the cop have reasonable suspicion to investigate if he owns a firearm because he sure as hell “looks like” a gun owner with that shirt? Is he committing a crime by refusing to talk to the cop or provide ID? Where did the fifth amendment disappear to?

          What if he says yes? Now they can arrest him and get a search warrant for his home since he admitted to a violation of federal law – one of the few marijuana laws that Obama’s DOJ still cares about in states that have MMJ and/or recreational pot laws?

          Note: BATFE has sent a letter to all Colorado FFLs stating that they are in felony violation of 18 USC 921 if they sell ammunition or guns to a known pot user.

        • John Galtius

          No, it’s not. Is it probable cause to arrest you if you have long hair? It was used as justification many times in the 60’s.

        • Aldo Elmnight

          “given that it would be unlawful for a person less than 18 years to possess a shotgun.”
          This is not against the law. The stop was unlawful and the officers committed kidnapping.

      • John Galtius

        Exactly. When the kid was stopped, he should have said, “I do not consent a search, and I free to go?” and said NOTHING ELSE.

      • Fed up

        Wrong again

      • U.S.M.C. Liberal

        You are tons of rational information.

    • John Galtius

      I hope that when the charges are dismissed, he sues the department for false arrest, acting under color of law, and harassment.

      • Fed up

        They won’t be. He pushed the limits snd lost this tomr.

      • U.S.M.C. Liberal

        ^^^^^^ top two delusional freaks.

    • LUV2SKICO

      Today it’s hard to imagine a paper blaming a particular race for violent crime perpetrated by a minority of its members. Or taking on a predominant culture or value system in that racial membership because it differs from the prevailing social norm. It’s nearly impossible to imagine them heaping vitriol on a hundred year old civil rights organization that was established to protect the rights of members from institutionalized bigotry. They would be excoriated for using the techniques of Joseph Goebbels to gin up an irrational fear of members of the despised class. And suppose they went to the extreme and proposed involuntary detention for this racial minority much like was done in WW2 by the Roosevelt administration?

      Painting with such a broad brush is not only ignorant. It’s bigoted and downright uncivilized. It victimizes the vast majority of this race who are upstanding citizens. We call such people bigots, consider them small minded and shoo them to the dark corners of civilized society.

      Yet the well established editorial policy of the Aurora Sentinel is exactly this sort of blind, ignorant hatred towards the constitutionally protected civil rights of their targets. Just substitute race with gun ownership and substitute the NAACP with the NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization.

      If ever there was any doubt about the unhinged left wing politics of the Sentinel’s editorial board, this article by board member Dave Perry representing the paper should put it to rest. If he had his way, nearly five million Americans would be interned in Guantanamo because they are members of an organization that protects their civil rights which the Sentinel abhors.

      http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/perry-we-can-only-save-ourselves-from-kidnappers-at-the-nra/.

      Perry completely misrepresents the Manchin-Toomey Senate gun bill and the NRA’s position on it which is stated below:

      http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/statement-from-the-national-rifle-association-regarding-toomey-manchin-background-check-proposal.aspx

      The anti-gun statists wish to arbitrarily and permanently prohibit a civil right to people they arbitrarily consider mentally deficient. We’re not talking about Adam Lanza the Newton shooter who failed his backgrount check and was denied a gun. No, we’re not talking about Cho the VA Tech shooter, or Loughner the Tuscon shooter, or Holmes the Aurora shooter. All of them had access to guns precisely because the mental health system failed to follow existing laws – mostly due to an ignorant concern for a right to privacy (the NICS database is not a public record).

      The fact is that the NRA does not oppose disqualification of the mentally deficient as long as the system that disqualifies them is protected from abuse by radicals that want to ban all gun ownership. The NRA is opposed to any system whereby veterans who had in the past suffered and recovered from PSTD are permanently denied their civil rights. This is in fact happening today as the anti-gun Obama administration is denying that right to returning veterans who are being treated for PTSD and survivor’s guilt.

    • Fed up

      Wrong so wrong. Him in my neighborhood? I’m calling the cops.

      • Aldo Elmnight

        You would be abusing the 911 system and wasting police resources.

      • Kenneth Rogers

        Call the cops all you want cupcake I wave at them as they drive by.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      He should sue them but unfortunately he will make a lot of money off of the taxpayers.

      • U.S.M.C. Liberal

        He won’t get a dime.

    • Margaux Milchen

      This kid should have been stopped and IDed…hopefully he will have to pay a lot of money to the city.

  • Kenneth Rogers

    love it… This is Nazi America. You voted Obama in. Now you are seeing the fruits of his labor. We must now show them our papers.

    • Fed up

      Kenneth, come on man! you want EVERYBODY to start packing openly? Lot’s more road rage or just shoot someone and claim you felt threatened? We are supposed to live in a civilized society and ANYBODY walking around with a loaded weapon is suspect in my opinion. This ‘boy’ wants to carry a gun? Have him join the military and he can carry and shoot all he wants to. I do not want him on my street though!

      • Dber

        That’s what they said when concealed carry became shall issue: “it will be like the wild west!” “Blood in the streets!” “Road Rage!!!”

        Give me a break.

      • http://archive.bebo.com/c/photos/view?MemberId=8666554129&PhotoNbr=1&PhotoAlbumId=10506053464#photoId=10506053469 Bridgette

        Socialist punk loser. Your opinion shows your complete disdain for the constitution.

        Silly little half of a man.

        Yes, we want everyone to open carry. You’re a complete puzzy for being scared of law abiding citizens openly carrying.

        Bet you’d change your tune if one if one of us saved your life. Or are you such a liberal that you’d rather die than have a gun in close proximity? Probably, and that would be best for the rest of the country, having you not here.

        You and your ilk are what’s wrong with America. Piss off you pansy.

      • LUV2SKICO

        Fed up says: “This ‘boy’ wants to carry a gun? Have him join the military and shoot all he wants to. I do not want him on my street though!”

        Your street huh? Like he has no right to be there? You sound like the southern bigot that didn’t like black folk eating in “his restaurant” or attending “his” children’s school. If they want to eat at a restaurant, there’s plenty of them in darkie town.

        Maybe you can relate to the bible thumper that was put off by a gay couple’s PDA and wants to outlaw gay sex. Many anti-sodomy laws were on the books for decades in several states thanks to people who think they are morally superior like you.

        When someone exercises their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights peacefully and you want to use the coercive power of government to prohibit them from doing so because it makes you uncomfortable, that makes you a bigot in my book.

        And don’t BS me about social danger. I’ve heard all the stereotypes about black people having diseases and being moral degenerates. I’ve heard the crap about people getting AIDS from using that same toilet as a gay man.

        Your opinion is just as vacuous and morally reprehensible. It has been thrown up in every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia where concealed carry is now legal. Every time it has been proven wrong. But like the hard core bigots who refused to accept integration or gay rights, you are wrong and your opinion denies people the right to lawful self defense.

        In the several states where open carry is legal, there has not been a wild west shootout problem. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true.

        “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – President Ronald Reagan

        • Fed up

          I’m 68. I lived those years. Saw the bigotry. I’m against idiots with guns plain and and simple. And ALL forms of discrimination. Try again.

          • Trouble2011

            You are for discrimination against law abiding citizens that what to protect themselves though. Fedup your not very bright according to you only people’s rights you agree with are ok. Peoples 2A is just as important as your 1A

          • Aldo Elmnight

            You don’t have to be armed.

          • Kenneth Rogers

            You ride the short bus I take it?

      • John Galtius

        I DO want everyone to start packing openly.

      • Aldo Elmnight

        “you want EVERYBODY to start packing openly?”
        YES
        ” Lot’s more road rage or just shoot someone and claim you felt threatened?”
        Non sequitur and not rational.

        “We are supposed to live in a civilized society and ANYBODY walking around with a loaded weapon is suspect in my opinion.”
        Guilty before proven innocent is one of the hallmarks of a non civilized society.

        “This ‘boy’ wants to carry a gun?”
        He is a man.

        “Have him join the military and he can carry and shoot all he wants to.”
        He doesn’t have to.

        “I do not want him on my street though!”

        Good thing people’s rights are not contingent on your wishes. You are a statist fool.

        • Kenneth Rogers

          I love how Fedup thinks his feelings trump our rights. What a candy ass.

  • Fed up

    I can’t believe the ‘support’ for this kid. I certainly don’t want him walking around my neighborhood with a loaded gun of any kind. He’s obviously got authority issues. I’m 68 and a Police officer asks me for ID I’m giving it to him…no question no animosity at all……

    • UBG

      I don’t want someone who has authority issues (seemingly on the other end of the spectrum) like you walking around my neighborhood. See how that works?

      • Dber

        Agreed. I prefer to stay as far away as possible from willing slaves.

      • http://archive.bebo.com/c/photos/view?MemberId=8666554129&PhotoNbr=1&PhotoAlbumId=10506053464#photoId=10506053469 Bridgette

        Yes, but your obviously conditioned to lay down to anyone of any authority.

        You prove the old adage that liberals won’t even take their own side in a fight. You’d rather be murdered by some thug than ever be close to a weapon.

        I hope no one is relying on you to protect them.

        Silly little half of a man.

        Tell you what, if ever you’re being beaten to death, or accosted by a criminal with no right to carry, we won’t pull our guns out and save you.

        No, nothing bad ever happens to anyone, right?

        • John Galtius

          Oh, I love that! Liberals don’t even take their OWN side in a fight!

    • ezaspie

      I agree this isn’t the wild west. He was in his rights, but what a little punk. Well live by the gun die by the gun, good luck out there. Guns make people uneasy and we pretty much a stand your ground state. Just a recipe for success I suppose.

      • http://archive.bebo.com/c/photos/view?MemberId=8666554129&PhotoNbr=1&PhotoAlbumId=10506053464#photoId=10506053469 Bridgette

        It’s good thing this lady wasn’t relying on puzzies like you when she needed help.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6pYEJhIFxQ

        • John Galtius

          But liberals WANT her dead. If she dies then they get a really good case or Gun Control.

      • John Galtius

        Wow, and you breather and breed? I hope not the latter.

        • ezaspie

          I’m a gun owner and a proud one, but mouth breathers like you need to stop giving gun owners a bad name. Learn how to put a sentence together.

    • http://archive.bebo.com/c/photos/view?MemberId=8666554129&PhotoNbr=1&PhotoAlbumId=10506053464#photoId=10506053469 Bridgette

      Because you’re a silly little half of a man that can’t protect yourself or anyone around you.

      You’re such a liberal tard that you’d probably rather be killed by a thug than ever be exposed to a machine that fires lead.

      Hope no one is counting on your to protect them. Silly little half of a man.

    • John Galtius

      It’s not YOUR neighborhood, it’s his, and everyone else’s. That you think that your will applies over the will of everyone else is stupid.

    • SomeoneinAurora

      Well, it is “my” neighborhood and I respect his right to exercise his only carry option.

  • Brian Mcfarlane

    IF Aurora PD has stopped him over a dozen times like the article states, then it is the APD that has been wasting resources, harassing him. Lohner has no legal obligation to present an ID in this case but he should have cooperated with giving his full name. Charging him with a crime in this situation amounts to harassment.

    • http://www.opencarry.org Wayne Crawford

      Would you cooperate with those conspiring to violate your rights under color of law?

      • John Galtius

        This is what cowards demand. Comply with the police, no matter how wrong they are.

  • R. Bradley

    Yeah, but don’t have the misfortune of being at an intersection where a bank robber “might” be or they’ll cuff you and make you sit on the curb till they sort it out!

    • Dber

      May I add that it was Aurora PD that shut down an entire intersection and detained everyone in it for hours while they searched each and every car at gunpoint for a bank robber trying to get away. Women, children, elderly. It did not matter all their rights were violated. The getaway car had a gps tracker in it. Now I’m not a forensic scientist but it seems that laying low and tailing the guy until they tracked him to a less populated area would have earned them much more respect than rounding up innocent people like cattle.

      • R. Bradley

        Yup, that’s what I was referring to!

      • SomeoneinAurora

        Same Aurora PD, and about 100 yards from the exact same intersection that was shut down. I believe there are lawsuits pending for that one as well. Gonna be an expensive year or two.

  • bwm38

    Wow! Another example of police harassment. Open carry laws were made specifically for incidents like this. Police assuming something is amiss… The other side is: is it possible a crime will be committed? Prediction of a crime is not a crime. Leave the kid alone, observe him, note it in your little book in your breast pocket, ask why he is out and about armed, and leave him alone.

    • James Garcia

      ARe you aware there isn’t a law pertaining to open carry in the state? It isn’t prohibited so it is allowed.

      There is a law about juveniles in possession of a firearm and its a mandatory arrest.

      So when you see a kid carrying a shotgun they are going to get contacted. Had he provided an ID they would no longer have had reasonable suspicion of a crime and he would have been on his way.

      He chose to the outcome of the contact. Now he wants to whine about his own actions.

      I’m getting real tired of idiots trying to educate the public and casuing way more harm than good. Look at Starbucks, Chipolte and Target. In essence forcing otherwise neutral business’s to make a decision on an issue that didn’t have a public opinion on before.

      This guy in no way represents me but law abiding intelligent gun owners sure do get the bad press from people like this.

      • John Galtius

        Wrong. There is a minimum age to carry a handgun, but not a long gun.

        • bwm38

          nuff said

      • Dber

        It is in the State Constitution:
        Article 2 Section 13

        “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

        Preemption:
        No local governing entity shall prohibit travel with a weapon for hunting or lawful protection of a person or property.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    Mustn’t frighten the SWPLs.

  • Ace

    Steven, you have a lot of growing up to do. While I am a gun owner and a supporter of our 2nd Amendment, it is people like yourself and those morons carrying rifles in stores who set any forward progress back. Just because you can, does not always mean you should.

    If you know nothing about politics, know this: legislature comes on knee jerks and in wake of tragedy. The Aurora theater shooting was used to shoe horn the last set of gun laws limiting magazine capacity and requiring universal background checks. If people like yourself keep this up, it won’t be long before open carry is repealed. You have to understand, there is a large push thanks to organizations like Open Carry Texas to have the open carrying of firearms taken away in TEXAS! We are a much more blue state than Texas and you had better believe we will make that change with much less hesitation than Texas.

    Let’s talk briefly about legal issues. I know you’ll skip this, because you are apparently a CRS and Civil Rights expert. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the following:

    18-9-106. Disorderly conduct

    (1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

    (f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

    Now having read that, let’s go back to the video. You said it was not your intent to cause alarm. Guess what? Not necessary to commit this cringe. You KNOWINGLY presented your weapon. Clearly you carried it in a manner that caused alarm as several people called the police because they were scared by your display of force. I am going to go a step further and infer that your INTENT was to cause alarm and to goad the police as you had a video camera prepared for your encounter with the police. I am quite frankly shocked that you were not arrested for disorderly conduct and I think you should consider yourself lucky as your gun would have been seized as evidence of the crime.

    Additionally, since it’s clear you are anti law enforcement, what would your YouTube video look like if the tables were turned? What if you were again legally stopped, but this time, the cops were slinging long guns. You would probably feel intimidated and even a bit scared. That is a normal response to seeing a slung long gun. This mantra that open carrying rifles and shotguns is going to “get people familiar with seeing them” is stupid. People instead are jumping on the open carry ban side because they don’t want to see that and to live in fear. You’re in a city that was scorn by a violent long gun attack and in a county and state that have experienced three headline tragedies that all involved firearms in the past 15 years. It’s touchy and fear invoking and quite frankly it’s rude.

    I think the big picture what you and a lot of other open carry advocates fail to see is that the police are generally gun right and 2nd amendment advocates. If you continue with this nonsense you will push your biggest supporters further away. You’ve already distanced yourself from the public. Believe you me, the people you frightened who saw you carrying a shotgun as they drove past you who were so frightened that they called the police were not swayed by this display of stupidity. In fact, they will now vote for lawmakers and governors who support stricter gun laws, because they don’t want to live in fear.

    You may carry a gun for self defense, but the general public has no idea what your intent is. In the climate of this world today, with active shooters in schools, churches, shopping malls and anywhere else you can imagine, how does anyone know what you’re planning? It’s not fair to them.

    I carry a gun on me everywhere I go. The difference with me is that nobody knows as it is concealed. I make extra efforts to ensure that it does not print as I don’t wasn’t anyone to see it. With that, I see your point. You are stuck in that realm of being allowed to own a long gun, but not a handgun. I believe the age to own a handgun should be the same as a long gun and that the age should be 18. There’s no real reason to have a 3 year gap. If you think you’re helping make a case for handguns at 18, you are sorely mistaken. If anything, your games will just push long gun purchase back to 21.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to affect change. The path you are taking is only going to lose the support of those on the fence about gun rights and push your strongest supporters further away.

    Grow up little boy and learn to show some respect. Not just to the police, but to those in your community as well.

    • Rickforfree

      This is a quote from the article -“The incident Sunday wasn’t the first interaction Lohner had with police. He said he has been stopped under similar circumstances more than a dozen times, all in that same area, but never before charged with a crime.”

      It seems to me Disorderly conduct would be hard to prove if police have approached him so many times and always let him go.

      You said nothing in your comment about the way police handled this situation. For example, the reason they gave for stopping him to begin with was that he was “carrying a shotgun.” Not that he looked too young to carry a shotgun. Next, they said that they stopped him because the gun “may be stolon”. They had no RAS to assume the gun was stolon. Next, they said they stopped him because he “might be a felon”. You know they can’t do that. Being a felon is not the default status. Finally I don’t think there is a law that prevents a juvenile from possessing a shotgun, so what statute were they enforcing that they needed to verify his age. Can you cite a city ordinance or state statute they says that a juvenile is not allowed to possess a shotgun? There is one for handguns but not shotguns. Thanks

      • Ace

        I’m not saying that the officers in this case handle themselves the best they could. It’s a tricky situation when you’re trying to balance someone’s civil rights with being recorded on video and all the while keeping yourself safe when dealing with a subject who’s carrying a loaded shotgun.

        The other point I’ve tried to make is that most cops are very gun friendly. Many of these open carry advocate are targeting cops and treating them as the enemy. These public displays are all efforts to draw law enforcement attention in an attempt to exploit civil rights violations on the internet. Why not go after your lawmakers and your government? Why mess with one of your largest supporting groups? You’re certainly on a war path to change a lot of cops’ minds when they have to deal with this sort of crap.

        To address your initial point, I think if you follow the letter of the law you can make a solid case for disorderly conduct. Clearly the people who called 911 were fearful and alarmed by Steven’s display. There is a reason that that statute carries a law enforcement exception. When you see police carrying slung rifles while approaching a business or a house, people notice and it causes alarm. Therefore, it should be reasonable to assume that a civilian engaged in the same action would raise similar alarm.

        I am a gun control opponent, however I see the big picture. If we keep this kind of BS up, we are just going to see more and more restrictive gun laws.

        • Rickforfree

          It is very relevant why he was open carrying. He knew the area to be a dangerous place. He had been attacked before. Weather you want to admit it or not, like everyone in America, he has a Constitutional Right to keep and “bear” arms. Colorado recognizes that as a Constitutional Right and does not prevent citizens from exercising that Right. Thus, open carry and concealed carry is legal in Colorado. It’s the law. Open carrying is the “only way” he can exercise his Right. That is what the law in Colorado tells him he “must do”. And being a law abiding American, that is what he did. Not because he was making a statement, but because he was openly, obeying the law. He is not a child, he is a man. Old enough to join the Marines and go to war. And you want to deny him his right to protect himself while claiming that right for yourself. So, I don’t agree that you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. The argument that an American should not use a Constitutional Right for fear that they might lose that right has always baffled me. Either way the right is gone, correct.

          • John Galtius

            Rick, I agree with you. I’ve seen a lot of anti-gunners in these forums saying that they are pro-gun by agree with restrictions. It’s a foolish thing to do, and real gun owners can spot them from a mile away… but sadly, liberals see them and nod and say, “See, HE’s reasonable.”

          • Rickforfree

            Yes, you are right. What I can’t stand is when people say they are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and then act like they never even heard of the 1st., 4th., and 5th.

          • Dber

            Or when people say they “target” law enforcement when it’s the cops who initiate these encounters before they have developed any RS.

        • Dber

          Their fear does not trump his rights and you continue to confuse slung with displayed.which are not the same. Soldiers sling their rifles over their shoulders when they are at ease, then un-sling and display when they go into battle, same with cops so there’s no real argument here for disorderly conduct.

        • Aldo Elmnight

          “If we keep this kind of BS up, we are just going to see more and more restrictive gun laws.”
          You are a slave.

        • Kenneth Rogers

          “I am a gun control opponent, however I see the big picture. If we keep this kind of BS up, we are just going to see more and more restrictive gun laws.”

          So it’s all sunshine and unicorns until someone wants to exercise a constitutional right eh? You couldn’t be furthur from the truth cupcake. Open Carry Texas has fought for and won the ability to put “Constitutional Carry” on the ballot box in 2015.

          A right that is not exercised is not a right at all.

    • Rickforfree
    • John Galtius

      “Steven, you have a lot of growing up to do. While I am a gun owner and a
      supporter of our 2nd Amendment, it is people like yourself and those
      morons carrying rifles in stores who set any forward progress back.”

      Ace, you start your argument with calling people morons. Then, you claim to be a gun owner (You’re not) and that you support the rights we have, as long as we don’t make waves, which is stupid and foolish. Then you imply that there is a way to protect or exercise a right without actually, well, exercising that right. Then you claim that… oh, I give up…

    • Dber

      you said he knowingly presented. A slung long gun on ones back is neither presented, displayed or brandished (all synonyms). The people who fear properly and legally carried firearms are the ones with issues and should be educated and their hoplophobia does not trump Stevens rights.

      • Fed up

        Gun safety. Since when do you carry a loaded shotgun strapped to your back? He simply got the attention he craved. Wheres mom and dad?

        • Dber

          How else do you carry one for protection genius? Don’t say unloaded because most intelligent people know that an unloaded gun is just a paperweight. This man is 18, old enough to join the marines.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      Some key words:

      “intentionally, knowingly”

      and

      “calculated to alarm”

      also note the colon after the word “recklessly:”

      Now go talk to you English teacher and do some more figuring on this issue.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      “The difference with me is that nobody knows as it is concealed.”
      Exercise your rights as long as nobody knows about it.

      It is the public’s reaction to this, conditioned by by decades of progressive liberal propaganda, that is wrong, not this individual exercising his rights.

      • Kenneth Rogers

        well said.

  • Bee Mw

    There is a reason they ask for an ID in a bar if you don’t look 25 (or 30 or whatever). This kid doesn’t quite look 18 and the officers did have a reason to merely ask for his ID. He shows it and goes about his business.
    There is a time and place to “demand” your rights. This wasn’t one of them.

    • Colorado Gun Owners

      How can you not see the absurdity of your statement? A time and place to demand your rights?? Are you serious?

      • John Galtius

        Yes, he is. And he’s part of the problem.

    • John Galtius

      The state has no minimum age for carrying long guns, so how do you justify the stop now?

    • John Galtius

      And pardon me, but when a police officer demands your ID without even a reason to talk to you, and refuses to allow you to leave, then NO I will not comply!

    • Dber

      And if you don’t show ID at a bar you they don’t let you in and you are free to leave. Not so much with these cops. And they didn’t want to just look at it either. They wanted to hold onto it (seizure) until they were satisfied.

  • Colorado Gun Owners

    The charge should be dropped. Police had no reason to detain him, disarm him or demand ID.

  • moral DK

    Welcome to the People’s Republic of Colorado. Where are your papers?

  • Ima_Speakonit

    If he was refusing to provide his full name or ID, then how were the police suppose to determine if he was an actual citizen of the United States entitled to the rights provided by the US Constitution?

    • franklygross

      because that would be profiling, and profiling is against the law…

    • John Galtius

      LOL, tell me, when the police walk up to you, out of the blue, and demand ID, do you comply? How do you know that the police officer is honest? How do you know if he is really a cop? When you stand back up, and start acting like a man, let me know your answers.

      • Ima_Speakonit

        Considering the fact that I’m a woman and I’ve never done anything that has caused a police officer to have to ask me for my ID, I really don’t what know to tell you.

    • matt wilkinson

      Dude, have you paying any attention to the news lately? Since when being a lawful citizen in this country even matter anymore??

  • John Galtius

    He was 100% right, the cops were 100% wrong.

  • buzzwald

    I see no reason why a chubby loner shouldn’t be able to walk around with a loaded weapon.

  • John

    A shotgun is really not powerful enough to protect yourself from a killer batman. You really need to be carrying Uzi’s. Protect yourselves. Let the arms race begin.

  • Spin2Win

    TASER him, pin him down & cuff him. Then check his ID – maybe after he spends a night in jail. This kid’s got problems.

  • good will

    Croi we americans do not need to fight with our employees! uniforms are only to be given to the qualified! threat duress coerscion are criminal and treason coming from our public servants who are becoming u.s. citizens which by lawful definition is a foreign person given naturalized status! games of whose in control from in the pen or controlling the pen is not america! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtC744jVWmE

  • good will

    the terminology is everything… he was threatened with a presentment from thugs in public service uniforms… he accepted clearly under duress and fear for his life! since no matter how excellent the marksman one shotgun and two armed hostile violent arrogant bullies with weapons… would be yet another waste of our good childrens lives! Aurora newspaper and city better get on this!

  • Margaux Milchen

    Open carry should be illegal in Aurora. You are wasting MY tax dollars and I sincerely hope the judge charges you enough to repay the city for this. I hope that this causes us to pass a NO open carry in our city.

  • sage58

    Just for sh*ts and giggles – – How do you think this young man would have been treated, all else being equal, if he was a young man of color?

  • Bundy

    Stop wasting our tax dollars- the APD are supposed to be professionals and if they dont know they law, they should not be cops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oz3cSeYQ90

  • sshoebeat

    If he was of color or Hispanic they would have shot him.

FindIt!