The statute making "implied threat to cause an incident" unlawful must be interpreted narrowly enough that it does not prohibit the right to bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment or it is not enforceable without violating his rights. That statute could easily be interpreted by some people as prohibiting carry because they feel that the act of carrying, "implies a condition involving danger to life." Would such a statute be enforceable under such an interpretation? The only way to find out for sure is to cross the line and get a judge's decision, and the ruling of any appellate courts willing to consider the case.
Good Guy (former firefighter) with Gun Stops Armed Man in Missouri Walmart
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Ignition Override
Member
Was he carrying the rifle in his hands?
In contrast to that, I saw a photo where it was slung vertically against his body and his hands were up in the air.
He reportedly went shopping in the store.
He was completely lacking common sense within a day or two of mass murders, and any misunderstanding could have resulted in his serious injury or death.
How exactly was his rifle 'transported' by him.while in the store and walking in the parking lot?
In contrast to that, I saw a photo where it was slung vertically against his body and his hands were up in the air.
He reportedly went shopping in the store.
He was completely lacking common sense within a day or two of mass murders, and any misunderstanding could have resulted in his serious injury or death.
How exactly was his rifle 'transported' by him.while in the store and walking in the parking lot?
Charlie Horse
Member
Yes, that's something one learns in the beginning of a CONLAW course. The kicker here is going to be his intent. I see 12 jurors and a judge not being too sympathetic to his Self Appointed Second Amendment Compliance Officer Act. If they decide that he went there to cause a disturbance, and that a reasonable person seeing him pulling this stupid stunt would believe he was about to commit an act of mass murder, he's done.
P5 Guy
Member
Yeah, he knew exactly what he was doing. Am I the only one that thinks this character is an anti-gun agent provocateur?
If someone from MomsDemand/EveryTown bails him out...?
If someone from MomsDemand/EveryTown bails him out...?
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
That's what I'm saying. Even concealed.
Yes he is foolish. Yes his timing was even more foolish. Yes he was looking to get attention. I dont like all 3
But If his legal act became illegal simply because people ran (they ran because an employee activated a FIRE alarm per reports) and not because he actually told them to run or said anything at all to anyone then what about a OC handgun. Or even if your concealed weapon prints or is suspected? The same argument could be applied there.
If I were open carrying (again it's legal here but I dont) and someone pulls a fire alarm (which is the case here) are you really suggesting another citizen can pull a gun on me? Shoot me? That's no good. Conversely am i saying that someone should wait for a nutjob to actually shoot a kid in front of them before stepping in? Also no good. Yeah...this whole thing sucks. Bad
All the newer reports are that the rifle was slung and he was pushing a shopping cart. Still dumb but dumb isnt a threat.
And sure he had a tac vest (again foolosh). But what if the ccw printed and I had a bunch of tattoos (I have none, many do) ? All of a sudden because someone got scared of how I looked I became illegal? I see guys with their tongues slit to look forked, gang tattoos, and a hole in their ear with a ford festiva rim in the hole. If I'm scared do I have the authority to pull a gun on them? I'm not saying anyone is wrong or that the fireman did wrong. I'm saying that putting this all over the news and saying it's ok for non-le to detain gun owners simply for carrying a gun where it was not prohibited seems like a good excuse for leftist nuts (both sides have them, way too many) to go to walmart and fulfill their "the hunt" style fantasy. Conversely saying that the fireman did anything wrong also sends a terrible message to do nothing. Idk I feel like this one sucks
As far as his intent in court, will a whole video that he was still filming not clearly show his intent? Again not arguing just asking. You clearly know more about law than me. Like i said all along, there will be no good come from this whole thing. I'm all for locking him up for being an insensitive ass at the least. But what about the evolution of this?
Say that a person walks in walmart with a pitbull service dog and people run out. Did he all of a sudden commit a felony even though he/she did nothing illegal simply because people were scared
If a bearded 240lb 6 foot 7 man goes in the womens bathroom and says he identifies as a female, the law says it doesnt matter that they got scared right?
And now there are 3 pages worth of pro-gun people on a gun forum that can easily be viewed as pro-awb. Since it certainly looks like they are saying that if he had a open carried handgun he would have been ok. But because he had a scary legally slung black rifle that he was the bad guy and wrong. Or are you all just saying that it should be illegal to oc a rifle? Not that I would do what the guy did. But read back over this thread and tell me how it's not a xx percent of Americans want more gun laws type of arguement. Idk this one stinks
Walmart has also explicitly stated that if local law allows open carry they won't impede it. If this dummy was in fact carrying his rifle slung and it is legal to do so, and the manager did in fact pull the fire alarm (even though it was likely a safe call) I dont see this going well for them. And walmart will change policies to adress that. Best case disallowing open carry..... I think this one is much less black and white than some are thinking from a legal standpoint.
This also reminds me of that fool on YouTube that some guys at work watch. He goes around in Arab dress with a book bookbag and leaves it to scare people. I've always said either its staged or some one will shoot him someday. He still makes the videos so apparently he hasn't been convicted of anything. The cops have detained him a few times. But they have always let him leave
Last edited:
I do not think it appropriate to make people nervous or uncomfortable with a firearm. I always CC - I do not want awareness that I am armed - that is best left unknown for many reasons. Purposely invoking fear at this time after recent events is a sickness - legal or not - selfish, very selfish.
There are several things that have been repeated that simply are not so in caselaw.
A) the right to do foolish things is nowhere protected by the U.S. Constitution or by Missouri law.
B) the actions of the individual in question do not necessarily constitute constitutionally protected action which will be decided by a judge and jury as he has been charged with a crime.
C) the closest similar case on point was Embo__ v. Ward (not spelling out the guy's name as he used to post here) which involved similar conduct albeit he did not make a 1st Amendment claim on appeal. But, even under Brandenburg mentioned above, the court held that an imminent threat to unlawful action is not protected speech, period. That particular case involved burning a cross at a private meeting and the state claimed that that action was violent per se under Chaplinsky v. NH (fighting words case). Another case, RAV v. St. Paul, appears to be closest on point but the city ordinance here was struck down for viewpoint discrimination where the U.S. Supreme Court at the time rejected "hate speech" type categories of speech, not that the juvenile's cross burning actions per se were lawful--for example they mentioned arson, etc. laws could have applied to the actions of the juvenile RAV.
In a similar way, the MO law cited appears to make the appropriate constitutional restrictions to actions that "scare the horses" but not restricting general speech rights. The court will take into account any recent shootings, the reaction of the storegoers, and the behavior/intent of the individual in question. If he was slung with a rifle, handing out 2A pamphlets, and staying outside of the store, he might get a bit more sympathy.
For example, if I choose to do an interpretative 1st Amendment dance in the nude at the local park, I will get arrested for public nudity in most areas of the country and fail in my first amendment attempts because of time, place, and manner restrictions on my type of "speech". The First Amendment is not a cover for illegal actions otherwise every con man in the country could make a 1st amendment claim that they were just engaging in
Here is a short summary of a similar trolling in the past,
"In Embo__ v. Ward the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a park ranger did not violate the rights of a man who wore camouflage and carried an AK-47-style pistol across his chest with a loaded 30-round clip in a Nashville park.
The gun toting man from Brentwood, Embo__, sued park ranger Steve Ward for detaining him at the Radnor Lake State Natural area back in December 2009. Ward held Embo__ while he investigated whether the gun was legal and whether Embo__ had a permit to lawfully carry it. The investigation revealed that Tennessee law allows guns with barrels of less than 12 inches in state parks. Luckily for Embo__, his gun just squeaked by, with his barrel a half-inch under the limit. The stupidity of the Tennessee legislature to pass such a law allowing a man to bring a AK-47 into a state park was not at issue.
Embo__ also painted the tip of his gun orange, an attempt to make the gun look like a toy. The Sixth Circuit said that given this, “An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to disguise an illegal weapon.”
The Court also mentioned the concern raised by other park-goers: evidently one person raised his hands in the air when he ran across Embo__ while two other park visitors came to Ward to say they were “very concerned” about the man. Later an elderly couple reported that a man was wandering through the park with an assault rifle. All of this was further evidence, according to the Court, that Ward behaved reasonably when detaining Embo__.
The Sixth Circuit said that Embo__’s detention was predictable and that Embo__ himself suspected it might happen which is why he carried an audio-recording device on his person. The Court clearly felt little sympathy for Embo__, saying that having worked hard to appear suspicious, Embo__ cannot later complain because park rangers took the bait." https://davis-hoss.blogspot.com/2012/09/sixth-circuit-rules-that-park-ranger.html
The Sixth Circuit opinion, with a bit of humor notes in a summary, "
For his troubles, Embo__ has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendments that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained L___ Embo__ that day,
notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we." http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0293p-06.pdf
The individual in the current situation will like any other accused criminal will have to face prosecution and a jury of their peers to determine all of the case facts and whether the MO law applies to his actions. On its face, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of disorderly conduct type laws and this law makes no content of speech prohibitions. So the individual in order to win an appeal on the 1st Amendment would have to be arguing that their actions constituted "political speech" based on the facts, not that the law itself was invalid. Realistically, this means that appellate courts, if the guy is convicted, will probably follow the jury's finding of facts rather than striking down a conviction.
Regarding the comments on the firefighter playing "cop". Due to the history of statutory laws when the police were not as numerous, there are perhaps no states that forbid average citizens from holding and detaining someone if they believe the individual was committing a crime. But, that person will lack the statutory protections that an officer of the law has and be subject to criminal and civil liability if their actions were found to be "unreasonable".
Legally the problem is not that the person is "playing cop" but that their actions are in themselves per se were unlawful but depending on the state, (most state self defense laws including Missouri allow a justification defense which is where the lesser harms doctrine comes in) that the individual must justify their generally unlawful actions (holding a person at gunpoint which might be charged as assault with a deadly weapon or some such plus illegal detention) appeared necessary at the immediate instance with the facts that they had at the time to prevent a greater harm (mass slaughter in this case). A police officer in this case would have very likely done the same thing and perhaps even shot the individual except their statutory protections and qualified immunity would have made it very difficult to apply criminal or civil penalties against them. If the police officer had merely held and detained the person at gunpoint, then I doubt any court in the land would have held that the police officer's actions were unlawful.
If the argument is that only cops are allowed to "arrest and detain people" then an individual would be in the position of waiting until the apparent mass murderer starts shooting before shooting them. That is an unreasonable application of the law of self defense and of others. Go back and see my quote from Brown v U.S. (1921), "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" where the Supreme Court's Justice Holmes opines that one can only act on the facts that you know at the time and then be responsible in court for your actions.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment other than the guy was carrying a gun and post hoc claiming that his actions were done in support of the constitutional right when his real intent appeared to be causing innocent people fear and panic--why else the having 100 rounds of ammunition when zero would have served just as well?, why the body armor?, why not contacting the media before to record his "political statement"? why the "selfie" type actions?.
Like Morse v. Frederick with the Bong Hits for Jesus case, the "time, place, and manner" restrictions by the state on how you conduct your speech, including symbolic actions, means that the state and its citizens through a jury get to decide whether or not your actions are unlawful and the courts will decide whether based on the facts presented it is protected speech. The only opinions in the end that matter will be the jury and the court's.
A) the right to do foolish things is nowhere protected by the U.S. Constitution or by Missouri law.
B) the actions of the individual in question do not necessarily constitute constitutionally protected action which will be decided by a judge and jury as he has been charged with a crime.
C) the closest similar case on point was Embo__ v. Ward (not spelling out the guy's name as he used to post here) which involved similar conduct albeit he did not make a 1st Amendment claim on appeal. But, even under Brandenburg mentioned above, the court held that an imminent threat to unlawful action is not protected speech, period. That particular case involved burning a cross at a private meeting and the state claimed that that action was violent per se under Chaplinsky v. NH (fighting words case). Another case, RAV v. St. Paul, appears to be closest on point but the city ordinance here was struck down for viewpoint discrimination where the U.S. Supreme Court at the time rejected "hate speech" type categories of speech, not that the juvenile's cross burning actions per se were lawful--for example they mentioned arson, etc. laws could have applied to the actions of the juvenile RAV.
In a similar way, the MO law cited appears to make the appropriate constitutional restrictions to actions that "scare the horses" but not restricting general speech rights. The court will take into account any recent shootings, the reaction of the storegoers, and the behavior/intent of the individual in question. If he was slung with a rifle, handing out 2A pamphlets, and staying outside of the store, he might get a bit more sympathy.
For example, if I choose to do an interpretative 1st Amendment dance in the nude at the local park, I will get arrested for public nudity in most areas of the country and fail in my first amendment attempts because of time, place, and manner restrictions on my type of "speech". The First Amendment is not a cover for illegal actions otherwise every con man in the country could make a 1st amendment claim that they were just engaging in
Here is a short summary of a similar trolling in the past,
"In Embo__ v. Ward the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a park ranger did not violate the rights of a man who wore camouflage and carried an AK-47-style pistol across his chest with a loaded 30-round clip in a Nashville park.
The gun toting man from Brentwood, Embo__, sued park ranger Steve Ward for detaining him at the Radnor Lake State Natural area back in December 2009. Ward held Embo__ while he investigated whether the gun was legal and whether Embo__ had a permit to lawfully carry it. The investigation revealed that Tennessee law allows guns with barrels of less than 12 inches in state parks. Luckily for Embo__, his gun just squeaked by, with his barrel a half-inch under the limit. The stupidity of the Tennessee legislature to pass such a law allowing a man to bring a AK-47 into a state park was not at issue.
Embo__ also painted the tip of his gun orange, an attempt to make the gun look like a toy. The Sixth Circuit said that given this, “An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to disguise an illegal weapon.”
The Court also mentioned the concern raised by other park-goers: evidently one person raised his hands in the air when he ran across Embo__ while two other park visitors came to Ward to say they were “very concerned” about the man. Later an elderly couple reported that a man was wandering through the park with an assault rifle. All of this was further evidence, according to the Court, that Ward behaved reasonably when detaining Embo__.
The Sixth Circuit said that Embo__’s detention was predictable and that Embo__ himself suspected it might happen which is why he carried an audio-recording device on his person. The Court clearly felt little sympathy for Embo__, saying that having worked hard to appear suspicious, Embo__ cannot later complain because park rangers took the bait." https://davis-hoss.blogspot.com/2012/09/sixth-circuit-rules-that-park-ranger.html
The Sixth Circuit opinion, with a bit of humor notes in a summary, "
For his troubles, Embo__ has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendments that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained L___ Embo__ that day,
notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we." http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0293p-06.pdf
The individual in the current situation will like any other accused criminal will have to face prosecution and a jury of their peers to determine all of the case facts and whether the MO law applies to his actions. On its face, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of disorderly conduct type laws and this law makes no content of speech prohibitions. So the individual in order to win an appeal on the 1st Amendment would have to be arguing that their actions constituted "political speech" based on the facts, not that the law itself was invalid. Realistically, this means that appellate courts, if the guy is convicted, will probably follow the jury's finding of facts rather than striking down a conviction.
Regarding the comments on the firefighter playing "cop". Due to the history of statutory laws when the police were not as numerous, there are perhaps no states that forbid average citizens from holding and detaining someone if they believe the individual was committing a crime. But, that person will lack the statutory protections that an officer of the law has and be subject to criminal and civil liability if their actions were found to be "unreasonable".
Legally the problem is not that the person is "playing cop" but that their actions are in themselves per se were unlawful but depending on the state, (most state self defense laws including Missouri allow a justification defense which is where the lesser harms doctrine comes in) that the individual must justify their generally unlawful actions (holding a person at gunpoint which might be charged as assault with a deadly weapon or some such plus illegal detention) appeared necessary at the immediate instance with the facts that they had at the time to prevent a greater harm (mass slaughter in this case). A police officer in this case would have very likely done the same thing and perhaps even shot the individual except their statutory protections and qualified immunity would have made it very difficult to apply criminal or civil penalties against them. If the police officer had merely held and detained the person at gunpoint, then I doubt any court in the land would have held that the police officer's actions were unlawful.
If the argument is that only cops are allowed to "arrest and detain people" then an individual would be in the position of waiting until the apparent mass murderer starts shooting before shooting them. That is an unreasonable application of the law of self defense and of others. Go back and see my quote from Brown v U.S. (1921), "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" where the Supreme Court's Justice Holmes opines that one can only act on the facts that you know at the time and then be responsible in court for your actions.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment other than the guy was carrying a gun and post hoc claiming that his actions were done in support of the constitutional right when his real intent appeared to be causing innocent people fear and panic--why else the having 100 rounds of ammunition when zero would have served just as well?, why the body armor?, why not contacting the media before to record his "political statement"? why the "selfie" type actions?.
Like Morse v. Frederick with the Bong Hits for Jesus case, the "time, place, and manner" restrictions by the state on how you conduct your speech, including symbolic actions, means that the state and its citizens through a jury get to decide whether or not your actions are unlawful and the courts will decide whether based on the facts presented it is protected speech. The only opinions in the end that matter will be the jury and the court's.
Last edited:
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
His quote was in light of the recent shootings, the rifle and body armor were for self defense. This was stated on camera before he even retrieved it from his trunk not post event. Per reports.also would explain. Why the rifle had ammo. Does that not make it more 2a than 1a?
Did he scare the horses or did the walmart manager who pulled the fire alarm scare the horses?
I've seen "counter protesters" on the news with rifles and the police say they cant charge them because of the 2a and the rifles being legal
You clearly know more about law than I. I work on multi million dollar machines for a living. I also hate walmart and wouldnt go anywhere doing something that I know would draw attention to me. But This case caught my interest because where I live OC is legal and not uncommon. Ive never seen a rifle at walmart that I recall but open pistols are not unusual at all and the law doesnt prohibit one over the other. I personally conceal. The sherrif OC before he was a sherrif and still today teaches and advocates concealed carry classes. And walmart has clearly stated that they will go by state law.
I'm all for making being an idiot illegal. I try to be respectful of others as well. I'd never do what this guy done. But I think this whole ordeal sucks for us
Sistema1927
Member
He says now that he was conducting a "social experiment". However, he has proven that he is not a scientist, rocket or otherwise.
Counter protesters or even protesters carrying rifles with signs, an assembly of them, in a non-threatening manner in a public area are generally considered constitutionally protected symbolic speech if the carry itself it legal.
From the information presented which you have to go by all of the facts, not just the open carry, is that the guy, without warning, without signage, and apparently without much if any verbal interaction strolled into Wal Mart (after a widely publicized shooting at another Wal Mart days and the subsequent Dayton massacre before) wearing body armor, carrying an AR style rifle from reports, having a loaded magazine with more than enough rounds self defense in such a situation, etc. and filming selfies while doing so which resembles the actions of the NZ mass murderer at Christ Church.
It is relatively easy to distinguish the difference between the guy's actions in Wal Mart and what protesters have done either for example when Fascist Antis or even open carry groups have protested-- because they purposefully let people know why they are acting via signage, media coverage, etc.. In a similar way, this was like the clergy of a certain religion had some folks on a flight that acted purposefully in a suspicious way on a flight after 9/11 for much the same purpose--to terrorize traumatized people and they faced similar charges in disrupting a flight.
The guy's actions in MO have a striking resemblence to that 6th Circuit case discussed above where the TN guy purposefully acted suspiciously in such a way so as to be arrested at gunpoint by carrying a rifle with the tip painted orange, at a park, etc. with no warning nor any other indication that he was engaged in a peaceful protest. If I remember right, the guy used to post here or maybe it was at another forum that I frequent justifying his actions and it was readily apparent that he was a self centered troll that confused license for liberty.
We are not Mogadishu, Iraq, or Afghanistan where someone carries around an AK just to do grocery shopping nor is it needed for self protection at a Wal Mart during a busy crowded shopping day. The guy wore the body armor because he knew that it would increase the fear of others. He could have just as well worn the body armor to make his point and left the rifle at home. His social experiment was to cause fear and panic in others, nor more, no less. The point is that "performance theater" jackassery can be held to account if the subjective actions were "unreasonable" in the eyes of a jury in fulfilling the elements of the MO crime which based on what I know on facts appears quite likely and I am quite comfortable in believing that he will have no relief from the courts by claiming constitutional rights protected his actions.
Last edited:
vito
Member
Another aspect of this incident has not been commented on. Why did the media refer to the individual that held the rifleman at gunpoint until police arrived as a "retired fireman"? What is the significance of what this retiree did for a living? I surmise that the initial media intention, which was then carried by other media, was to make this concealed carrier seem like a special case, similar to when an off duty LEO stops a crime. Its a way of saying, "well, this was a retired first responder, not some typical gun nut civilian, and just because he stopped what might have been a planned mass shooting, does nothing to advance the concept of civilian concealed carry." or something to that effect. A year or so in Chicago there was a case of some thugs coming after a young woman alone at night. Turns out she was an off duty cop, who pulled her gun and avoided any harm coming to her. The media should have seen this as a case that supports the carrying of a gun, especially for a woman who is generally smaller and weaker and less able to physically fight off an attacker, let alone a group of attackers. But by constantly reminding the public that she was a cop, media clearly wanted to send the message that this incident was not going to change any liberal's mind about the efficacy of concealed carry by the ordinary citizens who were often the victims of violent crime.
Duster340
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 850
Agreed! X1000!
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
The left says the same thing everytime that there is a terrible shooting. And we argue that the individuals didnt represent us when they walked out with their gun.
Was definately in bad taste and foolish though
Duster340
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 850
Not a fan of open carry. Though I do it when working on my property up north.
IMO. It's seems logical for a reasonable person, regardless of their take on guns in general, to feel apprehensive or suspicion when an armed stranger walks in a restaurant, Walmart or other public venue. What are his/her intentions? How do I know if the person is gonna level that rifle on me and my family, do I draw my CCW before that? If I wait to find out their intentions, will it be too late to have a chance? No different than if a stranger walks up to my home or property legally open carrying a rifle, I will assume they are a threat. Simple as that.
I feel open carry in probably not the best means to make a 2a point, or an effective means of invoking favorable views of our responsible gun owning community. There are much more effective means of being an advocate and ambassador for our 2a rights.
Be well all.
IMO. It's seems logical for a reasonable person, regardless of their take on guns in general, to feel apprehensive or suspicion when an armed stranger walks in a restaurant, Walmart or other public venue. What are his/her intentions? How do I know if the person is gonna level that rifle on me and my family, do I draw my CCW before that? If I wait to find out their intentions, will it be too late to have a chance? No different than if a stranger walks up to my home or property legally open carrying a rifle, I will assume they are a threat. Simple as that.
I feel open carry in probably not the best means to make a 2a point, or an effective means of invoking favorable views of our responsible gun owning community. There are much more effective means of being an advocate and ambassador for our 2a rights.
Be well all.
Jenrick
Member
CrestonCowboy: I can't decide if you're being obtuse or obstinate. Lets try one more time. The relevant section of the Missouri Penal Code:
574.120. Making a terrorist threat, second degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation and knowingly:
(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree is a class E felony.
3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
Was the building evacuated? Yep.
Was it done in response to his actions? Yep.
Did he disregard the risk to public of that evacuation? Yep. You talked about the manager hitting the fire alarm, honestly one of the fastest way to notify the most people and have an orderly evac. We train since childhood to do this. What if the manager had said there was a possible active shooter? Heart attacks, trampling, etc.
Did he knowling case someone to fear that a condition existed involving danger to life? Yep, that's way the CCW holder drew down on him.
IT WAS A CRIME. IT WAS ILLEGAL. You can try and justify it all the way you want, but one us (gun rights folks) SCREWED UP BIG TIME. Trying to defend him or rationalize his actions do nothing helpful.
You want to see Walmart finally decide to say screw it regarding gun rights? This is how you do it. You want to see people who have no reason to care about OC, because they never encounter it suddenly care and want it gone? You want to see people who were OC friendly suddenly decide it's a bit too much? This is how you do it.
As I mentioned in a previous post the Constitution had been amended 27 times. You want to give the other side ammunition to make that 28 times, I sure don't. Not calling out people who engage in CRIMINAL activity with guns like this just gives the other side more and more talking points and votes. I'd prefer to be able to see future generations enjoy the freedoms I have enjoyed due to careful stewardship, responsibility, and the willingness to police our own. If we don't do those three things, we WILL lose them.
574.120. Making a terrorist threat, second degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation and knowingly:
(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree is a class E felony.
3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
Was the building evacuated? Yep.
Was it done in response to his actions? Yep.
Did he disregard the risk to public of that evacuation? Yep. You talked about the manager hitting the fire alarm, honestly one of the fastest way to notify the most people and have an orderly evac. We train since childhood to do this. What if the manager had said there was a possible active shooter? Heart attacks, trampling, etc.
Did he knowling case someone to fear that a condition existed involving danger to life? Yep, that's way the CCW holder drew down on him.
IT WAS A CRIME. IT WAS ILLEGAL. You can try and justify it all the way you want, but one us (gun rights folks) SCREWED UP BIG TIME. Trying to defend him or rationalize his actions do nothing helpful.
You want to see Walmart finally decide to say screw it regarding gun rights? This is how you do it. You want to see people who have no reason to care about OC, because they never encounter it suddenly care and want it gone? You want to see people who were OC friendly suddenly decide it's a bit too much? This is how you do it.
As I mentioned in a previous post the Constitution had been amended 27 times. You want to give the other side ammunition to make that 28 times, I sure don't. Not calling out people who engage in CRIMINAL activity with guns like this just gives the other side more and more talking points and votes. I'd prefer to be able to see future generations enjoy the freedoms I have enjoyed due to careful stewardship, responsibility, and the willingness to police our own. If we don't do those three things, we WILL lose them.
Last edited:
Here's a tip from American history:
When you are trying to establish or expand a civil right, work closely with the lawyers who will handle the case before you decide that you should be the test case and before you create the event that will be tested.
The NAACP's brilliant, years-long attack on segregation was a closely-coordinated effort between the activist protesters or students and the NAACP lawyers who would be arguing the cases. The lawyers got to help shape the facts into the most persuasive and sympathetic story possible. That helped drive the (obviously correct) outcome of the vast legal campaign for de jure equality.
This dimwitted legal twit utterly lacked the judgment, perspective, and strategic acumen to understand that HE IS A TERRIBLE TEST CASE.
I'd like all the open-carry dudes to write this down: STOP "HELPING".
When you are trying to establish or expand a civil right, work closely with the lawyers who will handle the case before you decide that you should be the test case and before you create the event that will be tested.
The NAACP's brilliant, years-long attack on segregation was a closely-coordinated effort between the activist protesters or students and the NAACP lawyers who would be arguing the cases. The lawyers got to help shape the facts into the most persuasive and sympathetic story possible. That helped drive the (obviously correct) outcome of the vast legal campaign for de jure equality.
This dimwitted legal twit utterly lacked the judgment, perspective, and strategic acumen to understand that HE IS A TERRIBLE TEST CASE.
I'd like all the open-carry dudes to write this down: STOP "HELPING".
I disagree with you. If someone happens to see my CCW and hits the fire alarm am I at fault for that? I sure hope not or concealed carry is dead.
BTW, open carry is legal here in Texas as long as you have a LTC. I see people open carrying all the time, not just out here in the sticks either. All over DFW.
Yes, in the same way that shouting fire in a theater violates the statute without rendering the statute a violation of the 1st amendment.
Context matters.
No, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Open carrying a long-arm in a crowded area is necessarily a communicative act. As anyone doing it will tell you - they are trying to "send a message" or "make a statement" or "prove a point." They are trying to communicate to others, and that communication can, under certain circumstances, be an objectively-threatening communication.
Trey Veston
Member
20 years ago or so, I flew to Iowa with my wife and two children to visit her relatives. I was at the time newly hired by Homeland Security. The mother-in-law picked us up at the Des Moines airport and we drove to Grinnell, IA.
On the way there, we stopped in Newton, IA for dinner. I had declared my Glock 22 with the airline. When we got our luggage, I instinctively retrieved my sidearm and put it a Bianchi leather holster. I was wearing Dockers, a polo shirt, was fit, and had a military haircut. I was naive in thinking that open carry was both legal and commonplace in the Midwest.
We walked into the A&W in Newton and seated ourselves at a large table; me, my wife, two young children, and my mother-in-law. We ordered and were in the middle of our meal when a man approached the table. He was white, in his 30's, unshaven, messy hair, overweight, and wearing sweatpants and a NASCAR shirt. Pretty much your average Iowan.
He declared in a loud voice that this was a family restaurant and no place for a firearm. I looked at him, laughed, and asked, "seriously?". He slithered away and we continued with our meal.
About fifteen minutes later, I noticed that the restaurant was empty and that there were cop cars outside.
Police came in with guns drawn and pointed at me and my family from both exits, shouting orders to not move and put our hands up.
Once the cops assessed the situation, they holstered their weapons and informed me that the slob had called the cops to report a man brandishing a firearm and insulting people. They then advised me that it was indeed illegal to open carry in Iowa at that time and to keep my sidearm in the trunk of the car since I was not yet a credentialed federal LEO.
The point of my story is that some folks are easily triggered by even appropriate open carry. What the man in Missouri did was stupid and intentionally provoking. What I did was stupid, but not intentionally provoking, hence the being let off with a warning.
On the way there, we stopped in Newton, IA for dinner. I had declared my Glock 22 with the airline. When we got our luggage, I instinctively retrieved my sidearm and put it a Bianchi leather holster. I was wearing Dockers, a polo shirt, was fit, and had a military haircut. I was naive in thinking that open carry was both legal and commonplace in the Midwest.
We walked into the A&W in Newton and seated ourselves at a large table; me, my wife, two young children, and my mother-in-law. We ordered and were in the middle of our meal when a man approached the table. He was white, in his 30's, unshaven, messy hair, overweight, and wearing sweatpants and a NASCAR shirt. Pretty much your average Iowan.
He declared in a loud voice that this was a family restaurant and no place for a firearm. I looked at him, laughed, and asked, "seriously?". He slithered away and we continued with our meal.
About fifteen minutes later, I noticed that the restaurant was empty and that there were cop cars outside.
Police came in with guns drawn and pointed at me and my family from both exits, shouting orders to not move and put our hands up.
Once the cops assessed the situation, they holstered their weapons and informed me that the slob had called the cops to report a man brandishing a firearm and insulting people. They then advised me that it was indeed illegal to open carry in Iowa at that time and to keep my sidearm in the trunk of the car since I was not yet a credentialed federal LEO.
The point of my story is that some folks are easily triggered by even appropriate open carry. What the man in Missouri did was stupid and intentionally provoking. What I did was stupid, but not intentionally provoking, hence the being let off with a warning.
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
Well we can be obtuse together I guess. Lol But this has been my view all along as well.
And if it only applies to rifles then you cant say open carry of a rifle is legal either. It's only legal if no one sees it and pulls the fire alarm.....
If it's legal to carry, but only if not 1 person is worried and pulls a fire alarm then the left has won and it's just not legal at all
Either way we are arguing in circles and I'm done. Guy was dumb. Court will decide how dumb. Glove may or may not fit.....
Last edited:
Jenrick
Member
Seeing your CCW is different than seeing your slug AR, over your tac vest, loaded with mags, days after a similar mass shooting, at a similar store. One is you open carrying or printing, the other is you potentially being an active shooter and the public not wanting to risk being shot (a very reasonable attitude I might add). The law is almost always based on context and totality of the circumstances. You can rarely apply absolutes to it.
I am well aware that open carry is legal in Texas, being in Austin we were a hotbed for OC activity before it passed in the legislature. In Texas I would feel confident in most of the county attorneys filing charges for disorderly conduct in this circumstance:
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
.
.
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.
They evac'ed the Walmart because they thought he might be active shooter, a CCW holder almost shot him because he might be an active shooter? We would meet the elements of the offense right there.
He is a criminal who committed a crime with a firearm. Trying to say that his actions have anything to do with our ability to CC or OC in a responsible manner, is doing nothing but giving the anti's evidence and a talking point to go after both.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
Go ahead and think that but that guy just made some people on the fence for gun control decide to support it.
Like there's any question about whether this muppet is some kind of strategic mastermind... sheesh, he's an idiot, he did something idiotic, and we'll all be tarred with the idiot brush (people love group punishment these days).
Just remember that Oliver Wendell Holmes who penned that "fire in a movie theater" opinion to justify the justice's ruling against seditious speech in an anti-draft flyer was later ashamed of his decision. Because of this, he joined the minority dissent in Abrams vs. United States, and wrote that, "a silly leaflet by an unknown man" should not be considered illegal." Abrams was deported for distributing a flyer urging the US not to intervene in Russian politics (their revolution).
You see, earlier Holmes considered the context of the war as justification for ruling that distributing a flyer arguing against the draft presented a clear and present danger to the United States that would bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. He famously used "fire!" in a movie theater as a justification for banning what he considered "dangerous" and "false."
He incorrectly believed that the war created a context that justified banning certain speech.
Don't incorrectly believe that the evil acts of others justifies banning the right to bear arms.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
