"unreasonable amount of ammunition" What the heck is this?

[Lashlarue]

My Walmart sells wine and beer, and has a sign on the front door that says only a CHL holder can legally carry there.It's been a while since I took my class, but I'm pretty sure only places where you can consume alcohol are no no's.But then again maybe my Alzheimers has kicked in...

 

[bogie]

"unreasonable amount?"

Hey, you can only shoot one at a time.

 

[Jimmie]

If you have a CHL, the place is only off limits if it makes 51% or more of its income from on-premise alcohol consumption.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf

 

[bogie]

That's assuming that you're in Texas. Not everyone is in Texas. Many of us don't even LIKE Texas.

I'm still getting bleeping caliche dust from bleeping Midland out of my benchrest gear. From bleeping five years ago.

Texas. Only thing the state ever did decent was Shiner Bock.

And that was imported.

 

[Jimmie]

But this guy was in Texas, so why would we be talking about anywhere else in this thread?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm still hung up on the fact he was charged with "terroristic" threatening (not just plain old, everyday, garden variety threatening), and from the articles I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that he made ANY threats, let alone "terroristic" threats.

Yeah, yeah, I know he went to the store with a bang stick and a bunch of bang bangs. So what? "Threatening" is a specific action. "Threatening" is looking some wimp in the face and saying, "Punk, I'm going to punch your lights out and mop up the floor with hair." If you just walk up to the wimp and punch his lights out with no warning -- there's assault, but there's no "threatening."

So ... did our misguided protagonist in this story say anything to anyone inside (or outside) the Wal-Mart that was in any way a "threat"? In the interest of accuracy in the media (as well as in the interest of people only being charged with offenses they actually commit), I would really like to know.

 

[bogie]

"Threatening" is looking some wimp in the face and saying, "Punk, I'm going to punch your lights out and mop up the floor with hair." If you just walk up to the wimp and punch his lights out with no warning -- there's assault, but there's no "threatening."

Wrongo, boyo...

Threatening someone is "assault."

Whompin' someone is "assault and battery."

Duct taping someone to a chair and forcing them to watch Paula Abduhl pornos is a capital offense.

 

[jaytex1969]

I live in Austin and they gave a few more details on the 10-o-clock news.

Seems he was recently fired from that Wal-Mart for absences related to an ongoing pain condition he has.

The reporter said that, after the wife called and told police about the letter and that he and his weapon were gone, the police found him leaning up against a vending machine at the entrance in his old Wal-Mart work outfit (smock?) and that he had about 60 rounds with him.

He was either just waiting to be picked up after leaving the obvious trail or maybe trying to get up his nerve to do whatever he was thinking of doing.

We may never know the full story, but it doesn't sound like the fellow was wrapped too tight.

 

[230RN]

Much of what I was going to say has been said above. I think the guy was just wanting to be caught, but that's pure speculation on my part.

But on this 51% thing. What do you have to do, have an audit done to determine what actual percentage of sales involves alcohol? Has anyone gotten off the hook for demanding that prosecution prove up on the 51%?

Pure blue-sky-ing, but over what period of time does this 51% have to be figured? What if you did the audit for last Sunday, as opposed to last Saturday?

Sounds like a dumb question, but like a size limit on knives... to what level of accuracy and from what point to what point on the knife do you have to measure the length?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I'm still hung up on the fact he was charged with "terroristic" threatening (not just plain old, everyday, garden variety threatening), and from the articles I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that he made ANY threats, let alone "terroristic" threats.

The Texas Penal Code called. It asked that you kindly thumb throught it next time before attempting to discuss the charges in question. In fact, it got so lonely it decided to show up in this thread.

§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a
building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has
access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or
other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
agency of the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the
offense:
(1) is committed against a member of the person's
family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence; or
(2) is committed against a public servant.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A
misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or
more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in
which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is
a felony of the third degree.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Family" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.003, Family Code.
(2) "Family violence" has the meaning assigned by
Section 71.004, Family Code.
(3) "Household" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.005, Family Code.
(g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary
loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the
building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention
or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room,
place, or conveyance.

It seems to me that (a)(1),(a)(2),(a)(3) and (a)(5) could all be applicable. (a)(1) is directly related to the note. The rest are applicable by his showing up at Wal-Mart illegally armed in conjunction with the note.

Oh, and before the usual Patriot Act crowd shows up.. this has been in the Texas Penal Code far longer than Boosh has been in office.

 

[Shadow1198]

You know, I live very close to the particular Walmart in question. Seriously, in a day or two I'm going to have to go buy a few hundred rounds of ammo from them just for fun.

 

[jrfoxx]

So ... did our misguided protagonist in this story say anything to anyone inside (or outside) the Wal-Mart that was in any way a "threat"?

As ClickClickD'oh said, I think they are counting the note as a "threat". A little shaky IMHO, but I can see where that one could be made to stick fairly easy, and I'll admit there's reasonable belief to call the note a threat, based on the TX code posted. thats the only reason I left that charge out of my little rant about charges. Even assuming he didnt have a TX CCW license, charging him with the "carry in a place that sells liquer" thing is still a little shaky IMHO, as that still seems to only apply to the 51% thing, and it applies wether you have a license or not. Therefore, it doesnt apply to him. He should have been charged with CCW without a license, since thats what he did, not the bogus, "extra bad" liquer charge.

also, I'll agree with those guessing it may have been a huge, misguided cry for help, rather than actual attempt to kill people, based on the new info about the 2 hrs he hung around and did nothing, especially knowing he left the note. But, could be like others said he was screwing up his courage too. either way, I have no beef with the wife calling 911, and the cops arresting him, and the DA charging him with as many crimes as he can find (that were actually committed), and the judge ordering psych eval and even denying bail pending that.The dude has some obvious, serious, dangerous issues. Me rant was just about charging people with stuff they didnt really commit, when thers plenty of things they DID commit to charge them with, like ccw without a license.I dont hink it will matter which of the 2 carries a longer sentence when it come to bail and psych eval time, based on his note and such.Could have accomplished the same with the threat charge, and CCW charge, and left off the bogus alcohol one.

 

[CypherNinja]

"unreasonable amount of ammunition"

::Looks at CMP crates and 22 bricks::

 

[USMC 1975]

Just because the guy's a wannabee spree killer doesn't mean he's irresponsible. Late fees can add up in a hurry and it wouldn't be fair to take out your frustrations with the world on Cassie's bladder.

Dude.....your killing me here...............lmao..............



Chris

 

[mr.72]

kind of cracks me up that carrying 60 rounds of ammo into the store is "unreasonable" but you can get a 100-round box across the counter and carry it around inside the store on the way to the checkout stand and that's totally "reasonable".

i don't remember the exact wording but i heard this story on the radio just shortly after it happened, and i got the impression that this was a loaded gun and 3 extra 15-round loaded magazines. i have to admit, carrying in 60 rounds loaded in mags into wal-mart where you've recently been fired is a wee bit suspicious.

EDIT: I just heard another radio report, now they are saying "he had a gun with him and 60 rounds of bullets in his pocket"...

 

[XDKingslayer]

Am I the only one that just had to laugh at this?

You're not alone...

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

I usually love to stick of for the concealed carry crew but I think I'll pick a different battle.

Anyone who says "I'll try to die soon" has lost my support.

 

[eric.cartman]

(un)reasonable is a communist favorite word. You should know by now.

BTW, there is a talk in US Congress of creating "a reasonable profits board" to decide how much is too much for a business / person to make.

REASONABLE will be our path to hell.

 

[springmom]

charging him with the "carry in a place that sells liquer" thing is still a little shaky IMHO, as that still seems to only apply to the 51% thing, and it applies wether you have a license or not. Therefore, it doesnt apply to him. He should have been charged with CCW without a license, since thats what he did, not the bogus, "extra bad" liquer charge.

No....the 51% signs apply only to bars. What he is being charged with is a DIFFERENT TABC violation. On every convenience store window, and most supermarkets/superstores, there is a sign that says that it is a felony to carry a gun into this store because alcohol is sold there. It is a different deal altogether than the 51%, and it is superceded only by a CHL. Why does it exist when there's already a law on the books requiring CHLs? Because it's a requirement of the TABC, not the Texas penal code.

It's not bogus, it's simply functionally redundant.

Springmom

 

[mr.72]

i don't think anyone in their right mind is going to stick up for this guy's right to carry with intent to be arrested and go to prison.

however I am always disturbed at least a little bit by these thought police kind of arrests. I am glad they averted an attack, but it's a very slippery slope to be on.

 

[texas bulldog]

springmom is almost 100% correct.

the sign found on all stores selling alcohol: (i checked the one where i work)

the unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $10,000.

to review...the texas law says...
carrying without a CHL = misdemeanor
carrying without CHL where alcohol is sold = felony

this guy is being charged with the felony. the 51% law only applies to people who do have a CHL and would never apply at any Wal-Mart (unless they put a pub in one).

everyone got that now?

 

[jackstinson]

Have you ever NOT seen WalMart teeming with customers?

Ya know...it's weird...but the largest Super WalMart around here is not "teeming" on Friday nights. Every time I've been there on a Friday evening the place is like a ghost town. We were there last Friday and they had a live 7-piece salsa band playing music up by the checkout lanes just to entice customers! Any other day of the week and you can't get in the door for all the people. But Friday nights, it's pretty sparse. Go figure?
BTW- I wouldn't return the library book....make him pay the fine.
Jack

 

[Mr_Rogers]

First, nothing can excuse this guys actions but:

My guess is that in the end this fellow will get some flavor of "balance of mind disturbed" ruling.

Constant pain. No medical insurance. Lost job. Dumb threat note. Delay between the note and no action. etc.

If this got in front of a jury with a decent attorney, which it probably won't since he has no money, he could end up with WalMart being blamed ().

As it is he might get the medical treatment he was trying for in a pyscho facility. The charges against him, while causing a lot of heat in this community, will probably only be of use to get him off the street.

 

[ServiceSoon]

You know, I live very close to the particular Walmart in question. Seriously, in a day or two I'm going to have to go buy a few hundred rounds of ammo from them just for fun.

The best thing you could do to make sure this doesn't happen

There's also the risk that Wal-Mart will overreact and ban carrying in their stores.

is to influence your freinds to buy lots and lots of ammunition from that Walmart.

kind of cracks me up that carrying 60 rounds of ammo into the store is "unreasonable" but you can get a 100-round box across the counter and carry it around inside the store on the way to the checkout stand and that's totally "reasonable".

i don't remember the exact wording but i heard this story on the radio just shortly after it happened, and i got the impression that this was a loaded gun and 3 extra 15-round loaded magazines. i have to admit, carrying in 60 rounds loaded in mags into wal-mart where you've recently been fired is a wee bit suspicious.

Agreed. Buying a 100 round value pack at the Walmart and returning to said Walmart carrying enough ammunition to take down a small village are two different situations.

Am I the only one that just had to laugh at this?

No; it gave me a chuckle.

to review...the texas law says...
carrying without a CHL = misdemeanor
carrying without CHL where alcohol is sold = felony

this guy is being charged with the felony. the 51% law only applies to people who do have a CHL and would never apply at any Wal-Mart (unless they put a pub in one).

everyone got that now?

What about carrying without a CHL where they serve alcohol? Double whammy!

 

[Geno]

First, I am glad that the gentleman is in a safe location, where he can be evaluated and get some help.

Second, I am glad that the wife had the good sense to call the police.

Third, what's up with a 2-hour delay to locate him?! They should have gone first and foremost to his former employer's location.

Fourth, if 60 rounds of ammunition is unreasonable, what is reasonable?! That part of the arrest is just stupid.

Hopefully the man gets the help that he obviously needs.