Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
And we aren’t supposed make laws on public perception in a Constitutional Republic are we?
No more open carry at Walmart
- Thread starter JR1572
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
And we aren’t supposed make laws on public perception in a Constitutional Republic are we?
Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater or crowded building leads the public to perceive there is a fire.
Wearing armor and carrying a rifle/handgun in a grocery store leads the public to perceive there is/will be an active shooter.
Both cases can easily and justifiably cause a public concern and panic.
You’re willing to infringe on the rights of a select few by handing out fines.
No one is relinquishing a right. Carrying concealed is being smart enough to know that open carry attracts unwanted attention. Whether it’s your right or not has no bearing on if it’s a good idea or not.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
I’ve never argued it wouldn’t or shouldn’t cause concern. Hell I would go the other direction.
But if it’s not a crime in one place and time how can it be in a different place and time (remember no law prohibited it nor do Walmart). And if it’s not ok at certain times we have to have established rules telling us when those times are.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
No I’m willing to make it a finable offense (non-criminal) to intentionally get the police called on you. Honestly it’s probably already a crime (disturbing the peace).
I did mention my reluctance to my own idea it should be noted.
Last edited:
I don't understand the disconnect.
It is a crime to yell fire in a crowded place when there is no fire, but your words will cause people to think there is a fire and panic.
It is not a crime to walk down the street yelling fire. People may look at you like you are crazy, but you wouldn't be inciting panic by causing people to flee a room.
Is it plausible that carrying an AR anywhere could cause the general public to fear for their safety? Absolutely. That's why we don't walk around with ARs and body armor on the reg. My point is that police may give more leniency with someone "exercising their 2A rights" out on an open street than in a crowded store.
We have a lot of cops on here. What are your thoughts? How would you handle a guy walking down the street in armor and carrying a rifle?
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
We already established it would not be a crime you agreed it would not be a crime had the shooting not taken place in a Walmart several states over. My disconnect is in the fact that if it’s criminal because someone shot one up what are the rules and your telling me it’s public perception, but that’s no how we enforce laws.
Many laws are based on public perception. Disturbing the peace is one of those. It's only criminal if someone is being disturbed. It's rather hard to get a disturbing the peace violation in the middle of the woods.
In this case, it is criminal because a reasonable person would agree that going into a Walmart shortly after a mass shooting, at a Walmart, is likely to cause a panic.
A reasonable person might not think that the same guy walking down a non-crowded street is criminal. This is why we allow people to be judged by a jury of their peers and defer to these peers (presumably reasonable persons) beliefs.
Correct, A Reasonable and Prudent Person would not have entered a store armed as this Attention Seeking Clown did.
Once asked to leave by Wal Mart Personnel he must go or be issued a Citation for Remaining after being Forbidden and would be banned from All Wal Mart Stores Forever.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
I would have to disagree. If there are noise ordinances, and if no one reports you and you don’t get caught then you got away with it. It doesn’t make legal.
How is does one determine a reasonable person.
But a reasonable person might also think a man in a vest holding a gun might be private security, plan clothes Leo responding to a disturbance (the live-chat/stream whatever throws that out), maybe a reasonable person would think he’s trying to get attention. A reasonable person might think I’m a pedofile because I like ‘The Ides of March’ song ‘Vehicle’.
That’s why we don’t generally use Mr. or Mrs. Reasonable very often.
Last edited:
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
Can’t disagree with anything here.
But are are we required by law to be reasonable and prudent?
We are required by law to leave if told to.
Did anyone bother to tell this idiot to leave?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound? That's what this is coming down to.
Someone in a vest with a rifle is going to have some sort of identifier on him that will let the public know that he is LEO/Security...because they don't want to cause concern by looking like they are a crazy with a rifle...
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.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
Nope that’s not how it works. That’s an ‘it’s only stealing if you get caught’ argument.
Thats not always the case either if someone is wearing a vest that says security and they are toting an AR I would be more concerned than if he had no marking and a cell phone cam. Private security that regularly carry AR’s aren’t your typical Paul Blart type. But my point was reasonable people will try to reason away why someone would have an AR and a vest in public. One result is fear/concern. It’s a highly probable result, but not the only conclusion a reasonable person may reach.
Kind of like me liking Ides of March might be because I like brass bands, not diddling children.
Reasonable people might think you train too much and have to many guns, and you should have them all taken away. I’m pretty sure no one here is that kind of reasonable.
Nope that’s not how it works. That’s an ‘it’s only stealing if you get caught’ argument.
Thats not always the case either if someone is wearing a vest that says security and they are toting an AR I would be more concerned than if he had no marking and a cell phone cam. Private security that regularly carry AR’s aren’t your typical Paul Blart type. But my point was reasonable people will try to reason away why someone would have an AR and a vest in public. One result is fear/concern. It’s a highly probable result, but not the only conclusion a reasonable person may reach.
Kind of like me liking Ides of March might be because I like brass bands, not diddling children.
Reasonable people might think you train too much and have to many guns, and you should have them all taken away. I’m pretty sure no one here is that kind of reasonable.
Your argument only applies to Mala In Se laws (wrong in theirself) These are crimes that as a society we agree or morally wrong like murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.
Mala Prohibita, laws that are laws because they are prohibited but have no moral element - speeding, noise ordinance, pulling a permit to build a fence, etc. Those are only laws by definition.
There is a belief in criminal justice philosophy that a crime is only actually a crime when it is acknolwedge through the state via action, like an arrest. SO by that notion, running a red light and not getting cought is not by definition a crime.
Private security, at least in LA don't carry rifles.
Actuall the reasonable standard gets VERY far and is a hallmark of law. I agree there is no definition which is why in our CJUS system, each case is based on its own merits. Somethings are subjective buy design.
You measure it by 12 people coming to a consensus.
"Just cause" and "suspicion" are not real things. Perhaps you meant reasonable suspicion and probable cause? Those are actual things that happen not only in the field but also in court. They absolutely fair well in court.
You don't have a sound ordinance issue without a complaint. Most noise ordinances do have specific parameters, but also things can be subjective.
Did you know you can get a ticket for going the speed limit? There is a general speed law that allows for "driving too fast for conditions." That is a subjective determination by the officer.
He most likely would not be banned from "All Wal Mart stores forever" He would likely only be banned from that store.
- Status
