Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Open Carry Activist Mark Fiorino reports on the latest efforts of the phoney-baloney Mark Fiorino to keep himself in the news.

MARK FIORINO was legally carrying his .40-caliber Glock on his hip as he walked along Frankford Avenue on Feb. 13, 2011, when he was stopped by Philadelphia police, who pointed a gun at him, harassed him and handcuffed him.

Today, he plans to file a civil suit against the department for the incident.

Fiorino, who recorded his 45-minute confrontation with police and posted it on YouTube, is suing for "violation of his constitutional rights to be free from unlawful searches, excessive force and malicious prosecution," according to the complaint filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Since I was detained and searched and cuffed and embarrassed in front of everybody, I decided to file a suit," Fiorino said yesterday. "I'd like to see that other citizens who are abiding by the law and want to defend themselves by carrying a firearm and exercising their rights don't get continually mistreated."
Just like the exaggerated claims that "more women are buying guns," the open carry movement attempts to normalize guns. They've said as much, that if people could only get used to seeing guns they wouldn't mind them so much.

The problem remains the same regardless of how acceptable gun carrying becomes. Some of the gun owners are not the law-abiding and responsible individuals they pretend to be. They are dangerous and to be around them makes you less safe not safer.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. 1. He's not a phoney-baloney, any more than any other protestor for civil rights. In fact, he wasn't even breaking the letter of the law. I don't look forward to seeing any monument to him on the D.C. Mall any time soon, alas.

    2. There's nothing exaggerated about the claim that more women are buying guns.. You can't stand the fact, but it's there.

  2. 1. He's a grandstander. This simply highlights why it is a dumb idea for people to carry a firearm as a fashion accessory for their fetish need to feel powerful, rather than limiting it to legitimate purposes.

    It makes doing their job a lot harder for law enforcement to tell the good guys from the bad guys, the legit from the lawless. It confuses the issue for public safety.

    2. Women may be buying more guns, but the extent to which they are doing so is what seems exaggerated. Of course, you don't read well for content, but that was what Mikeb conveyed, and did so I believe as a legitimate and valid opinion.

  3. Yeah Mikeb, I'm sure that Greg also believes lots women are buying firearms so they can discipline their children more effectively.

    Ya just gotta keep those kids in line when you're a parent. Otherwise they might sass you when it's their bed time. Shoot up a few of their toys, and they'll be more polite.

    Can't go having that verbal dissent from a kid; that's a threat. You need a gun for all kinds of threats to your domination.

    You need a gun for threats to your domination including words you don't like ONLY when you are a weak, ineffective ass. That's what this guy seems to me to be, another weak, fearful, ineffective ass who needs an 'equalizer' to keep the world from saying things he doesn't like and damaging his fragile and flawed self-esteem.

  4. Dog Gone,

    1. I don't favor open carry in populated areas, although I understand that there are times for it, but when it is legal, the police need to understand that fact.

    2. How do I not read for content? Mikeb claims that the numbers of women buying guns is exaggerated. No link was provided. What is it that you think that I didn't read thoroughly?

    3. You're the one who exaggerates. You take one incident and blow it out of proportion. Then you play Immanuel Kant's game of arguing that for something to be acceptable in one situation, we must be able to do that action always.

  5. By the way, it appears that Fiorino is left handed. Good for him.

  6. So if this man was in the wrong, what crimes was he found guilty of?

  7. He wasn't fond guilty of anything he beat them all and got $25k out of the city for them violating his absolute rights..

    1. That may be true, but open carry guys do more harm than good for your cause. Normal people see them as fanatics, which they are.

    2. You said, "Normal people see them as fanatics, which they are."

      Pretty broad-sweeping statement you have there. Am I a fanatic for eating? I do it every day. There's no law against eating, yet there isn't anything that mentions food implicitly in the law.

      You state the words "Normal people" which implies "the norm". True, "the norm" finds that most do not open carry, but why should one's "norm" detract from lawful behavior? He's a fanatic for exercising his rights? It seems to me that folks who are uneducated with State and Local laws should be held accountable for their ignorance. I think you'd agree that if the tables were turned, you might think differently..

    3. What the fuck does eating every day have to do with anything?

      We're talking about open-carry fanatics.

  8. The way this was described, it makes it seem like he was actually treated like a human.

    Philly PD treated him like he had been caught molesting a child, proning him on the ground, and verbally berating him with generous amounts of profanity for carrying a recorder. The point is that he broke no laws, and the idiots at the PPD were totally incompetent at understanding the law even though they had an entire team of officers at this non-criminal event. They had to detain him for 45 minutes before learning from a city attorney that Mark committed no crime.

    Pure incompetence.

    And then when he embarrassed them by sharing the audio of the encounter, they retaliated against him by getting a warrant for his arrest a month later...and attempted to embarrass him by going to his job to arrest him; that case was thrown out.

    PPD threw the first stone. And the second. I don't know how much abuse a law-abiding citizen should be willing to take from the police, but they got off easy as far as I'm concerned.

    The open-carry opposition is silly; if it's fanatical and provocative to open-carry, then the police are the biggest violators. It's crazy to think that the police should be the only people to display their weapons on their hip.

    1. To say that police are the biggest violators when it comes to open carry is a ridiculous statement. First, all police in Pa have extensive background checks. Second, most police in Pa have completed a psychological exam/ evaluation and polygraph exam prior to employment. Third, all police in Pa are required to regularly qualify and train with firearms to include justification for application of deadly force. We kinda know who these officers are before we allow them to carry a gun. Police are required to confront armed and dangerous criminals as part of their job description. So yes, police open carry firearms much the same way a carpenter would carry a hammer on his tool belt. I don't know who you guys are that are open carrying or what type of training you have. I don't know if you are a half cocked psycho waiting to explode and that scares me. I have learned in life that it is impossible to rationalize with the irrational.

    2. Very good points. Civilian gun owners are not nearly qualified enough.