This is just my own opinion, and I appreciate the chance to discuss it civilly here with others who share a similar desire to own firearms. I mean no offense to anyone who disagrees with me, I'm just expressing my own feelings on it.

I appreciate the right to carry, but in this case, while the guy was being legal, I also think he was being reckless and irresponsible.

Remove all politics about what the march was about from the discussion.

This man was going to participate in a protest march, brandishing an AR-15, which from multiple accounts was empty.

So for practical, defensive purposes, the weapon was not only useless, it was a negative- as we have all observed, due to it being so visible, the man was singled out for carrying it. In this case, he was singled out by authorities, but honestly, he just as easily could have been targeted by a shooter. If he had been, he'd have had no means to defend himself, and all he would have done would have been to increase the chances that he and/or the people around him would have been shot.

So then, let's look just a little at the symbolism and politics... why is he parading around with the gun? Is it meant to portray vigilance, independence, strength? If so, he failed on those counts. He quickly turned the rifle in to authorities once the shootings started; it might be the smart thing to do (and we all agree with that), but that also isn't the "strong presence of safety" he may have wanted to portray to his fellow protesters. He didn't shepherd them once things went sideways, he ran to the police, turned in his gun, and was back to his home well before a lot of the others were, instead of staying in the general area to assist in any way he could.

Had I been marching in any such protest, and saw a man marching beside me openly with such a weapon, I probably would have thought "he's got my back" or something to the effect. In the ensuing chaos, had he remained to help move the other protesters to various areas of safety and/or watch buildings for threats, his face would have been one I'd have remembered, and someone I'd likely have listened to. Heck, I probably would have looked for "Rifleman" while we all ran for cover, to see what "my protector" was telling us to do.

But again, he seemed to be one of the first to leave the scene, was home while there were still tons of people swirling around in a dangerous location. He still could have stayed to help after disarming, but left instead. In fact, given how the area was cordoned off so quickly (the news made a point of saying people couldn't get to their cars to disperse home), he left VERY fast.

Basically, yes, you have the right to carry openly, but the gun isn't just a fashion statement. Doing so, you assume some responsibilities. At the very least, this guy didn't consider those responsibilities, and everyone was very fortunate (us gunowners included) that things didn't turn out much worse for him, and the people around him.