Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
It's funny.  Laugh. Games

Police Swarm Bungie Office Over Halo Replica Rifle 746

sv_libertarian writes 'A panicked person in Kirkland, WA called local police on Wednesday, claiming they saw someone walking down the street with an AK-47. It was actually a Bungie employee carrying an overgrown model of a Halo sniper rifle, which resembles an AK-47 as much as a Volkswagen resembles a Formula 1 racer.' Halo 3: ODST is set to launch on September 22nd, and fans got some new details and early looks at the game during PAX.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Swarm Bungie Office Over Halo Replica Rifle

Comments Filter:
  • by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:12AM (#29340421)

    Washington is an open carry state.

    http://opencarry.org/wa.html [opencarry.org]

  • Well, to be fair, (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:16AM (#29340455)
    ...it doesn't look like an AK-47, but that's become the generic term for "semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine", thanks in part to lazy reporters who don't know the 1st thing about firearms.

    However, it does look like a whole lot like a Barrett .50 sniper rifle [wikipedia.org], so even I'd wonder if it was the real deal or not.
  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:21AM (#29340505) Homepage Journal

    Don't joke, they have something similar to a 'replica ban' in the UK already.

    The rational is not 'because its scary', its to make the bans rather vague in their coverage. You capture more weapons that way, with the general publics approval.

  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:45AM (#29340767) Homepage

    No, anyone in the USA can own a AK-47 providing they are willing to pay the money to buy one, and pay the tax stamp.

    Or they could just drop 450 bucks and buy a semi-auto version without the hassle. I have friends who own multiple fully automatic weapons. We take them to the range all the time. The guy in question doesn't even carry a pistol day to day. It's a hobby for us, like fly fishing or building muscle cars.

  • Re:AK47? (Score:4, Informative)

    by anagama ( 611277 ) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:51AM (#29340839) Homepage
    While you can buy a replica at Big5, Kirkland is in Western Washington where any random person you meet is more likely to live a vegan lifestyle than own a firearm. In Eastern Washington, the guy with the replica would have been swarmed with requests for information regarding caliber, accuracy, and where to get one.
  • Re:AK47? (Score:3, Informative)

    by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:51AM (#29340845) Homepage

    Yea, I personally own a WASR-10. It's the lowest end possible semi auto AK-47 variant, but I love taking it out to the range. When I bought it at a gun show in indianapolis, IN. I had to walk it out without a case holding it in my hands 2 city blocks downtown to get to my car. Nobody called the police. In fact, my friend was carrying the other weapon I bought, a AR-15.

    Or maybe the police were smart enough to realize there was a gun show in town.

  • by SanguineV ( 1197225 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:52AM (#29340859) Homepage

    rational phobia?

    Phobias are unreasonable/irrational, that is what makes them a phobia.

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:54AM (#29340877)

    No. Read the Constitution mister cop (you know, that thing you pledged to protect, but apparently never read). Carrying a flag, sign, or other item is considered "symbolic speech" according to the Supreme Court and therefore protected.

    Police are permitted to advise people that they would be generally better off doing things even when those things are not legally mandatory; of course, people are also free to ignore such advise, arouse suspicion in their neighbors, have the police called and have the police arrive to investigate. That something is Constitutionally protected doesn't mean it isn't suspicious to your neighbors, and it doesn't mean the police won't investigate when they get a report, and that both the report and the follow-up inquiry won't be perfectly legal.

  • Re:AK47? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kral_Blbec ( 1201285 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:11PM (#29341101)
    Heh, too true. (I live in Eastern WA)

    Note it is also completely legal in Washington to have a unconcealed firearm without a permit. There was a court case of a felon carrying two rifles to a pawn shop that got stopped and arrested for possession. It had to be thrown out (even though he was in illegal possession) because the cops had no probable cause to arrest him even though he was walking down the street in broad daylight with two rifles. That set the precedent for OC in Washington.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:22PM (#29341225)

    I know I shouldn't reply to trolls, nor risk taking any wind away from an excellently worded summary of the incident [slashdot.org], but I had to point out your knee-jerk hatred of the truth (that Fox News happens to reporting on) is disgusting. No, those videos and that news was NOT just from Fox News, but from everyone [frugal-cafe.com]. Get yourself "learned," son.

  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:25PM (#29341265)

    You need to look up this case. There's an image of the artwork, and an article on it, at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html [boston.com]. When she was asked about it by an employee, she just walked away, and besides the circuit board she had a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. (Upon closer examination, it was flower shaped sculpture.) That raised the concerns of the airport security quite a lot. The object wasn't large, but it's not clear even to me at first glance what it was supposed to be.

    Given the historical problems at Logan Airport (where the 9/11 terrorists launched from), and the ongoing IED problems and threats against Americans coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the testimony that she didn't stop or answer questions when asked, the security response is completely understandable. And if the bomb were real, what are they going to do? Throw a batarang at her?

  • by The Moof ( 859402 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:35PM (#29341385)
    http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/9/2009/09/500x_TotiloRifle.jpg [gawker.com]

    That honestly looks real to you?
  • Re:Well, to be fair, (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bigjeff5 ( 1143585 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:43PM (#29341483)

    Actually it's not that hard, basic safety rules and common sense make it perfectly fine to carry a rifle in a crowded city, if people weren't such dumbasses about seeing a gun anyway.

    Unloaded, safety on, barrel pointed straight up or straight down (basically never pointed at anybody, unloaded or not), and hand nowhere near the trigger. Pointing down would probably be best in a city. They are the same rules you use when hunting (though hunting, it's loaded but nothing in the chamber).

    Of course, you could always carry it in a case, which would be the most considerate thing to do.

  • by Jussi K. Kojootti ( 646145 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:48PM (#29341553)

    An AK-47 is semi-auto, not full-auto, so your question is irrelevant.

    There may be semi-auto versions available for hobbyists, but as a general statement that is just wrong. The AK-47 is definitely a proper assault rifle capable of emptying the 30 round magazine in 3 seconds if need be. In fact it is pretty much the mother of all assault rifles, copied dozens of times around the world.

  • by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:50PM (#29341569)
    They should have told the caller its perfectly legal to open carry in Washington. Told the caller to have a good day and then hang up.
  • by Belaj ( 1073748 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:01PM (#29341721)

    My glock 21 is a semi-automatic firearm and it is still accurate to call it an automatic. If the firearm in question uses gas from the firing of a bullet to load another round and prepare the firing pin to strike again. Then it is an automatic.

    Depends on the context: Fully Automatic compared to Semi-automatic [wikipedia.org]

  • by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:08PM (#29341819)
    The Three Rules are basically meant for hunters. For anybody else that intends to do serious harm to intruders in their house, the rules to follow are the vastly superior Four Rules.
  • by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:15PM (#29341913)
    Strike that, I forgot over .50 cals are considered destructive devices. They're even more expensive to own, although the background check's pretty much the same.
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:38PM (#29342129) Homepage Journal


    The cop got pissed because Gates didn't supply an ID when the cop demanded one, which you actually don't have to do when you're inside a house.

    and this:

    The cop additionally did not attempt to verify his identity

    seem contradictory.

    BTW, unless I missed something in the 911 call, the caller did not say anything about anyone being black. She said that one might have looked Hispanic, but she didn't get a look at the other. The police report says that she described two black men breaking in, but there's no reason for her to change her story in the short time between the 911 call and talking to the officer.

  • by BlueNoteMKVI ( 865618 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:03PM (#29342389) Homepage
    Have you listened to the 911 call? I have - the caller did not mention race until the 911 operator asked her. When asked, she replied "one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure." This hardly jives with your idea that she was "some busybody neighbor doesn't like your skin color living on her street."

    Agreed, the situation could have been handled much better on both sides. Personally from what I've read I think Gates was just being a twit and the cop didn't do much to help the situation. Before you spew racial vitriol all over the internets, get your facts straight.

    Since you apparently have not yet read the transcript I assume you're too lazy to look it up (it was posted on the front page of major news sites for some time after the incident). I'll save you the google time and provide a link:
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/transcript_of_gates_call_1llqzVbjNMc0kloOxegLhO [nypost.com]
  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Informative)

    by epilido ( 959870 ) * on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:27PM (#29342613)

    you mean like this????

    Pearl highschool "However, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting [wikipedia.org]


    Colorado church shooting. "Chief Richard Myers called the Colorado Springs church security staffer "a courageous security staff member who probably saved many lives." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/ [cnn.com]

    Before you say that the church security office was a trained individual. please read about the story. as I remember it the church had some word that something might happen and they asked a few people to act as security guards. "
    At this point, Jeanne Assam, a church member volunteering as a church security guard, opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings [wikipedia.org]

    While I agree that these 2 incidents do not prove the value of CCW. they make a clear statement that not only professionally trained law enforcement officers stop these type of crimes. There are many under reported cases of private citizens stopping criminal behavior with a firearm.


  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:34PM (#29342657)
    They used to support the Mac just as much as (actually more than) Blizzard does these days. They were never exclusively a Mac developer, but many of their games came first to Mac and then later to Windows, and they may have had one that was a Mac exclusive. For example, Halo was premiered at an Apple keynote address and was scheduled to ship for the Mac well in advance of PCs, before they were bought up by Microsoft.

    As for these days, not too many, but they've only been out from underneath Microsoft for about a year now. Not even really enough time to develop anything new that they could bring to Mac. Halo was actually the last game from them that I remember seeing for Mac (and it was ported by Gearbox, as I recall, not Bungie itself), but I haven't been paying as much attention to them in recent years since all they've been working on is Halo, and that franchise never really panned out the way I expected it to.
  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:3, Informative)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:43PM (#29342743) Journal

    No it's not. Suggesting to someone that you are armed carries the same weight as being armed. It's like pretending to sell crack cocaine while passing moist sugar and talcum power off instead. You were mentally motivated to the same extremes and the people you committed the fraud on acted under the same conditions. It's the exact same technical aspect of the crime that gets you charged.

    If I walked up to you on the street while you were unarmed and said give me your money, you would size me up and attempt to determine if you could take me before acting (unless you are a complete and total puss). If I convinced you that I have a gun and was ready to kill you, you would give me your money and worry about your life (unless you are batshit crazy and partly suicidal). The point is, making someone think you are armed carried the same criminal elements as if you were armed. You shouldn't get a pass because you were only joking about that when your victims understood you to be armed and dangerous.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:03PM (#29342921)

    http://userpages.xfoneusa.net/~suit/big_one/ntw20.jpg [xfoneusa.net]

    That look real to you?

  • by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:26PM (#29343651) Homepage Journal

    and concealed carry. In fact, it is a 'will issue' state meaning the local PD MUST issue a concealed carry permit within 60 days unless the background check reveals an issue. But the issue is a little more complex. This is how a Police Lieutenant explained it to me when I was taking a gun safety class here: Although 'Open Carry' is specifically allowed in Washington for anyone not otherwise prohibited from owning guns (such as felons), any other citizen can claim 'feeling intimidated' and call 911. If this happens, the PD MUST investigate and MUST send a report to the prosecutor, period. In fact, this Lt. reports being harassed by citizens for open carry when he was 'out of uniform' (meaning he had on a sweater and his badge was on a chain around his neck in full view, which is an authorized uniform in this jurisdiction.) If these people only knew. He carries three guns at once: One Glock in a holster, another mid-back, and a third J-frame .38 in his pocket (A J-frame is a fairly small revolver. The Glocks are, of course, semi-automatics.) The last two you'll never see unless he needs it.

    The bottom line here is that a gun-o-phobic populace can claim 'intimidation' because they 'feel frightened' if someone else is simply carrying a gun and lodge a complaint that must be 'investigated.' In this case people cannot be expected to know that a) the gun wasn't real and b) that it was not an automatic, which is PROBABLY illegal here (Lots of rules for this kind of firearm.) How the investigation was carried out is another matter, but here it had to get to that point.

  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:2, Informative)

    by P0ltergeist333 ( 1473899 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:33PM (#29343713)

    ...because the increased buying was caused first by Obama's anti-gun tendencies...

    I hate to break this to you, but Obama expanded the rights of gun owners more than any Republican in recent history.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/credit-bill-okd-with-gun-provision/ [washingtontimes.com]

    The whole Obama anti-gun bullshit was a myth from the very beginning. Only the very ignorant and gullible (Glen Beck/Lush Bimbo fans, mostly) people believed that to begin with.

  • by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:34PM (#29343725) Homepage Journal

    They were never exclusively a Mac developer, but many of their games came first to Mac and then later to Windows, and they may have had one that was a Mac exclusive.

    Uh... no, everything Bungie made prior to the Myth series was Mac exclusive, with the exception of Marathon 2 which was later ported to Windows but began with every intention of being Mac exclusive like everything that came from Bungie before it.

    Granted, most people these days have never heard of and wouldn't care about those prior titles, but they were there for years before Bungie ever published a single Windows title: Gnop!, Operation: Desert Storm, Minotaur, Pathways into Darkness, and of course Marathon, Marathon 2 and Marathon Infinity.

    Further, during the Myth era, Bungie was the most equitable cross-platform developer I've ever seen. Not only were the Myth games simultaneous releases, but the only difference between the Mac version and the Windows version was the label on the box! The discs were dual-formatted. I have here my original Myth CDs, purchased in a box that say for Mac OS, from which I've installed Myth perfectly fine on both Mac and Windows machines over the years.

    It wasn't until Oni and Halo that they shifted development to Windows-first and then Windows only.

    I miss the old Bungie...

  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:3, Informative)

    by michaelhood ( 667393 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @06:06PM (#29344415)

    Obama's anti-gun tendencies, eh? Go ahead and post your bullshit links to conspiracy fantasies on right wing blogs about that tired line. He's letting people bring guns into national parks but I guess thats anti-gun if you're a brainwashed ditto head. Not to mention the people who are bringing guns to protests outside his speaking venues with absolutely no retaliation, something Bush would have never allowed (hell, he wouldn't even allow protesters to be within sight of his travel routes, putting them in "free speech zones" as far away as he could manage). Hyperventilating right wing hypocrites sicken me.

    Why do so many people refuse to accept that just because someone doesn't support Obama, they are automatically right-wing/republican/Bush fan?

    It's quite possible (and is the case for me) that they support(ed) neither.

  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Informative)

    by michaelhood ( 667393 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @06:12PM (#29344449)

    They are the ones who sometimes stop crimes before the police arrive. They are the ones who have CCW permits and stop deranged sociopaths who are going on public murder sprees before they can kill or before they can kill as many people as they'd like to.

    The fantasy land of the gun proponent. There's a boogie man behind every corner out to get you, and the gun toting everyman hero saves the day. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Legal gun ownership leads to nothing more than more guns in the wild for the bad guys to get their hands on and more gun accidents in general. The number of crimes foiled by gun carrying good guys is so small in comparison that it can barely be counted.

    Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.

    Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.

    Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188

  • by FailedTheTuringTest ( 937776 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @08:32PM (#29345415)

    That's highly unrealistic. They couldn't just ignore the call by replying that AK-47's are legal. As Rogerborg pointed out, even if it is lawful to openly carry such a weapon, it is not lawful to "cause alarm" with it, and the fact that someone called 911 shows that at least that person was alarmed, and thus investigation is required. Even if the gun is legal, the police are very much justified in at least advising the person how to carry it so as not to cause alarm.

    And from the 911 call-taker's point of view, they know that callers are often inaccurate or incorrect in their reports -- this one certainly was! -- and take that into account. They must err on the side of caution and send out real cops to check out a situation if there is any doubt at all about a possible risk to public safety. If there was ever a situation where someone called 911 to report something suspicious and the call-taker ignored the report and something bad happened, you can be sure the papers would be complaining about how the police sit around ignoring the public and eating donuts.

  • Re:Risk Assessment (Score:2, Informative)

    by maninthespoon ( 1107447 ) on Monday September 07, 2009 @08:37PM (#29345461)

    The only reason anyone carries a gun around in public is because they intend to kill someone.

    Wrong. Law abiding citizens carry guns in public to stop people from robbing or murdering them. We don't want to murder anyone and would only fire as a last resort. In many self defense situations no shots are fired, merely producing the weapon stops most attacks. You have nothing to fear from law abiding concealed carry holders unless you are a criminal. If people want to carry guns to murder as you claim, then why are crime rates down while the number of guns only increases? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm [usdoj.gov]

  • by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:34AM (#29347435) Homepage Journal

    30 rounds in 3 seconds? I thought that was wrong, so I looked it up... and holy crap, you are right! 600 rounds/minute, that's 10 rounds per second!


The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.