No more open carry at Walmart

AustinBR said:

2) Legit operators won't wear vests over their clothes and walk around with an AR over their shoulder in grocery stores. There are personal protection and various security companies that utilize individuals armed with vests and rifles as part of various jobs/details. These types of details typically would not 'operate' a shopping cart in a Walmart in that attire. Generally, if someone is employed in a function that requires armor/vests AND they are in a PUBLIC space, they will wear something that shows who they are / why they are appearing the way they are. The private security patrolling a billionaire's mansion is not who I am talking about.

3) While you cannot control a bike or a person coming in front of your car, you are often responsible for swerving around them if they do. You can't just hit them if you have the ability to move around them. In this sense, you have a duty, while driving, to attempt to not hit people, even if they get in your way. While you have a 2A right to bear arms, you do not have a right to induce a mass panic. There are limitations to all of the amendments. We have freedom of speech, but you are not free to slander people or businesses. We are not free to use speech as a call of action to instigate harm to another. We are not free to use speech to harass or assault others. I am as big of a supporter of the second amendment as anyone else, but there is a very fine line between bearing arms for safety/security and using arms for attention and to scare the public.

I still think that context is key. There is a lot of context with the 2A, for example, I don't want my neighbor owning nuclear weapons. That is a restriction on the right to bear arms that I think we are all okay with. In this case, it seems logical to think that this guy chose Walmart as his location for "2A Awarenes" solely because it was the location of a recent mass-shooting. It also seems logical that he likely knew that his presence would easily and justifiably scare multiple people. He wasn't charged with a weapons violation. He was charged with terrorism charges related to causing a panic. That is a very important distinction. I'm not arguing against his right to own an AR, pistol, or vest. I am arguing that he chose to use the three to intentionally cause duress to others, which is not, and should not be okay.

4) I don't know. I don't know if the AR was on a sling. If it was on a sling, I don't know if he had it on his back or front. If it was on a sling in his front, it is likely that he handled it at some point. Walking around with a weapon in your hand, in a Walmart, seems like a brandishing charge.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

2. You are still missing the point reasonable people might have all kinds of explanations why a fairly clean dude would show up with a previous lily discussed equipment.

3. You’re wandering too much to put effort into refuting. I will repeat my fear is that what you and I today consider completely appropriate will one ‘cause a panic’ and that will be used to crush our way of life. That’s why we have to be careful to pay attention to his actions and his intentions as he walked around with previously agree constitutionally protected equipment. Otherwise you fall into the trap of the focal point being on the gun not the loose nut on the butt pad.

4. It all boils down to his behavior while equipped for me. I will say again he’s an idiot for going to Walmart after the Walmart shooting equipped that way but if he was doing nothing aggressive he’s just another idiot.

Im not sure the legal definition of brandishing a weapon but if it’s holding it or touch it in public I would find it next to impossible to do with a long gun outside a case.

Click to expand...

AustinBR said:

2) And lately, a common reason is that they are about to shoot up the place. Look like a duck, quack like a duck...just might be a duck. Open carrying a rifle in a walmart seems outside the current merit of the law.

3) What I consider appropriate is not letting anyone know what is concealed on your person. Any more than that is often solely for attention, which I do not support.

4) I think that carrying an AR in a Walmart in and of itself is sufficient behavior to warrant the highest level of suspicion, though isn't a crime. Adding to it the context of the prior mass shooting is enough for me to say that he intentionally went from wanting to protect himself to wanting to cause a ruckus, which is a crime. The carrying of the gun isn't the crime, it is his intention of causing a panic. Ignorance of the fact that it would likely cause a panic doesn't justify the actions. Carrying a concealed pistol and a concealed vest would have kept him out of jail. Testing the limits of the law put him in jail. It's just not worth it.

I think it's very difficult to have a long-gun in public and not brandish it....which is why we don't bring our long-guns in public.

Click to expand...

JBP55 said:

Incorrect, All Wal Mart Stores and they are told that in the Security Office of Wal Mart before they are escorted out by a LEO.

Click to expand...

Magdump said:

Yes, I meant reasonable suspicion and probable cause, mr editor...as you point out, I didn’t get the exact terminology which gave you a foothold in trying to disprove my point which is: they are not evidence that a crime has been committed. They are not stand alone evidence for a conviction. They are used to imply guilt but are not proof. When used alone they can either be shot down in court or leave room for reversal.

You can absolutely be arrested/ticketed and found guilty and be sentenced/fined for breaking the law when it comes to a sound ordinance without a civilian complaint. I’m not in a courtroom at the moment so I don’t feel the need to cite case law but I know that it’s happened before. Whether or not the court considered the arresting cop to be the source of the complaint is unbeknownst to me. The evidenced used was a sound meter reading that exceeded the limit set forth in the ordinance.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

W

Yep I know what Mens rea means. I rarely use words like that that I don’t understand first.

I guess the confusion comes in when I said mens rea defense. I suppose I should have said lack there of.

If his actions were constitutionally protected up until either private property rights supersede them or his actions were meant to create panic. A guilty mind would be needed for a crime to have occurred.

Now you could argue anyone with a brain should know what he did was likely to cause panic, but yet again we are not legally required to have a brain. I argue his actions were to seek attention like everyone else agrees but I don’t believe his intent was panic. I conclude he’s a moron, not a terrorist.

Click to expand...

Gator 45/70 said:

I just drove past a Wal-Mart with a big .40 on the hip...Does that count?

Click to expand...

machinedrummer said:

I’ve read the AR was built from a 80% lower. Bye bye 80% builds. Feds are also demanding a list of 10,000 people that have the scope app.

Click to expand...

geoney said:

Perhaps calm down? I am not "Mr Editor", but if you are trying to make an intellectual argument about law... the specific words become quite relevant. Try not to take a simple correction in terminology as a personal affront. SImply acknowledge your mistake and move on. We all make them, I know I do. LOL.

I dismantled your point because your point was faulty. You said they do not apply in court, which they actually do. They have to be proven in court, and in some cases, they are the basis to get a conviction. There is no real difference in their applicability on the street or in the court.

They indeed are "evidence", they are NOT proof. Again, these words have very specific meanings in the context of law and they are not interchangeable. The officer's articulation of his PC or RS is infact evidence as long as he is not a perjured or discredible witness.

I said "you do not have a sound ordinance issue without a complaint." I never said you cannot " be arrested/ticketed and found guilty and be sentenced/fined for breaking the law when it comes to a sound ordinance without a civilian complaint"

First, the officier can be the complainant (he is still a civilian in most contexts), and I never said anything about arrest/ticket/convicted/or sentanced. I said if there is no complaint, there is no issue.

Click to expand...

Magdump said:

Hey gooney, you misquoted me. I didn’t say ‘do not apply in court’. Go chew on some rocks

Click to expand...

Magdump said:

When it comes to law and going to court, the reasonable/prudent argument doesn’t get very far because there’s no real standard there. How do you measure something that’s not absolute?
Reasonable person can be used in the field to establish just cause or suspicion etc, to give reason to investigate, but doesn’t fare too well in court to support the argument that a law was broken and can’t stand alone as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In the absence of a complaint, breaking a sound ordinance can be alleged upon the reading of a sound meter. Because noise disturbance is measurable and often times the laws regarding noise disturbances have parameters that can be measured in decibels. This would suffice as stand alone proof that a law was broken.

Click to expand...

Magdump said:

just so you don’t have to backtrack.
You used different words, different meaning to twist things to your liking to support your weak ass argument. Have a nice day

Click to expand...

Rocko68 said:

Bangswitch, you prove a good point ("When a right requires you to meet certain standards before you can exercise it, it’s no longer a right it’s a privilege granted by your sovereign ruler"), it's easy to get fooled by the political rhetoric and banter. I spoke and thought NOT actually keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment is a right and not a privilege.
It's a crazy world with plenty of crazies out there.

Click to expand...

geoney said:

Perhaps.. the specific words become quite relevant.......You said they do not apply in court, which they actually do. .

Click to expand...

Magdump said:

So, which is it? Specific words become quite relevant or you gonna paraphrase all day?
No intelligent anything here... how about over here? Nope. Whatever dude.
Nice try

Click to expand...

When it comes to law and going to court, the reasonable/prudent argument doesn’t get very far because there’s no real standard there. How do you measure something that’s not absolute?
Reasonable person can be used in the field to establish just cause or suspicion etc, to give reason to investigate, but doesn’t fare too well in court to support the argument that a law was broken and can’t stand alone as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In the absence of a complaint, breaking a sound ordinance can be alleged upon the reading of a sound meter. Because noise disturbance is measurable and often times the laws regarding noise disturbances have parameters that can be measured in decibels. This would suffice as stand alone proof that a law was broken.

Click to expand...