Men Armed With Rifles Walk Through Portland to ‘Educate’


Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs said they were simply exercising their Second Amendment right, but police said they scared plenty of people.

Calls started coming in to 911 dispatchers shortly before 2 p.m. Wednesday. Callers said two men with guns strapped to their backs were walking through the area of Southeast Seventh Avenue and Spokane Street in Portland’s Sellwood neighborhood.

Officers arrived in the area and contacted both 22-year-old men. They were carrying rifles openly on their backs and were valid concealed handgun license holders in Oregon.

The men told officers they were hoping to educate the public about gun rights.

Officers explained that they were likely to continue generating 911 calls from alarmed people in the area, which would require a police response. Officers reported neither man seemed interested in those concerns.

“Exercising my rights with a rifle to try to decrease the demonizing of peacefully exercising your rights in public,” one of the men told Fox 12. He said his name is Warren, but did not want to provide a last name.

Portland police identified the men as Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce.


  1. Had they been a minority well, I can figure out how the PDX cops might have reacted……So how do we tell the ‘good guys’ walking around like this and the ‘bad guys’?

      1. Yeah, I’m sure plenty of people have thought “oh, look at that person over there enjoying his second amendment freedoms” right before the shooting started.

        Hey, I know what would fix this. A “stand your ground” law. I mean, who doesn’t feel threatened by young men with guns strapped to themselves these days? The problem would solve itself.

      2. The interesting factor to consider is that many of the people you see will be carrying firearms without your knowledge, depending on your state’s concealed weapon laws. The fact that these people do so openly and publicly is no doubt inflammatory and many firearms owners condemn them for this behaviour as it serves no purpose other than to cause conflict in an unnecessarily combative manner and destroy the reputation of responsible, credible firearms owners, creating a situation similar to as if all drivers were assumed to be irresponsible, habitual drink-drivers.

        However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that your assertion seems to be that people need fear people carrying weapons, when they do so without opening fire on civilians – and even use them to protect the innocent, police and civilian alike – many orders of magnitude more frequently than they conduct lethal shootings.

        I speak as a disinterested third party. I am as left-wing as it’s possible to get, and being from the UK none of this is directly applicable to my way of life. Too many view this as a movement based in political ideology, both gun enthusiasts and haters alike, and jump to condemn either side based on their political leanings and appeal to emotion rather than information. It is this that’s led me to be more understanding of the US’s firearms laws – my own curiosity and research into the matter. Whichever bill is passed I have no vested interest in, so it’s fair to say that I’m a fairly impartial observer. But too many of these publications resort to misinformation (either wilfully or incidentally, due to a lack of education on the topic – the number of times I see erroneous terminology used to espouse the virtues of gun control regardless of the fact that the weapons they seek to inhibit access to are already inaccessible is astounding) to promote their own views, which is not how I believe journalists ought to behave.

        People have prejudices; the mark of an intelligent person, I believe, is the pursuit of knowledge – a curiosity and interest in facts rather than reaction. Living in the land of The Daily Mail I know all to well how many people can be influenced by alarmism, and it saddens me to see many in an arguably freer country falling foul of the same fallacies that my own country has.

      3. Hmm. Your points are not irrelevant, Crabs. And to some extent I agree. On the other hand, this ‘lesson’ doesn’t seem to really teach what these guys want it to teach…

        Firstly, a lesson one should take from this is that if one accepts gun-carrying as a right then no one should respond to an armed person as a threat until they take clear action demonstrating intent to do harm – or in other words, ‘feeling threatened’ should never be accepted as sufficient cause for a violent response. So to be consistent, those defending the right to bear arms on these grounds should not be defending a ‘stand your ground’ right that does not require clear and present evidence of malicious intent.

        Secondly, this demo clearly shows that bearing arms in public in the exercise of constitutional freedoms is incompatible with policing requirements. Responding to reports of armed men in public places means (a) a very major cost in monetory terms, and (b) a very real risk that other VOCs will not get prompt assistance to reports of crime (as police will be tied up responding to a potentially veru severe threat). So assuming that the right to bear arms trumps the obligation not to waste police time (an offence in US? dunno), the ‘lesson’ further teaches that police should not respond to reports of armed men until they take clear action demonstrating intent to do harm. Which actually might make it much, much easier for criminals to intimidate and cause harm…

        Finally for now (!), it is not unreasonable for people to feel threatened by gun-rights activists carrying weapons in public – regardless of whether the fear is actually justified in a specific case. Rremember, it’s only been a couple of days since a gun company CEO was threatening to start killing people as an overture to civil war. How can members of the public be expected to make accurate judgements as to whether some crazy might not be about to extend rhetoric into action? Hell, for that matter how are police supposed to make that judgement without responding to each and every report of gun-toting second-ammendment activist? Which brings us back to the point above…

        It’d be a pretty effective demo for a gun-control activist, actually 🙂

      1. I suspect that’s true. Anyone got a case of a SYG defense by a browner person against a whiter person?

        And what about non-gun weapons? I had to sign three release forms to get a company to send me a shamboks. And there are all kinds of restrictions against knives and swords here in Texas. Seems like all this is mostly about the gun manufacturer’s profits more than anything else.

  2. This seems like one of those protests that will have the opposite of the intended effect. When most people see heavily armed men walking openly and nonchalantly down the street, their first thought isn’t “Bravo for the 2nd Amendment”. It’s “That shouldn’t be legal”. If everybody did this, we’d have gun control by the end of the year.

  3. in 1970 i was pulled over by a state patrolman who made me abandon my car due to bad brakes. my friend and i had two rifles that we could not leave in the car cause it could not be locked. so we hitch hiked with the rifles and were picked up and dropped off in the middle of town. we stuck out our thumbs again and soon were picked up and taken right to our house. i cannot imagine doing that today. swat team comes to mind.

Comments are closed.