Texas man in banana costume with rifle cited by police

scientist · Feb 10, 2014

What is the world coming to?

<broken link removed>

fd15k · Feb 10, 2014

What's the problem ? Local ordnance says no soliciting, rifle or no rifle. If he were rallying in support of 2A, he would be protected
under 1A/4A and wouldn't get fined.

Both Eyes Open · Feb 10, 2014

How is this not a violation of 1st A rights? Aren't roads public areas? Are road signs for Denny's banned too? What has gone wrong with our society when a innocent banana can't open carry and plug his business on the side of the road! Sad indeed.

fd15k · Feb 10, 2014

Both Eyes Open said:
How is this not a violation of 1st A rights? Aren't roads public areas? Are road signs for Denny's banned too? What has gone wrong with our society when a innocent banana can't open carry and plug his business on the side of the road! Sad indeed.

He was conducting a commercial operation, and commercial entities aren't afforded the same level of protection. Although
SCOTUS found corporations to have rights not so long ago

scientist · Feb 10, 2014

Sounds like the LEOs didn't believe the store owner's 2A argument based on a previous incident:

<broken link removed>

Plus photo of the banana being frisked:

https://twitter.com/Vanessa12News/status/432222469319974912/photo/1

Maybe fruit is being profiled by law enforcement? Does country of origin matter? Did they think he was a terrorist from a South American Banana Republic?

fd15k · Feb 10, 2014

scientist said:
Sounds like the LEOs didn't believe the store owner's 2A argument based on a previous incident:

Never mind my earlier post. I think I remember that story now.

daoism · Feb 11, 2014

What kind of world do we live in where a man in banana costume can't advertise guns for sale? It's a sad day for armed fruit shaped mascots everywhere.

1337BaldEagle · Feb 11, 2014

fd15k said:
What's the problem ? Local ordnance says no soliciting, rifle or no rifle. If he were rallying in support of 2A, he would be protected
under 1A/4A and wouldn't get fined.

People are missing the real problem with this situation. The man was not carrying any signs advertising for the store. Leastways from what I read. This poses a fundamental problem with law enforcement that is becoming more and more prevalent. Did officers have reason to believe that a crime or in this case a ordinance violation (not a crime) was being violated? Or did police stop the man purely because he had a gun? Is merely having a gun reason to believe you may commit a crime or violation? The simple answer is no. It is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and it is becoming far too normal for officers.

Here in Oregon we even have laws (ORS 166.380) giving officers the lawful right to "detain, if the person is 'in or on' a public building... for the purpose of seeing if it is a loaded firearm." But is it Constitutional? Again, the simple answer is no. Merely having a firearm does not constitute reasonable suspicion of a crime. This law was made in spite of our rights. I even have a federal case with that precedent, US vs. DeBerry.

US vs. DeBerry: Excerpt

"The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.   The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.   I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.   At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).   This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.   It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them.   However, we do not have that situation.   Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today.

This ruling was of course before Illinois had CCW.