Open Carry

[ClydeR]

Charlottesville’s NBC29.com reports that the unidentified man entered a Kroger grocery store around 5 o’clock Sunday night. He left, returned to his car to retrieve an AR-15 and then went back into the store.

The real twist to this story is that he doesn’t seem to have been there to shoot anyone or steal anything. Instead, it seems, the man was exercising his legal right to open carry.

The patrons of the store panicked and fled, dialing 911 as they went. The police arrived in time to find the man in the parking lot of the grocery store with his rifle. They peacefully detained the man and found a note in his pocket, declaring his intent to express his second amendment rights. The police questioned him and after determining that he had broken no laws, they released him. The man has no criminal record, and owns the rifle legally.

More... (http://www.guns.com/2013/01/31/virginian-carries-ar-15-into-grocery-store/)

This is madness. The people in that store had no reason to panic. Instead, they should have felt safer knowing that there was someone with a gun who could protect them in case some crazy person came in the store with a gun. He was completely within his rights under Virginia law. Expect to see more of this as Democrats try to scare people about guns.

[msconstrew]

This is madness. The people in that store had no reason to panic. Instead, they should have felt safer knowing that there was someone with a gun who could protect them in case some crazy person came in the store with a gun. He was completely within his rights under Virginia law. Expect to see more of this as Democrats try to scare people about guns.

LOL. I handled two of these cases where the open carrier carried a handgun into a Menard's (home improvement store) and a Walmart. It was an intentional attempt to "test" Wisconsin's open carry laws. Both were confronted by the stores' respective management personnel, asked to leave, and when they began loudly asserting their rights to open carry, the stores called the police who promptly arrested the open carrier for (IIRC) disturbing the peace.

One was actually convicted of disturbing the peace; the charges were dropped against the other. Both were funded by an open carry group out of the south and sued the respective police departments for violations of their constitutional rights. Both lost in the Seventh Circuit. Hilariously (to those of us handling the cases, anyway), both were later arrested on gun-related charges and were in prison at the time of the hearings at the Seventh Circuit.

We got costs awarded against both of them, which was kind of fun.

[Back]

Tell you what... I don't care what the law is, you walk into my establishment brandishing a weapon I am asking you politely to leave and calling 911 if you do not. End of story.

[Jarvan]

Tell you what... I don't care what the law is, you walk into my establishment brandishing a weapon I am asking you politely to leave and calling 911 if you do not. End of story.

Which is perfectly reasonable really. You may have the right to openly carry a gun, but that doesn't mean that a store or business has to allow it in their place.

Maybe you should buy a sign that says no guns allowed for your owned/rented/leased hotdog cart.


LOL. I handled two of these cases where the open carrier carried a handgun into a Menard's (home improvement store) and a Walmart. It was an intentional attempt to "test" Wisconsin's open carry laws. Both were confronted by the stores' respective management personnel, asked to leave, and when they began loudly asserting their rights to open carry, the stores called the police who promptly arrested the open carrier for (IIRC) disturbing the peace.

One was actually convicted of disturbing the peace; the charges were dropped against the other. Both were funded by an open carry group out of the south and sued the respective police departments for violations of their constitutional rights. Both lost in the Seventh Circuit. Hilariously (to those of us handling the cases, anyway), both were later arrested on gun-related charges and were in prison at the time of the hearings at the Seventh Circuit.

We got costs awarded against both of them, which was kind of fun.

While I can understand and see a disturbing the peace charge, I can't see how they could make it stick if there is a law allowing someone to openly carry a firearm. He disturbed the peace by exercising his rights and obeying the law? Or is it because people in the stores felt threatened by his presence? Would this also apply in other situations? Like if a Skinhead was in the store with a swastika on his shirt, or a guy in a KKK outfit. It's not like they were brandishing the guns, they were just openly carried a handgun. It would be like getting arrested for violating a noise ordinance because you are carrying an 80's style boombox on your shoulder.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

[Androidpk]

While I can understand and see a disturbing the peace charge, I can't see how they could make it stick if there is a law allowing someone to openly carry a firearm. He disturbed the peace by exercising his rights and obeying the law?

I would say it's because they were asked by the managers to leave and then they started to argue and become belligerent. If you're that concerned about safety and want to carry then carry concealed.

[Jarvan]

I would say it's because they were asked by the managers to leave and then they started to argue and become belligerent. If you're that concerned about safety and want to carry then carry concealed.

I just find it funny that protesters can do much worse things then this, and not get in trouble at all.

Point in fact, there is an apartment complex in Philly that hired non union labor to fix electrical issues. So the union blasts a crying baby over loudspeakers..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/union-workers-blast-crying-baby-sounds-protest-17961917

The people in the complex asked them to stop, and they didn't, couldn't they be arrested? Just makes you wonder.

[msconstrew]

While I can understand and see a disturbing the peace charge, I can't see how they could make it stick if there is a law allowing someone to openly carry a firearm. He disturbed the peace by exercising his rights and obeying the law? Or is it because people in the stores felt threatened by his presence? Would this also apply in other situations? Like if a Skinhead was in the store with a swastika on his shirt, or a guy in a KKK outfit. It's not like they were brandishing the guns, they were just openly carried a handgun. It would be like getting arrested for violating a noise ordinance because you are carrying an 80's style boombox on your shoulder.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

No, he disturbed the peace by walking into a large store in a bad part of Milwaukee, at night, near closing time. Employees and patrons testified that they felt threatened and they got belligerent.

Your point about skinheads is conflating the first amendment with the second. Wearing your special KKK robe and hat in public might upset people and certain people might fear for their lives, too. But there's a constitutionally protected freedom to wear that in public and speak in that manner. By contrast, wearing a gun in an open carry situation is legal under the state's second amendment laws BUT due to the actively dangerous nature of a firearm, there's a lot less room for error on the police's part. Interestingly, this argument has been unsuccessfully made many times; wearing a gun does not count as speech.

Like I said, these were test cases funded by a group of people deliberately attempting to test the open carry laws. In addition to the outside funding received, they also did everyone involved the dubious favor of posting our names and home addresses/names of spouses on a website as people "opposed to freedom" and we had to move for a restraining order. Fun times.

[Androidpk]

I just find it funny that protesters can do much worse things then this, and not get in trouble at all.

Protesters usually don't kill people.

[Jarvan]

No, he disturbed the peace by walking into a large store in a bad part of Milwaukee, at night, near closing time. Employees and patrons testified that they felt threatened and they got belligerent.

Your point about skinheads is conflating the first amendment with the second. Wearing your special KKK robe and hat in public might upset people and certain people might fear for their lives, too. But there's a constitutionally protected freedom to wear that in public and speak in that manner. By contrast, wearing a gun in an open carry situation is legal under the state's second amendment laws BUT due to the actively dangerous nature of a firearm, there's a lot less room for error on the police's part. Interestingly, this argument has been unsuccessfully made many times; wearing a gun does not count as speech.

Like I said, these were test cases funded by a group of people deliberately attempting to test the open carry laws. In addition to the outside funding received, they also did everyone involved the dubious favor of posting our names and home addresses/names of spouses on a website as people "opposed to freedom" and we had to move for a restraining order. Fun times.

Just trying to understand, honestly. But if the people had not gotten belligerent and had a normal conversation asking why they were being asked to leave when they were violating no law, and no posted sign (I am figuring there was no sign saying no guns allowed) would this still then be an issue? I can understand the police having a lot less room for error, but at the same time, I don't see a need to arrest and charge someone. Detain and release maybe, but the arrest is the part that seems counter to the law. I am no lawyer of course, I just find it interesting that someone can be arrested for not violating a law. Seems maybe "disturbing the peace" is a very broad category that police can use to arrest almost anyone for almost anything. Hell, I have argued very loudly with managers when their people fucked up, surprised I wasn't arrested.

Some people rightly or not so rightly, feel threatened when a large group of kids enter a store late at night. I live in a town with 2 rival gangs, one Hispanic predominantly, the other black. I know for a fact when I see a group of kids all wearing the gang's colors or symbols, I tend to get very nervous. Would it be possible to arrest them for disturbing the peace? If the determining factor was the gun in the arrest, due to the possible outcome if the situation escalated, it just seems unfair. It's like arresting someone for maybe committing a crime. "Sorry bob, have to take you in, you have a gun, and you could possibly go on a rampage and kill everyone in the store"

[Jarvan]

Protesters usually don't kill people.

Apparently neither did those law abiding citizens.

Also, not according to the Obama admin, spontaneous protests killed 4 Americans. Also, I am sure there have been more deaths at protests, then deaths from people obeying the law. (Notice obeying the law, until you start firing the weapon into people, you are doing nothing wrong)

[Androidpk]

Apparently neither did those law abiding citizens.

Also, not according to the Obama admin, spontaneous protests killed 4 Americans. Also, I am sure there have been more deaths at protests, then deaths from people obeying the law. (Notice obeying the law, until you start firing the weapon into people, you are doing nothing wrong)

Yes, but when you see a protester you usually don't think they're going to go on a killing spree. You have the media reporting extensively on all of these mass shootings and then you see someone walk into a store with a rifle.. of course people are going to be concerned and call 911.

[Jarvan]

Yes, but when you see a protester you usually don't think they're going to go on a killing spree. You have the media reporting extensively on all of these mass shootings and then you see someone walk into a store with a rifle.. of course people are going to be concerned and call 911.

Oh, i don't fault anyone for calling 911. That's only reasonable. I just find the fact that a person would get arrested over it a bit insane. In this case, he didn't but as our General Counsel to Man Haters points out (Love that title) they have in the past. if the sole reason for their arrest was the possibility of violence due to having a gun openly carried, I personally would think that's unreasonable. Obviously the courts don't agree with me, but that is the beauty of our system.

[Androidpk]

If they had just left the store after being requested to by the management it wouldn't have been an issue.

[Jarvan]

If they had just left the store after being requested to by the management it wouldn't have been an issue.

This may be true, but once again, I have seen countless people yell and scream at managers, and never seen one arrested, until they threatened violence. It would seem that in this case, the people were arrested for the possibility of violence, not an overt threat. I guess you could say that even having a gun on you is an overt threat, but if that were the case, there should be no open carry laws at all, because then anyone could always feel threatened.

Frankly, I think it's dumb to walk into a store with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. A Handgun on your hip, that's fine.

[Androidpk]

When you're facing a customer who is open carrying and they are being disruptive in that manner then it's the stores responsibility to contact the police.

[msconstrew]

This may be true, but once again, I have seen countless people yell and scream at managers, and never seen one arrested, until they threatened violence. It would seem that in this case, the people were arrested for the possibility of violence, not an overt threat. I guess you could say that even having a gun on you is an overt threat, but if that were the case, there should be no open carry laws at all, because then anyone could always feel threatened.

Frankly, I think it's dumb to walk into a store with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. A Handgun on your hip, that's fine.

What you've got to keep in mind here is that these guys WANT to get arrested, but they want it to be for disorderly conduct or something similar. So they're not just yelling or getting heated; they're screaming at the cops in the middle of a store with firearms on their hips. Whether you want to admit it or not, that's different than a protester screaming at cop who is otherwise unarmed. Don't forget, too, that these are private businesses and once the guys were told to leave and didn't, they were trespassing.

[Jarvan]

What you've got to keep in mind here is that these guys WANT to get arrested, but they want it to be for disorderly conduct or something similar. So they're not just yelling or getting heated; they're screaming at the cops in the middle of a store with firearms on their hips. Whether you want to admit it or not, that's different than a protester screaming at cop who is otherwise unarmed. Don't forget, too, that these are private businesses and once the guys were told to leave and didn't, they were trespassing.

They were not arrested for trespassing tho. There is also a difference between what you posted, that they were belligerent. Frankly, if you had said first off that they were screaming and yelling at cops, not just arguing with a manager, that would be one thing. A lot of protesters show up to get arrested as well. Not using it as a comparison by any rights, but just look at the civil rights movement, I would say most of the time they went into it knowing they were going to get arrested, and in many cases, hoping for it. Also, I would think people chaining themselves to trees to protest deforestation are expecting and WANT to get arrested as well.

If someone tho, walks into a store in an open carry state to do shopping. A store with no sign saying no firearms allowed, and is asked to leave the store, and argues that he shouldn't have to. Cops show up, and he is arrested, I would call that bullshit. The cops can enforce the no trespassing request of the store, but I don't think they can just arrest you on the spot. Not to mention, couldn't it be possible for the person to sue the store? Likely not, as being a gun owner or carrying isn't a "protected" group.

[Androidpk]

Already trying to claim February's dunce award I see.

[Drinin]

I'm a store manager at Kroger (albeit in a different division) and we have been specifically told not to even approach anyone who comes in with a weapon in plain view. We've been told that there are groups going around testing their rights to carry a weapon in public places. If someone walks in with a weapon we're to call the cops and let them determine if he's legally permitted to carry a weapon, and if not, to remove him from the property. I'm at a store with a liquor shop inside which makes it illegal to carry a weapon so I haven't had anyone try it where I'm at.

[Showal]

They were not arrested for trespassing tho. There is also a difference between what you posted, that they were belligerent. Frankly, if you had said first off that they were screaming and yelling at cops, not just arguing with a manager, that would be one thing. A lot of protesters show up to get arrested as well. Not using it as a comparison by any rights, but just look at the civil rights movement, I would say most of the time they went into it knowing they were going to get arrested, and in many cases, hoping for it. Also, I would think people chaining themselves to trees to protest deforestation are expecting and WANT to get arrested as well.

If someone tho, walks into a store in an open carry state to do shopping. A store with no sign saying no firearms allowed, and is asked to leave the store, and argues that he shouldn't have to. Cops show up, and he is arrested, I would call that bullshit. The cops can enforce the no trespassing request of the store, but I don't think they can just arrest you on the spot. Not to mention, couldn't it be possible for the person to sue the store? Likely not, as being a gun owner or carrying isn't a "protected" group.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the very nature of being armed, by itself, escalates a situation? You can have an open carry law, sure. If you take a gun into a public environment, regardless of the laws, you're most likely going to run into problems because you have a fucking gun. If I walk around a mall with a steak knife in my hand, people are going to get upset. I'm not really breaking the law either. There are a shit load of legal things that you can do and get into trouble for. Because something is legal does not make it ok to do in every situation.

You're being purposely dense. Or you're seriously proposing that, in an open carry state, the only way to prevent people from coming in to your store and walking around with loaded shot guns is to post "Shirts and shoes required. Guns not allowed." I'm sure open carry states are not open carry states because people need their guns on them at all times like some sort of emotional support animal.

Do you think maybe that open carry laws still mean that you have to behave like a responsible adult that's respectful of the fact that guns in public settings are absolutely terrifying to other people and you shouldn't try to act like you're some sort of firearms ambassador who is trying to desensitize people to loaded weapons around them at all times? Are you really saying that because it's an open carry law, everyone else should be completely comfortable with me marching into the food court like a fucking soldier? No. Following the law can still get you arrested.

And people are also supposed to just assume "It's an open carry state, he's just following the law. He's not going to start unloading into crowds of people. That'd be illegal and he's doing something legal."

[Whirlin]

Yes... Lets outsource common sense and start explicitly listing things that a person should not carry into a store:

No Guns Allowed
No Knives Allowed
No Bombs Allowed
No Sharks with Laser Beams for Eyes Allowed
No Rabid Goats Allowed
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Allowed
No Binders Full of Women Allowed
No Chloroform Allowed
No Hot Liquids Allowed
No Molten Metals or Stone Allowed
No Drones Allowed

Hell of a time to invest in a sign making company

[Back]

Those guys walking around brandishing guns are liable to get shot by some other CCF person who thinks they are a threat mistaken or not.

[Showal]

Yes... Lets outsource common sense and start explicitly listing things that a person should not carry into a store:

No Guns Allowed
No Knives Allowed
No Bombs Allowed
No Sharks with Laser Beams for Eyes Allowed
No Rabid Goats Allowed
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Allowed
No Binders Full of Women Allowed
No Chloroform Allowed
No Hot Liquids Allowed
No Molten Metals or Stone Allowed
No Drones Allowed

Hell of a time to invest in a sign making company

Exactly.

There is something called the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Law enforcement doesn't always follow the letter of the law. If you walk in to a place with a loaded weapon where it makes no logical sense, even in an open carry state, you are at serious risk of getting arrested. Your behavior indicates you are not thinking logically. Otherwise, in an open carry state, someone can tell police they are just following the law and it would be ok until shots are fired. And keep in mind, getting arrested doesn't always mean you're doing something illegal. Often times it just means you need to be stopped from what you're currently doing and the courts can determine if you broke laws and deserve some penalty. Cops are not the final say on the law.

[Jarvan]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the very nature of being armed, by itself, escalates a situation? You can have an open carry law, sure. If you take a gun into a public environment, regardless of the laws, you're most likely going to run into problems because you have a fucking gun. If I walk around a mall with a steak knife in my hand, people are going to get upset. I'm not really breaking the law either. There are a shit load of legal things that you can do and get into trouble for. Because something is legal does not make it ok to do in every situation.

You're being purposely dense. Or you're seriously proposing that, in an open carry state, the only way to prevent people from coming in to your store and walking around with loaded shot guns is to post "Shirts and shoes required. Guns not allowed." I'm sure open carry states are not open carry states because people need their guns on them at all times like some sort of emotional support animal.

Do you think maybe that open carry laws still mean that you have to behave like a responsible adult that's respectful of the fact that guns in public settings are absolutely terrifying to other people and you shouldn't try to act like you're some sort of firearms ambassador who is trying to desensitize people to loaded weapons around them at all times? Are you really saying that because it's an open carry law, everyone else should be completely comfortable with me marching into the food court like a fucking soldier? No. Following the law can still get you arrested.

And people are also supposed to just assume "It's an open carry state, he's just following the law. He's not going to start unloading into crowds of people. That'd be illegal and he's doing something legal."

Well, just to point out, if there was a sign saying no guns allowed, and they brought a gun in, they may not be breaking a law exactly, but they are violating the store's policy. Which a responsible gun owner would not do. I have a CCP, and I leave my gun in my car when I go to a bank.

Maybe the problem is you think that carrying a weapon suddenly means that the person is going to flip shit and start blowing away everyone in sight. Your saying people should basically never openly carry, or likely carry at all, because other people are uncomfortable with it.

Frankly, yes, people should not assume that if they see a gun, they are going to die. Just like if they see a middle eastern man with a backpack, that they are not going to get blown up. Did you use the same thoughts shortly after 9/11? "Oh there is a middle eastern man getting on the plane wearing a white robe, well, he's not going to hijack the plane, that would be illegal". Frankly, I know I was irrationally worried when I say some get on my plane when I fly out to New Mexico for work on 9/11/03. Freaked me out, but I didn't ask security to remove them. I KNEW it was an irrational fear. I am sure you are a right thinking person (pun intended) and wouldn't jump to conclusions about anyone just because other people do bad things.

or maybe you do.. when you see a guy stumbling out of a bar, do you instantly assume they are going to drive drunk and kill people? Why not? it's perfectly reasonable to do so. But UNTIL he drives drunk, he is violating no law (unless there is a public drunkenness law). Apparently in your world, the fact that maybe he could drive drunk is enough to fear him, arrest him, charge him, and fine/incarcerate him. Thank god we don't live in your world.

Now if you actually read my posts, I do believe I said the guy was stupid for doing what he did. Well at least the AR-15 guy.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simply having a gun does not always escalate a situation? People carry guns all the time and you never hear a peep. I am sure you pass by dozens a day on the streets. As to your knife analogy, I would be more worried of a guy walking in a mall carrying a knife then I would someone with a gun on his hip. Now if the guy was walking thru the mall HOLDING the gun, that's different. People need to stop overreacting, period. Most people don't see a middle eastern man and think omg he is going to kill us all. So they shouldn't think that way when they see a gun on a law abiding citizen.


Exactly.

There is something called the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Law enforcement doesn't always follow the letter of the law. If you walk in to a place with a loaded weapon where it makes no logical sense, even in an open carry state, you are at serious risk of getting arrested. Your behavior indicates you are not thinking logically. Otherwise, in an open carry state, someone can tell police they are just following the law and it would be ok until shots are fired. And keep in mind, getting arrested doesn't always mean you're doing something illegal. Often times it just means you need to be stopped from what you're currently doing and the courts can determine if you broke laws and deserve some penalty. Cops are not the final say on the law.

That's what happened here, the police were called, they detained him, determined he did NOT violate the law, and released him. He obviously knew the police were going to be called. He was making a political statement as far as I am concerned. What with the note in the pocket, I think he thought he would be shot, maybe killed. Frankly, from his way of thinking, I am sure he thought his death or wounding would be a good thing for gun rights. A citizen following the law gets shot/killed while doing nothing wrong. Stupid way of thinking really.

As for signs, I don' see why not. We have signs for so many other things, in an open carry state if your worried about guns in the store, post a damn sign. Pretty much every store where I live has a no pets allowed sign, and people don't even panic and freak out if they see a pet.

[Jarvan]

Those guys walking around brandishing guns are liable to get shot by some other CCF person who thinks they are a threat mistaken or not.

You mean the ones holding them sideways and pushing them in and out like they are firing? Yeah, those are called gangbangers and probably should be shot. These were guys who simply had them on them, not wielding them. Good try tho.

[Showal]

Well, just to point out, if there was a sign saying no guns allowed, and they brought a gun in, they may not be breaking a law exactly, but they are violating the store's policy. Which a responsible gun owner would not do. I have a CCP, and I leave my gun in my car when I go to a bank.

Maybe the problem is you think that carrying a weapon suddenly means that the person is going to flip shit and start blowing away everyone in sight. Your saying people should basically never openly carry, or likely carry at all, because other people are uncomfortable with it.

Frankly, yes, people should not assume that if they see a gun, they are going to die. Just like if they see a middle eastern man with a backpack, that they are not going to get blown up. Did you use the same thoughts shortly after 9/11? "Oh there is a middle eastern man getting on the plane wearing a white robe, well, he's not going to hijack the plane, that would be illegal". Frankly, I know I was irrationally worried when I say some get on my plane when I fly out to New Mexico for work on 9/11/03. Freaked me out, but I didn't ask security to remove them. I KNEW it was an irrational fear. I am sure you are a right thinking person (pun intended) and wouldn't jump to conclusions about anyone just because other people do bad things.

or maybe you do.. when you see a guy stumbling out of a bar, do you instantly assume they are going to drive drunk and kill people? Why not? it's perfectly reasonable to do so. But UNTIL he drives drunk, he is violating no law (unless there is a public drunkenness law). Apparently in your world, the fact that maybe he could drive drunk is enough to fear him, arrest him, charge him, and fine/incarcerate him. Thank god we don't live in your world.

Now if you actually read my posts, I do believe I said the guy was stupid for doing what he did. Well at least the AR-15 guy.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simply having a gun does not always escalate a situation? People carry guns all the time and you never hear a peep. I am sure you pass by dozens a day on the streets. As to your knife analogy, I would be more worried of a guy walking in a mall carrying a knife then I would someone with a gun on his hip. Now if the guy was walking thru the mall HOLDING the gun, that's different. People need to stop overreacting, period. Most people don't see a middle eastern man and think omg he is going to kill us all. So they shouldn't think that way when they see a gun on a law abiding citizen.

A middle eastern person with a backpack is not a good comparison in this situation. A middle eastern person walking around clearly with explosives strapped to his body with no intent of causing harm to others but still walking around in public is the comparison you should use.

[Paradii]

Yes... Lets outsource common sense and start explicitly listing things that a person should not carry into a store:

No Guns Allowed
No Knives Allowed
No Bombs Allowed
No Sharks with Laser Beams for Eyes Allowed
No Rabid Goats Allowed
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Allowed
No Binders Full of Women Allowed
No Chloroform Allowed
No Hot Liquids Allowed
No Molten Metals or Stone Allowed
No Drones Allowed

Hell of a time to invest in a sign making company


What's your definition of a knife? I have one on me at all times for utility purposes.

[Back]

You mean the ones holding them sideways and pushing them in and out like they are firing? Yeah, those are called gangbangers and probably should be shot. These were guys who simply had them on them, not wielding them. Good try tho.

Not saying anyone SHOULD be shot. Just that if you walk into a public place with a weapon strapped to you there is the chance that someone else is going to mistake you for a rampage shooting psychopath and pull their own concealed on you.

[Showal]

And in the drunk driving analogy, it actually appears we do live in my world. It is a bar's responsibility to cut off patrons that are drinking and display a clear intention to drive. I have done this myself when I worked in a bar. If someone is leaving a bar, clearly drunk, with keys in hand, talking about driving, and a cop is present, you can bet that they will be approached. Some cops may wait until they get in the car, but most will try to diffuse the situation before it becomes a legal problem and puts people at risk.

[msconstrew]

There is also a difference between what you posted, that they were belligerent. Frankly, if you had said first off that they were screaming and yelling at cops, not just arguing with a manager, that would be one thing.

I thought this was implied by my post, but let me be clear: when the police arrived, they were not calm with the police. They were belligerent with the managers of the stores and further belligerent with the police. Oh, also, I just went back and looked at the Complaints. The guy in the Menard's was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing; the guy in the Walmart was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing, and then a resisting arrest charge was brought later.

As for the commentary about signs and whatnot, and in particular Whirlin's comment that putting a sign up would be prohibitive, apparently the Wisconsin legislature disagrees with you. We recently passed a concealed carry law here, and the only way a business can prevent someone from bringing a concealed weapon onto the property is by posting a 12x7" (or larger!) sign that says, "No Guns Permitted" or some similar variant.

Also, I agree with Showal to the extent that all your examples of belligerent protesters are comparing apples and oranges if the protester doesn't also have a gun. Yeah, it's legal for the guy to carry it. It's also completely understandable for the general public AND the police to act in a more wary, cautious manner when confronted with someone who's carrying a gun (legally or not) and is belligerently asserting his constitutional right to open carry.

[Showal]

I think I'm happy I can live in a world where if someone it's acting in an illogical way that can put people at risk, they can be stopped before issues arise. I'm happy that law enforcement is not restricted to waiting until the law has been crossed to act. We don't live in such a black and white world, jarvan. If you believe we should, go to an open carry state and press the laws so this thought process gets a legal precedent and the limits of open carry are more clearly defined.

[msconstrew]

If you believe we should, go to an open carry state and press the laws so this thought process gets a legal precedent and the limits of open carry are more clearly defined.

Yeah, I hear you can get some pretty sweet funding from fringe groups for that kind of thing.

[Jarvan]

I thought this was implied by my post, but let me be clear: when the police arrived, they were not calm with the police. They were belligerent with the managers of the stores and further belligerent with the police. Oh, also, I just went back and looked at the Complaints. The guy in the Menard's was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing; the guy in the Walmart was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing, and then a resisting arrest charge was brought later.

As for the commentary about signs and whatnot, and in particular Whirlin's comment that putting a sign up would be prohibitive, apparently the Wisconsin legislature disagrees with you. We recently passed a concealed carry law here, and the only way a business can prevent someone from bringing a concealed weapon onto the property is by posting a 12x7" (or larger!) sign that says, "No Guns Permitted" or some similar variant.

Also, I agree with Showal to the extent that all your examples of belligerent protesters are comparing apples and oranges if the protester doesn't also have a gun. Yeah, it's legal for the guy to carry it. It's also completely understandable for the general public AND the police to act in a more wary, cautious manner when confronted with someone who's carrying a gun (legally or not) and is belligerently asserting his constitutional right to open carry.

Showal is saying tho that the person doesn't have to be belligerent. He should basically just be arrested for following the law, but being inconsiderate. the guy in the OP was not being belligerent. He was not arrested. End of story. As for me personally, if I am in a store and I see someone enter with an AR-15, I will keep my eye on them, and orient myself to the nearest exit. But I would not act out unless something happened.

So when you compare things, you have to find two exactly the same things to compare them huh. News to me.

[Showal]

Showal is saying tho that the person doesn't have to be belligerent. He should basically just be arrested for following the law, but being inconsiderate. the guy in the OP was not being belligerent. He was not arrested. End of story. As for me personally, if I am in a store and I see someone enter with an AR-15, I will keep my eye on them, and orient myself to the nearest exit. But I would not act out unless something happened.

So when you compare things, you have to find two exactly the same things to compare them huh. News to me.

And I see your plan for dealing with someone with an AR15 as ridiculous as TheE's method of dealing with an armed robber.

[msconstrew]

So when you compare things, you have to find two exactly the same things to compare them huh. News to me.

Not necessarily. But your examples are discounting the (IMO) natural fear that the general public and the police have when confronted with someone who has a gun, whether they're belligerent or not. For example, I wear fur coats occasionally (FUR IS MURDER!!!) and Madison is one of those cities with a strong liberal hippie contingent of people who hate fur. So I've been yelled at a few times for my murderous ways. Someone yelling at me with a gun vs. without a gun would elicit very different responses. Without a gun, I mentally flip them the bird and continue on my merry way. With a gun, I might actually call the cops.

[Gelston]

I don't see the purpose in taking an AR-15 into a grocery store. I don't mind someone wearing a holstered gun, but a slung AR-15? It is stupid and annoying, and IMO, not worth the hassle unless you have a purpose for it.

[crb]

I think open carry groups have a valid purpose with their stunts. There is a group here in Michigan that does it a lot, they'll decide to have their meeting in a Starbucks, or Ponderosa, or something, and all walk in with pistols (not rifles). They've also staged a protest in the state library.

Why do these things? Just to piss people off? No, to educate the public. There may be a right to open carry, it may be the law, but you cannot exercise that right if you're constantly being called the cops on, being harassed by the cops, having to explain to ignorant cops that you're not breaking the law, etc.

A responsible store would put a sign up, and then if someone disobeys the sign they are trespassing. And yes, if asked to leave and you don't, you're trespassing. Your rights extend on public property, not private property. You can't walk into a McDonalds and pass out coupons for Burger King across the street. You can do it on the sidewalk, but not on private property. People often forget that business owners have rights too. Hence the group in my state doing their meeting in a public library.

[Gelston]

I think open carry groups have a valid purpose with their stunts. There is a group here in Michigan that does it a lot, they'll decide to have their meeting in a Starbucks, or Ponderosa, or something, and all walk in with pistols (not rifles). They've also staged a protest in the state library.

Why do these things? Just to piss people off? No, to educate the public. There may be a right to open carry, it may be the law, but you cannot exercise that right if you're constantly being called the cops on, being harassed by the cops, having to explain to ignorant cops that you're not breaking the law, etc.

A responsible store would put a sign up, and then if someone disobeys the sign they are trespassing. And yes, if asked to leave and you don't, you're trespassing. Your rights extend on public property, not private property. You can't walk into a McDonalds and pass out coupons for Burger King across the street. You can do it on the sidewalk, but not on private property. People often forget that business owners have rights too. Hence the group in my state doing their meeting in a public library.

Most of our public libraries are connected to schools :/

[msconstrew]

I think open carry groups have a valid purpose with their stunts. . . .

Why do these things? . . . [T]o educate the public. There may be a right to open carry, it may be the law, but you cannot exercise that right if you're constantly being called the cops on, being harassed by the cops, having to explain to ignorant cops that you're not breaking the law, etc.


Actually, they DO have a purpose and I'm going to analogize it to those women who go to Starbucks (or wherever) and then hold a public "nurse in", even though you may disagree with that. But the guys I dealt with weren't in groups and if their purpose was public education, it was hard to tell.

[Jarvan]

Not necessarily. But your examples are discounting the (IMO) natural fear that the general public and the police have when confronted with someone who has a gun, whether they're belligerent or not. For example, I wear fur coats occasionally (FUR IS MURDER!!!) and Madison is one of those cities with a strong liberal hippie contingent of people who hate fur. So I've been yelled at a few times for my murderous ways. Someone yelling at me with a gun vs. without a gun would elicit very different responses. Without a gun, I mentally flip them the bird and continue on my merry way. With a gun, I might actually call the cops.

Seems like you keep bringing up yelling. If a person carrying openly a handgun on their hip is NOT yelling while buying milk and eggs, would you feel your life is threatened and call the cops? As opposed to the guy next to them that is buying milk and eggs with no gun?


And I see your plan for dealing with someone with an AR15 as ridiculous as TheE's method of dealing with an armed robber.

Your saying having situational awareness of potential threats is a ridiculous thing? Did I say I would go John McClane on his ass and take them out? Not a chance. I would defend myself if I knew death was coming, but in general I would make sure whomever I was with was next to me, and we could get to an exit asap while calling the cops.

[Androidpk]

Seems like you keep bringing up yelling. If a person carrying openly a handgun on their hip is NOT yelling while buying milk and eggs, would you feel your life is threatened and call the cops? As opposed to the guy next to them that is buying milk and eggs with no gun?

When you see a dude buy milk and eggs with no gun do you keep your eye on them and orient yourself to the nearest exit?

[msconstrew]

Seems like you keep bringing up yelling. If a person carrying openly a handgun on their hip is NOT yelling while buying milk and eggs, would you feel your life is threatened and call the cops? As opposed to the guy next to them that is buying milk and eggs with no gun?


Would I call the cops? No. But I would walk away. Anyone who feels the need to display a firearm, legally or not, in a public setting for whatever reason just doesn't strike me as the sanest tool in the drawer. I know you and many others disagree with that, and that's fine. That's your opinion. Personally I see no need for it, would not do it, and I think it's done primarily for shock value and attention.

[Back]

I think open carry groups have a valid purpose with their stunts. There is a group here in Michigan that does it a lot, they'll decide to have their meeting in a Starbucks, or Ponderosa, or something, and all walk in with pistols (not rifles). They've also staged a protest in the state library.

Why do these things? Just to piss people off? No, to educate the public. There may be a right to open carry, it may be the law, but you cannot exercise that right if you're constantly being called the cops on, being harassed by the cops, having to explain to ignorant cops that you're not breaking the law, etc.

A responsible store would put a sign up, and then if someone disobeys the sign they are trespassing. And yes, if asked to leave and you don't, you're trespassing. Your rights extend on public property, not private property. You can't walk into a McDonalds and pass out coupons for Burger King across the street. You can do it on the sidewalk, but not on private property. People often forget that business owners have rights too. Hence the group in my state doing their meeting in a public library.

Using the word "stunt" is a good word because that is all it is.

Think about what they are trying to accomplish. Are they seriously trying to tell me I need to be ok with people openly carrying weapons when before there were no people openly carrying weapons that I did not have to worry about?

A responsible store would put up a sign? A responsible person would not bring a loaded weapon to a store. Fuck sake.

[Androidpk]

A responsible person would carry concealed.

[Showal]

Would I call the cops? No. But I would walk away. Anyone who feels the need to display a firearm, legally or not, in a public setting for whatever reason just doesn't strike me as the sanest tool in the drawer. I know you and many others disagree with that, and that's fine. That's your opinion. Personally I see no need for it, would not do it, and I think it's done primarily for shock value and attention.

He thinks they are sane but feels the need to watch them at all times, have the exit accessible at all times, and is ready to call the cops. Sounds like what I want to deal with when I'm ordering a coffee.

[Jarvan]

When you see a dude buy milk and eggs with no gun do you keep your eye on them and orient yourself to the nearest exit?

Wow, that's even stupider then Back. Congratz.


He thinks they are sane but feels the need to watch them at all times, have the exit accessible at all times, and is ready to call the cops. Sounds like what I want to deal with when I'm ordering a coffee.

I think a pack of kids wearing gang colors are sane as well, but I keep my eye on them just in case. Likelihood they will do something wrong, very small. Doesn't mean you should not always be aware of what is going on around you. I figured you would know the difference between always being prepared, and irrational fear. BUT, I guess it's just over your head.

[Showal]

A responsible person would carry concealed.

Exactly. What purpose does carrying a gun openly serve? If your answer is to display it to make people who may cause trouble think twice, you have to recognize that carrying it in the open will also make law abiding citizens equally, if not more, worried.

[Wrathbringer]

Exactly. What purpose does carrying a gun openly serve? If your answer is to display it to make people who may cause trouble think twice, you have to recognize that carrying it in the open will also make law abiding citizens equally, if not more, worried.

It also makes you the first target for anyone carrying with ill intent. Concealed is best.

[Gelston]

Exactly. What purpose does carrying a gun openly serve? If your answer is to display it to make people who may cause trouble think twice, you have to recognize that carrying it in the open will also make law abiding citizens equally, if not more, worried.

In my state, and many others, open carry doesn't require any additional permits/licenses, whereas concealed does.

[Showal]

Showal is saying tho that the person doesn't have to be belligerent. He should basically just be arrested for following the law, but being inconsiderate. the guy in the OP was not being belligerent. He was not arrested. End of story. As for me personally, if I am in a store and I see someone enter with an AR-15, I will keep my eye on them, and orient myself to the nearest exit. But I would not act out unless something happened.

So when you compare things, you have to find two exactly the same things to compare them huh. News to me.

In your example, I must point out, that by displaying the gun, this person has escalated your situation.

[Showal]

In my state, and many others, open carry doesn't require any additional permits/licenses, whereas concealed does.

I understand that. I don't really agree with that either.

[Gelston]

I've very rarely carried my gun. I mostly leave it in my center console.

[Back]

There is no open carry law in my state. If you are caught with a firearm, open or concealed, without a concealed carry permit, it is a minimum 30 days in jail. To obtain a concealed carry permit you need to show you have good reason to need it.

[Androidpk]

Wow, that's even stupider then Back. Congratz.



I think a pack of kids wearing gang colors are sane as well, but I keep my eye on them just in case. Likelihood they will do something wrong, very small. Doesn't mean you should not always be aware of what is going on around you. I figured you would know the difference between always being prepared, and irrational fear. BUT, I guess it's just over your head.

I know you're being dense so I'll spell it out. Most people aren't used to seeing a civilian open carry so of course they're going to possibly be fearful and cautious of that person, like you yourself said, especially if that person is acting obnoxious.

[Showal]

Wow, that's even stupider then Back. Congratz.



I think a pack of kids wearing gang colors are sane as well, but I keep my eye on them just in case. Likelihood they will do something wrong, very small. Doesn't mean you should not always be aware of what is going on around you. I figured you would know the difference between always being prepared, and irrational fear. BUT, I guess it's just over your head.

I guess it is over your head that people naturally experience fear when they are checking milk expiration dates and they are confronted with a gun, despite its legal possession. Most people who are unarmed and untrained in how to respond to violence will not respond with an assumption that this owner will be peaceful. Naturally, they will seek safety, either through distance or through the police. Most people do not respond to fear with "where are the nearest exits? I'm going to keep an eye on this guy, but my chances of harm are slim and it is probably legal."

[Jarvan]

I guess it is over your head that people naturally experience fear when they are checking milk expiration dates and they are confronted with a gun, despite its legal possession. Most people who are unarmed and untrained in how to respond to violence will not respond with an assumption that this owner will be peaceful. Naturally, they will seek safety, either through distance or through the police. Most people do not respond to fear with "where are the nearest exits? I'm going to keep an eye on this guy, but my chances of harm are slim and it is probably legal."

May want to change "confronted with a gun" to see a gun wearing a gun in a hip holster. When I hear confronted with a gun I think of someone wielding it, and likely aiming it at them.

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

[Showal]

May want to change "confronted with a gun" to see a gun wearing a gun in a hip holster. When I hear confronted with a gun I think of someone wielding it, and likely aiming it at them.

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

It isn't an irrational fear.

Even if I change it to a holstered air soft pistol, most people don't know the difference and don't care to take the time to figure it out because a miscalculation of the situation may result in death, not just a misunderstanding.

Maybe the problem is with people carrying guns in the open in to situations where they are neither needed nor expected.

[Showal]

May want to change "confronted with a gun" to see a gun wearing a gun in a hip holster. When I hear confronted with a gun I think of someone wielding it, and likely aiming it at them.

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

I don't see how having people desensitized to the sight of guns benefits anyone other than people with guns, regardless of their legal permission to have this gun and regardless of their intentions.

[Back]

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

Yeah, man. Its the people without the guns that are the problem. WTF???

[Tgo01]

I don't think you could pay me enough money to confront someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle and ask them to please leave the store.

Also why in the world is open carry legal at all in the US? What is this the Wild West? Are we trying to be Somalia?

I guess I can understand a holstered pistol but to be walking around carrying a rifle while you're shopping? Seems a bit much.

[Showal]

I don't think you could pay me enough money to confront someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle and ask them to please leave the store.

Also why in the world is open carry legal at all in the US? What is this the Wild West? Are we trying to be Somalia?

I guess I can understand a holstered pistol but to be walking around carrying a rifle while you're shopping? Seems a bit much.

What's your problem? Go up to them, keep an eye on your exits, don't let them get between you and your escape route, and approach the issue. If they want to carry a gun, it is not their fault you are scared of guns. What's the big deal anyways? You might get shot? The chances are slim. Just do it.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think you could pay me enough money to confront someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle and ask them to please leave the store.

Also why in the world is open carry legal at all in the US? What is this the Wild West? Are we trying to be Somalia?

I guess I can understand a holstered pistol but to be walking around carrying a rifle while you're shopping? Seems a bit much.

I wonder what the ETA is on Jarvan calling you a RINO.

[Atlanteax]

Presumably stores will add to their standard 'No Solicitors' sign a 'No Open-Carry Patrons' sign and that will 'resolve' the technicalities of the issue.

[crb]

I don't think you could pay me enough money to confront someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle and ask them to please leave the store.

Also why in the world is open carry legal at all in the US? What is this the Wild West? Are we trying to be Somalia?

I guess I can understand a holstered pistol but to be walking around carrying a rifle while you're shopping? Seems a bit much.

The guy was obviously seeking attention, but as to why have open carry be legal?

Umm... because otherwise it'd be illegal to hunt, to go to a rifle range, to buy a gun at a store, walk out to your car, and put it in the car. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

A lot of it depends on context. So a farmer, he of superbowl commercial fame, carries a 45 on his hip while out checking his fences in case he sees a coyote or something else he'd rather not have on his land and doesn't have time to go back to the truck to get the shotgun. He notices he needs to fix something on the fence and drives in to Tractor Supply to get it, still with the gun on his hip. Should he be guilty of a felony or something because he forgets to remove it before he goes into the store? It could also be a hiker in bear country or snake country (revolver with snake loads in it), or anyone who hunts.

In rural areas people wouldn't be freaked out about it (so long as the person was white), it is context. But that is why the laws exist.

When I took my concealed carry course the state laws in regards to open carry were discussed and the lawyer providing the talk basically said, it is legal to do in Michigan, but use common sense, you will get harassed by law enforcement if you do it in downtown Lansing. He might be right, but I personally don't feel the need to question those who are willing to put up with that harassment to try to increase public awareness of the rights of law abiding gun owners. So long as they aren't otherwise breaking the law (trespassing, etc).

[Tgo01]

Umm... because otherwise it'd be illegal to hunt, to go to a rifle range, to buy a gun at a store, walk out to your car, and put it in the car. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Some states already have laws that makes everything you just said legal but otherwise open carry is illegal. Why do we need to be walking down a supermarket with a rifle resting on our shoulder?

[Showal]

The guy was obviously seeking attention, but as to why have open carry be legal?

Umm... because otherwise it'd be illegal to hunt, to go to a rifle range, to buy a gun at a store, walk out to your car, and put it in the car. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

A lot of it depends on context. So a farmer, he of superbowl commercial fame, carries a 45 on his hip while out checking his fences in case he sees a coyote or something else he'd rather not have on his land and doesn't have time to go back to the truck to get the shotgun. He notices he needs to fix something on the fence and drives in to Tractor Supply to get it, still with the gun on his hip. Should he be guilty of a felony or something because he forgets to remove it before he goes into the store? It could also be a hiker in bear country or snake country (revolver with snake loads in it), or anyone who hunts.

In rural areas people wouldn't be freaked out about it (so long as the person was white), it is context. But that is why the laws exist.

When I took my concealed carry course the state laws in regards to open carry were discussed and the lawyer providing the talk basically said, it is legal to do in Michigan, but use common sense, you will get harassed by law enforcement if you do it in downtown Lansing. He might be right, but I personally don't feel the need to question those who are willing to put up with that harassment to try to increase public awareness of the rights of law abiding gun owners. So long as they aren't otherwise breaking the law (trespassing, etc).

So the intent of the law is not for people to just carry guns in the shopping mall or wherever they want. It is expected that people use common sense where they exercise their privilege of open carry because not doing so opens them to question by law enforcement. And the purpose is to protect people who for a number of reasons will have a gun open in public. Makes sense. Seems like it is up to the carrier to exercise judgement, not the observer to just deal with it. And to think Jarvan just wants people to be ok with firearms wherever they may be.

[Showal]

Some states already have laws that makes everything you just said legal but otherwise open carry is illegal. Why do we need to be walking down a supermarket with a rifle resting on our shoulder?

I understand all of what crb said except if you forget to take it off when you step in to a store. I think it is pretty irresponsible to just forget you are in possession of a gun, but I do realize this probably should not be a crime.

[Jarvan]

I wonder what the ETA is on Jarvan calling you a RINO.

I would say never.

If I haven't pointed it out yet for some of you. Since it's obvious you can't read. I see no need to carry a rifle into a store. I don't see a need to carry a handgun on your hip openly either, but if the law allows it, I wouldn't impinge upon someone's right to do it simply because I don't agree. If you feel that adamant, get the law changed. I have a CCF and don't always take it into stores myself. A lot of them do have signs that say no guns, and I respect those signs. (Go figure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

I find it interesting Texas is no open carry.

Permissive open carry states
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle. It must be noted that while open carry may be legal in such jurisdictions per se, persons openly carrying firearms may be detained and cited by law enforcement officials for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace in certain locations and circumstances where openly carrying could cause public alarm.

I do find that part disturbing, simply because people could claim that anywhere in public could cause alarm. Obviously in the OP he wasn't charged. But he could have been, and apparently it could have stuck. Now, there are common sense places I agree. Even before Newton, or any other school shooting, openly carrying a firearm into a school is just stupid to me. Same thing with a Bank. I am sure there are others where a firearm is just dumb. That being said.. a Walmart.. which generally sells firearms, being told to leave because you have a handgun holstered on your hip.. that is plain stupid.

[~Rocktar~]

Some states already have laws that makes everything you just said legal but otherwise open carry is illegal. Why do we need to be walking down a supermarket with a rifle resting on our shoulder?

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to do so?

[Showal]

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to do so?

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if only to get a laugh?

[Jarvan]

So the intent of the law is not for people to just carry guns in the shopping mall or wherever they want. It is expected that people use common sense where they exercise their privilege of open carry because not doing so opens them to question by law enforcement. And the purpose is to protect people who for a number of reasons will have a gun open in public. Makes sense. Seems like it is up to the carrier to exercise judgement, not the observer to just deal with it. And to think Jarvan just wants people to be ok with firearms wherever they may be.

So in your opinion, where would it be ok for someone to be openly carrying a handgun on their hip that would not be subject to law enforcement intervention due to people being upset?

Since I am sure in your mind it's nowhere I would love to see a list.


Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if only to get a laugh?

So you are equating legally carrying a firearm to (likely) intentionally breaking the law?

[Showal]

I would say never.

If I haven't pointed it out yet for some of you. Since it's obvious you can't read. I see no need to carry a rifle into a store. I don't see a need to carry a handgun on your hip openly either, but if the law allows it, I wouldn't impinge upon someone's right to do it simply because I don't agree. If you feel that adamant, get the law changed. I have a CCF and don't always take it into stores myself. A lot of them do have signs that say no guns, and I respect those signs. (Go figure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

I find it interesting Texas is no open carry.

Permissive open carry states
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle. It must be noted that while open carry may be legal in such jurisdictions per se, persons openly carrying firearms may be detained and cited by law enforcement officials for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace in certain locations and circumstances where openly carrying could cause public alarm.

I do find that part disturbing, simply because people could claim that anywhere in public could cause alarm. Obviously in the OP he wasn't charged. But he could have been, and apparently it could have stuck. Now, there are common sense places I agree. Even before Newton, or any other school shooting, openly carrying a firearm into a school is just stupid to me. Same thing with a Bank. I am sure there are others where a firearm is just dumb. That being said.. a Walmart.. which generally sells firearms, being told to leave because you have a handgun holstered on your hip.. that is plain stupid.

I think this is why police officers are allowed to use their judgement to detain and allow the courts to decide the legality. Not all circumstances are the same, even in Wal-Mart's that sell guns.

[Showal]

So in your opinion, where would it be ok for someone to be openly carrying a handgun on their hip that would not be subject to law enforcement intervention due to people being upset?

Since I am sure in your mind it's nowhere I would love to see a list.

I have not composed a full list, but here are a few places: in a gun store after having purchased the gun or to have it serviced, when going from your car to the target range, on your property when legal by city ordinances. Where is it not appropriate? I don't really think it's appropriate to have your kid ask for you to bring them to the mall and you to suit up, gun on hip.

I think even you can understand that because the law says it is legal doesn't mean you should always exercise that regardless of need just because you want to without being bothered because you are armed. Should you go to the amusement park armed openly? No.

Actually, apparently you don't understand this. That's why we are having this conversation.

[Showal]

What you are clearly missing, Jarvan, is I am not opposed to gun ownership.I have made this clear. But carrying a gun openly when it is not appropriate is inviting problems. Who dictates that? Society. If you disagree, people apparently fund you to publicly challenge societal constraints on gun ownership. Post a note stating your intentions, because you might get shot, but feel free to demonstrate. Change the public perception of guns. It is everyone else's problem, not yours.

[Atlanteax]

So you are equating legally carrying a firearm to (likely) intentionally breaking the law?

Seriously?? That's how you are trying to frame defending it?

Person yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater has the same impact as someone open-carrying a rifle in suburbia/urbia ... it instills apprehension which can lead to panic/fear

I know people with concealed gun permits, but they generally leave their guns in their vehicles for a reason...

.

Just as yelling out FIRE 'for fun' can potentially lead to very bad outcomes... brandishing firearms in an area where people *generally are not expecting to see firearms* (as opposed to the 'obvious' of a shooting range or hunting areas) can also potentially lead to very bad outcomes (one being a possible shoot-out with law enforcement due to escalation).

[Showal]

So in your opinion, where would it be ok for someone to be openly carrying a handgun on their hip that would not be subject to law enforcement intervention due to people being upset?

Since I am sure in your mind it's nowhere I would love to see a list.



So you are equating legally carrying a firearm to (likely) intentionally breaking the law?

No, you dense idiot. I am equating carrying a gun unnecessarily to intentionally causing panic.

[AnticorRifling]

Without going through the effort of quoting, Back is, again, a fucking idiot in a gun thread.

[Showal]

Without going through the effort of quoting, Back is, again, a fucking idiot in a gun thread.

Other than his comment about a responsible person not bringing a loaded weapon in a store, he has been pretty good in this thread. And maybe this is going too far, but I believe even he meant openly, not concealed.

[Back]

Without going through the effort of quoting, Back is, again, a fucking idiot in a gun thread.

If you are going to go straight to the insults without trying to point something out to me so that I may understand something then you are the asshole in this situation.

[~Rocktar~]

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if only to get a laugh?

A person yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire is not a law abiding citizen since doing so is breaking the law. At what point do you want to make a rational arugment?

[Showal]

A person yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire is not a law abiding citizen since doing so is breaking the law. At what point do you want to make a rational arugment?

Immediately.

[~Rocktar~]

What you are clearly missing, Jarvan, is I am not opposed to gun ownership.I have made this clear. But carrying a gun openly when it is not appropriate is inviting problems. Who dictates that? Society. If you disagree, people apparently fund you to publicly challenge societal constraints on gun ownership. Post a note stating your intentions, because you might get shot, but feel free to demonstrate. Change the public perception of guns. It is everyone else's problem, not yours.

Society has also dictated that it is legal and this appropriate to do, so what is the objection?

[Tgo01]

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to do so?

Probably for the same reason a law abiding citizen isn't allowed to drive backwards down the wrong way on a freeway even though they are the best driver ever. There is simply no need to.

[Gelston]

Probably for the same reason a law abiding citizen isn't allowed to drive backwards down the wrong way on a freeway even though they are the best driver ever. There is simply no need to.

THERE IS WHEN I MISS MY GODDAMN EXIT

[Tgo01]

A person yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire is not a law abiding citizen since doing so is breaking the law.

Yeah that was sort of my point though, it shouldn't be legal to open carry in a grocery store.

[AnticorRifling]

Tell you what... I don't care what the law is, you walk into my establishment brandishing a weapon I am asking you politely to leave and calling 911 if you do not. End of story.

Tell you what open carry != brandishing a weapon.

I'll go ahead and bet you would skip the ask and go straight to the calling 911....or by your later post you'd just shoot the guy since you've got your conceal and carry and that's what people with conceal and carry do.

[AnticorRifling]

Not saying anyone SHOULD be shot. Just that if you walk into a public place with a weapon strapped to you there is the chance that someone else is going to mistake you for a rampage shooting psychopath and pull their own concealed on you.

Rampaging shooters often walk around with a holstered weapon acting like other people in the public place. Let's go for extremes because discussions can't happen with out them!

[Showal]

Society has also dictated that it is legal and this appropriate to do, so what is the objection?

Has it? It would seem in the original post that this is where we find our disconnect.

[AnticorRifling]

If you are going to go straight to the insults without trying to point something out to me so that I may understand something then you are the asshole in this situation.

Me not pointing out your repeated stupid does not make me an asshole. Here let me instruct you in the ways of the Douglas, see the 2 quotes above.

[AnticorRifling]

When my pistol is in its holster on my waist I'm brandishing it and I am clearly rampaging shooter. Back will now ask me nicely to leave while shooting at me before calling 911.

[Showal]

When my pistol is in its holster on my waist I'm brandishing it and I am clearly rampaging shooter. Back will now ask me nicely to leave while shooting at me before calling 911.

I stand corrected.

[AnticorRifling]

Open carry is fine. If you're asked to leave private property that is within the rights of the owner (ie a business) if you cause a fuss you're not having your rights violated you're being a douche and you should be charged.

[Back]

Tell you what open carry != brandishing a weapon.

I'll go ahead and bet you would skip the ask and go straight to the calling 911....or by your later post you'd just shoot the guy since you've got your conceal and carry and that's what people with conceal and carry do.

You would be losing that bet. If I were able to spot them before they even got to the door I would be outside telling them they were not welcome. Being responsible for my place of business means being responsible for everyone in it. I have the right to refuse service to anyone I do not want to serve. I have made the decision that my place of business is a gun free zone and am well within my rights to do so. You and other people who want to return to the wild wild west do not make that decision. End of story.

Business owners can carry in their place of business in my state. A place of business is considered property.

[Jarvan]

No, you dense idiot. I am equating carrying a gun unnecessarily to intentionally causing panic.

Funny tho, it's your opinion that it's not necessary to carry a gun. Opinion.

Basically in your other post you said it would be wrong to take a gun anywhere. So basically, there can be a law, but no one should ever be allowed to use it. Yup, makes total sense.

I think you are the dense idiot here. I have said I can understand not carrying a gun into some places. But you are saying you can never take a gun anywhere in public period. Irregardless of the law. That's the part that makes you an idiot.

If a person is abiding the law, and is not doing anything wrong, yes, the store can ask them to leave. Yes the cops can detain them and question them. The cops can detain a person for just about anything. Same with a store asking you to leave. The issue comes if the cops cite you with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct when you have done nothing wrong. To me that's like getting cited for them if I was wearing a KKK outfit in the store. It could be viewed as the same threat level really.

Of course you will never understand the difference, because you apparently are a moron.

Though I guess my opinion, even when backed up by law is always wrong on these boards, and your opinion, when based solely on your irrational fear is correct.

[Jarvan]

Open carry is fine. If you're asked to leave private property that is within the rights of the owner (ie a business) if you cause a fuss you're not having your rights violated you're being a douche and you should be charged.

I am now waiting for Showal to call you a dense idiot for expressing the exact same stance as me.

[AnticorRifling]

You would be losing that bet. If I were able to spot them before they even got to the door I would be outside telling them they were not welcome. Being responsible for my place of business means being responsible for everyone in it. I have the right to refuse service to anyone I do not want to serve. I have made the decision that my place of business is a gun free zone and am well within my rights to do so. You and other people who want to return to the wild wild west do not make that decision. End of story.

Business owners can carry in their place of business in my state. A place of business is considered property.

I agree with all of that (as I said in the post above yours), unless they were actually brandishing the weapon....then you'd call 911 like I said.

[Back]

Open carry is fine. If you're asked to leave private property that is within the rights of the owner (ie a business) if you cause a fuss you're not having your rights violated you're being a douche and you should be charged.

Thats all I was trying to say.

[Showal]

Funny tho, it's your opinion that it's not necessary to carry a gun. Opinion.

Basically in your other post you said it would be wrong to take a gun anywhere. So basically, there can be a law, but no one should ever be allowed to use it. Yup, makes total sense.

I think you are the dense idiot here. I have said I can understand not carrying a gun into some places. But you are saying you can never take a gun anywhere in public period. Irregardless of the law. That's the part that makes you an idiot.

If a person is abiding the law, and is not doing anything wrong, yes, the store can ask them to leave. Yes the cops can detain them and question them. The cops can detain a person for just about anything. Same with a store asking you to leave. The issue comes if the cops cite you with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct when you have done nothing wrong. To me that's like getting cited for them if I was wearing a KKK outfit in the store. It could be viewed as the same threat level really.

Of course you will never understand the difference, because you apparently are a moron.

Though I guess my opinion, even when backed up by law is always wrong on these boards, and your opinion, when based solely on your irrational fear is correct.

Using irregardless makes you look like an idiot.

I've been debating that openly carrying a gun will probably cause you problems. I have been saying that police are well within their scope stopping someone who is openly carrying and questioning that and potentially detaining them. I'm not saying guns should not be allowed in public. I think it's more reasonable that if you want to avoid problems or causing fear in other people, you should carry concealed if you think you should be carrying a gun at all.

[AnticorRifling]

I am now waiting for Showal to call you a dense idiot for expressing the exact same stance as me.

That's fine, we don't have to agree. I don't have to prove or back my stance with extremes either...

[Back]

Rampaging shooters often walk around with a holstered weapon acting like other people in the public place. Let's go for extremes because discussions can't happen with out them!

Man I guess I need to get super detailed. Have you seen these guys walking around with AR-15s on their backs in public places trying to "raise awareness"? I'm surprised you aren't calling them idiots.

[AnticorRifling]

Using irregardless makes you look like an idiot.

I've been debating that openly carrying a gun will probably cause you problems. I have been saying that police are well within their scope stopping someone who is openly carrying and questioning that and potentially detaining them. I'm not saying guns should not be allowed in public. I think it's more reasonable that if you want to avoid problems or causing fear in other people, you should carry concealed if you think you should be carrying a gun at all.

Culture has a lot to do with it too. Midwest it's not a big deal, we're used to it and it's not a shock factor. Oh he's got a pistol in a holster on his hip big deal.

[Showal]

I am now waiting for Showal to call you a dense idiot for expressing the exact same stance as me.


If someone tho, walks into a store in an open carry state to do shopping. A store with no sign saying no firearms allowed, and is asked to leave the store, and argues that he shouldn't have to. Cops show up, and he is arrested, I would call that bullshit. The cops can enforce the no trespassing request of the store, but I don't think they can just arrest you on the spot. Not to mention, couldn't it be possible for the person to sue the store? Likely not, as being a gun owner or carrying isn't a "protected" group.

Yeah, you and AR were saying exactly the same thing.

[AnticorRifling]

Man I guess I need to get super detailed. Have you seen these guys walking around with AR-15s on their backs in public places trying to "raise awareness"? I'm surprised you aren't calling them idiots.

Look at your first quote concerning this, now look at this quote, tell me if you can spot the difference.

[Tgo01]

Culture has a lot to do with it too. Midwest it's not a big deal, we're used to it and it's not a shock factor. Oh he's got a pistol in a holster on his hip big deal.

I actually don't see a problem with a holstered pistol. I guess I am prejudiced against big black guns :(

[diethx]

THERE IS WHEN I MISS MY GODDAMN EXIT

Oh gosh I laughed so hard at this. Ahahaha Gelston.

[Back]

When my pistol is in its holster on my waist I'm brandishing it and I am clearly rampaging shooter. Back will now ask me nicely to leave while shooting at me before calling 911.

You got me with semantics. Legally, brandishing is different than open carrying. So you caught me on terminology but agree that I am within my rights to refuse someone who is open carrying.

[Showal]

Culture has a lot to do with it too. Midwest it's not a big deal, we're used to it and it's not a shock factor. Oh he's got a pistol in a holster on his hip big deal.

I'm not arguing that it should be illegal. I've been saying all along, that in a lot of circumstances, openly carrying a firearm when it's not common or necessary, will cause you problems.

[AnticorRifling]

Yeah, you and AR were saying exactly the same thing.

There is no need for signage and there is no room for argument. If you're in a store you're not in a public place, the proprietor can ask you to leave and your choices are comply or get arrested.

[AnticorRifling]

You got me with semantics. Legally, brandishing is different than open carrying. So you caught me on terminology but agree that I am within my rights to refuse someone who is open carrying.

Correct.

[AnticorRifling]

I actually don't see a problem with a holstered pistol. I guess I am prejudiced against big black guns :(

I only transport my big black guns in cases, they come out when I'm ready to shoot.

Again it's people who have to be on the fucking extremes of everything that fuck it up for those of us that just want to live and be left alone.

[Jarvan]

Using irregardless makes you look like an idiot.

I've been debating that openly carrying a gun will probably cause you problems. I have been saying that police are well within their scope stopping someone who is openly carrying and questioning that and potentially detaining them. I'm not saying guns should not be allowed in public. I think it's more reasonable that if you want to avoid problems or causing fear in other people, you should carry concealed if you think you should be carrying a gun at all.




I have not composed a full list, but here are a few places: in a gun store after having purchased the gun or to have it serviced, when going from your car to the target range, on your property when legal by city ordinances. Where is it not appropriate? I don't really think it's appropriate to have your kid ask for you to bring them to the mall and you to suit up, gun on hip.

I think even you can understand that because the law says it is legal doesn't mean you should always exercise that regardless of need just because you want to without being bothered because you are armed. Should you go to the amusement park armed openly? No.

Actually, apparently you don't understand this. That's why we are having this conversation.

Actually, every amusement park I know of does not allow guns inside. Nor concerts I have been to, they check for weapons, concealed or otherwise. So frankly, that is stupid. Then again, half of what you say is.

You've basically said there is no reason to be able to openly carry, and feel it should not be allowed. There is a difference between that, and debating where a person should be cited with a misdemeanor for not violating the law. Maybe it's the fact that you don't ever seem to actually read my posts. If you did, you would notice that I did agree with Constrew that if the people were being belligerent to the cops I could understand an arrest. But in the case of the OP, I would not expect the person to be arrested. Unless the person even refused to leave the store, I would not see why cops should be called.

Whereas you make it sound like cops should be called at the drop of a hat if someone is seen having a gun openly shown on their hip, or yes, an AR slung over a shoulder. Both of which are legal unless being used in something illegal. There are a lot of things like that you know.

[msconstrew]

I've been debating that openly carrying a gun will probably cause you problems. I have been saying that police are well within their scope stopping someone who is openly carrying and questioning that and potentially detaining them. I'm not saying guns should not be allowed in public. I think it's more reasonable that if you want to avoid problems or causing fear in other people, you should carry concealed if you think you should be carrying a gun at all.

Yeah. This. There's no question that open carry is legal. I am just surprised that there's such a reluctance to understand why seeing a firearm (holstered or not) in a public area would disturb some people. Just because it's holstered doesn't mean much: how long would it take you to remove your handgun from its holster, Anticor? Not long, I suspect.

I think this is a "know your situation" thing, and I agree with crb in this matter: open carry is legal, but don't be surprised if you get harassed or detained by the police if you want to exercise that right. First of all, they don't know if you're licensed to do so. Second, just because you're licensed doesn't mean that you're not doing it in a way that causes public disturbance. And third, you do not have the right to be in a private business with your weapon openly displayed if the business asks you to leave. As for Jarvan's fear that you can be arrested for disorderly conduct even though you're doing something legal ... that is the risk you take when you decide to exercise this particular right and the reason it's a risk is because firearms ARE dangerous (or the people using them make them dangerous).

I am 100% for open carry (much moreso than concealed carry, which freaks me right the fuck out), but don't be surprised when you're doing something that you know or should know could incite fear in the general populace.

[Showal]

Culture has a lot to do with it too. Midwest it's not a big deal, we're used to it and it's not a shock factor. Oh he's got a pistol in a holster on his hip big deal.

I'm not arguing that it should be illegal. I've been saying all along, that in a lot of circumstances, openly carrying a firearm when it's not common or necessary, will cause you problems. And in places where it's not common, it's not unreasonable of the observer to get upset and panic at the sight of a firearm. If a firearm causes you fear, that's not unreasonable as Jarvan states here:


May want to change "confronted with a gun" to see a gun wearing a gun in a hip holster. When I hear confronted with a gun I think of someone wielding it, and likely aiming it at them.

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

Possessing a gun is not the problem. It's the context that you're carrying it around in that can create a problem. I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm just saying that you should exercise good and reasonable judgement with firearms. Is that really a ridiculous thing?

[Showal]

Actually, every amusement park I know of does not allow guns inside. Nor concerts I have been to, they check for weapons, concealed or otherwise. So frankly, that is stupid. Then again, half of what you say is.

You've basically said there is no reason to be able to openly carry, and feel it should not be allowed. There is a difference between that, and debating where a person should be cited with a misdemeanor for not violating the law. Maybe it's the fact that you don't ever seem to actually read my posts. If you did, you would notice that I did agree with Constrew that if the people were being belligerent to the cops I could understand an arrest. But in the case of the OP, I would not expect the person to be arrested. Unless the person even refused to leave the store, I would not see why cops should be called.

Whereas you make it sound like cops should be called at the drop of a hat if someone is seen having a gun openly shown on their hip, or yes, an AR slung over a shoulder. Both of which are legal unless being used in something illegal. There are a lot of things like that you know.

I actually have not said it should not be allowed.

[Atlanteax]

Maybe the problem though, is not the person with the gun, but the people freaking out that they see one.

Like liberals and the womenfolk, a-yup?

[msconstrew]

Like liberals and the womenfolk, a-yup?

Yeah, and those pesky Milwaukee police officers. What the hell do THEY know.

[Tgo01]

Like liberals and the womenfolk, a-yup?

Stop being redundant.

[AnticorRifling]

Common sense is being replaced by extremist behavior and it is a problem.

Why should I have to leave my pistol in the car or conceal it when I go into Denny's I don't give a fuck if my actions make other people uncomfortable and I'll be damned if I'm inconvenienced because of someone else, 'Murica!

Why should anyone ever have to own a firearm or carry it around ever, I should never have to worry about someone else unless that person is a criminal and then Captain America will save the day with his shield, I should be allowed to impose my will on others in this arena, 'Murica!

[Showal]

Common sense is being replaced by extremist behavior and it is a problem.

Why should I have to leave my pistol in the car or conceal it when I go into Denny's I don't give a fuck if my actions make other people uncomfortable and I'll be damned if I'm inconvenienced because of someone else, 'Murica!

Why should anyone ever have to own a firearm or carry it around ever, I should never have to worry about someone else unless that person is a criminal and then Captain America will save the day with his shield, I should be allowed to impose my will on others in this arena, 'Murica!

Once again, I'm not debating that it should be illegal. I'm just saying that if you choose to exercise your right to openly carry, you should not really be surprised when people get upset at the sight of a firearm in public when they're in a place that would make it seem out of context. I've said this is the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Open carry was clearly not intended for you to just carry a gun in the open wherever you want, but rather to protect people who are in circumstances that would make it almost unavoidable. This is where common sense comes in. Open carry wasn't intended for you to be in Denny's as you point out.

Simply put, if you openly carry a gun wherever you want because you're legally able to, expect it at some point to cause you some problems.

[Showal]

you would notice that I did agree with Constrew.

When are you going to recognize the play on words and not call her constrew, like her name is actually Ms. Constrew?

[Tgo01]

Open carry wasn't intended for you to be in Denny's as you point out.

I don't know, might give the cook a reason to actually make my eggs the way I want them next time!

[Androidpk]

If you are going to go straight to the insults without trying to point something out to me so that I may understand something then you are the asshole in this situation.

No need to point out specifics. He could shoot at any one of your posts from 100 horts with a shotgun and still hit stupidity.

[Showal]

I don't know, might give the cook a reason to actually make my eggs the way I want them next time!

Depending on how incorrectly your eggs were originally made, but this may be a very reasonable way to get your point across. Or you could just send a middle easterner in with a backpack.

[Androidpk]

When are you going to recognize the play on words and not call her constrew, like her name is actually Ms. Constrew?

It's not?!? Damn, I'll have to rewrite all of those erotic rhyming poems I wrote.

[Showal]

It's not?!? Damn, I'll have to rewrite all of those erotic rhyming poems I wrote.

Please don't.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah that was sort of my point though, it shouldn't be legal to open carry in a grocery store.

Why not, do you think that being in a grocery store is going to protect you if criminals enter and begin shooting?

[Androidpk]

Why not, do you think that being in a grocery store is going to protect you if criminals enter and begin shooting?


Carry concealed.

[~Rocktar~]

Has it? It would seem in the original post that this is where we find our disconnect.

Actually yes, the definition of disorderly conduct and so on does not specifically limit it's self to carrying firearms publicly. It is up to a judge and jury which is sadly where a lot of things fall down because juries are sadly lacking in common sense these days. Again, would you like to express a logical position, stand on your belief or continue to dodge the discussion with irrational bullshit you put forth as some immutable fact?

[~Rocktar~]

Carry concealed.

I 100% agree with this.

[Tgo01]

Carry concealed.

Exactly.

I know it sounds odd but I would rather someone have a concealed weapon than to be walking around with a semi automatic rifle while I've shopping for my doughnuts and ding dongs.

Whenever I picture people milling about with rifles in public places I think of places like Afghanistan and Somalia. We're Americans dammit! We conceal our deadly weapons like civilized human beings!

[Showal]

Actually yes, the definition of disorderly conduct and so on does not specifically limit it's self to carrying firearms publicly. It is up to a judge and jury which is sadly where a lot of things fall down because juries are sadly lacking in common sense these days. Again, would you like to express a logical position, stand on your belief or continue to dodge the discussion with irrational bullshit you put forth as some immutable fact?

Please explain to me where this differs from my point that police are within their right to detain you and allow the courts to determine the legality?

And where the fuck are you pulling this shit from that I am debating any point that is irrational bullshit as immutable fact?

[Gelston]

Exactly.

I know it sounds odd but I would rather someone have a concealed weapon than to be walking around with a semi automatic rifle while I've shopping for my doughnuts and ding dongs.

Whenever I picture people milling about with rifles in public places I think of places like Afghanistan and Somalia. We're Americans dammit! We conceal our deadly weapons like civilized human beings!

Personally, I go to the Grocery Store with a rapier at my hip.

[Androidpk]

I carry a tennis racket and wear a fanny pack stuffed with tennis balls. It's totally hip, eco friendly, and the ladies love it when I whip out my balls to protect them from danger.

[Tgo01]

Personally, I go to the Grocery Store with a rapier at my hip.

Well that's just common sense. Never know when someone is going to challenge you to a gentleman's duel for taking the last bag of taco flavored Doritos.

[Gelston]

Well that's just common sense. Never know when someone is going to challenge you to a gentleman's duel for taking the last bag of taco flavored Doritos.

I have a little class okay? I get cool ranch.

[Showal]

Actually yes, the definition of disorderly conduct and so on does not specifically limit it's self to carrying firearms publicly. It is up to a judge and jury which is sadly where a lot of things fall down because juries are sadly lacking in common sense these days. Again, would you like to express a logical position, stand on your belief or continue to dodge the discussion with irrational bullshit you put forth as some immutable fact?

I get it. You want me to pull out evidence that a gun in public will make people uncomfortable. I won't waste my time finding something that is that obvious. I will challenge you to spend some time finding evidence to the contrary.

Something that obvious I am willing to take without evidence. Sort of like when you said your time as Lunn Windrider and as hypnolactation expert were not abnormal behavior. I don't need evidence to tell me that you were full of shit.

[Parkbandit]

Tell you what... I don't care what the law is, you walk into my establishment brandishing a weapon I am asking you politely to leave and calling 911 if you do not. End of story.

lol

[Latrinsorm]

I just find it interesting that someone can be arrested for not violating a law.Consider everyone who has been proven innocent in a court of law. By definition they didn't violate the law, but they were arrested, indicted, and put on trial.

Also consider this anecdote from a friend of mine, so you know it's legit. His brother was driving the two of them somewhere and they got pulled over. Very politely he informed the police officer that he (legally) had a gun under the passenger seat, so the police officer very politely put them in handcuffs on the side of the road until the situation was resolved. Everyone went home in one piece. That's the goal. If you (general) feel the police overstep their bounds into your rights in pursuit of that goal, you have avenues to seek redress.

Also ~Rocktar~'s post made me think of arugula, and now I want arugula.

[Jarvan]

When are you going to recognize the play on words and not call her constrew, like her name is actually Ms. Constrew?

Don't know her real name Showal. I'm sorry, I didn't see a post somewhere were her name was listed stating use this when referring to me.

I get the joke, I do. But pretty much everyone here goes by their listed name idiot. You call me Jarvan. People call trisket, trisket. So why exactly shouldn't I call her Constrew? I don't feel like typing out Ms, cause it's pointless. What exactly SHOULD I call her then? Hmm? What a fucktard.

[Bobmuhthol]

Okay, rvan.

[AnticorRifling]

I agree with rvan on this one owal. Typing out the first two letters of a posters name is clearly pointless.

Fuck you bmuhthol for beating me to it.

[Tgo01]

So wait, my name is now O01? :(

Wait, I almost sound like a James Bond or Get Smart character now. I like it.

[Parkbandit]

So wait, my name is now O01? :(

Wait, I almost sound like a James Bond or Get Smart character now. I like it.

It's far better than your current name.

Make it so.

[Bobmuhthol]

Shout out to Trisket for being a delicious homophone. I need to get me some of that Trisket :wink:

[Jarvan]

I agree with rvan on this one owal. Typing out the first two letters of a posters name is clearly pointless.

Fuck you bmuhthol for beating me to it.

So when people refer to Parkbandit as PB that's ok then? Or when you are referred to as AR?

Or hell, when bob is referred to as Bob.

Gotcha. Must be the Jarvan is always wrong day again.

[Parkbandit]

So when people refer to Parkbandit as PB that's ok then? Or when you are referred to as AR?

Or hell, when bob is referred to as Bob.

Gotcha. Must be the Jarvan is always wrong day again.

There is a pretty large difference between PB and Arkbandit.

[Gelston]

He steals biblical boats now, apparently.

[Kembal]

There is a pretty large difference between PB and Arkbandit.

Actually, you'd be rkbandit. Arkbandit sounds like a Twitter handle for one of the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[Kembal]

He steals biblical boats now, apparently.

Goddammit, Gelston beat me to it.

[Zantras]

I always have a handgun in an in the waistband concealed holster (Crossbreed FTW!). I've been pulled over once since I received my permit. I kept my hands on the wheel, informed the officer that I had a firearm, and let him instruct me. He asked to see the gun. I told him step by step what I was doing, he took it back to his car with him, and when he came back he said I had a nice gun but it was a little dusty. I had just gotten back into the country the day before, so it had been sitting. Most police are cool with the situation if you're calm, and let them know what to expect.

Personally, while I think open carry is great, I'd rather have my firearm concealed for this exact reason. You're not unintentionally escalating anything. I train with my firearm religiously. When in the range, I draw and fire from my concealed holster, drop my mags, and reload as I would in a real life situation. Nothing goes on the counter in front of me. My muscles react without the need to think about how to react, which is how a responsible gun owner should train.

However, I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have to draw and/or fire my weapon. If you want my money or my car, you can have it. If you want to hurt me or kill me, I have some Magsafe ammunition that has your name all over it. You know... So I can stop the "threat".

I think it's great that some people want to exercise their right to open carry... There is a limit where you're just being a douchebag about it to cause trouble. These are not responsible gun owners.

[Showal]

I always have a handgun in an in the waistband concealed holster (Crossbreed FTW!). I've been pulled over once since I received my permit. I kept my hands on the wheel, informed the officer that I had a firearm, and let him instruct me. He asked to see the gun. I told him step by step what I was doing, he took it back to his car with him, and when he came back he said I had a nice gun but it was a little dusty. I had just gotten back into the country the day before, so it had been sitting. Most police are cool with the situation if you're calm, and let them know what to expect.

Personally, while I think open carry is great, I'd rather have my firearm concealed for this exact reason. You're not unintentionally escalating anything. I train with my firearm religiously. When in the range, I draw and fire from my concealed holster, drop my mags, and reload as I would in a real life situation. Nothing goes on the counter in front of me. My muscles react without the need to think about how to react, which is how a responsible gun owner should train.

However, I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have to draw and/or fire my weapon. If you want my money or my car, you can have it. If you want to hurt me or kill me, I have some Magsafe ammunition that has your name all over it. You know... So I can stop the "threat".

I think it's great that some people want to exercise their right to open carry... There is a limit where you're just being a douchebag about it to cause trouble. These are not responsible gun owners.

I am all for responsible gun ownership. I just feel like open carry in ALL situations is not responsible. Concealed carry is much more appropriate if you need to be armed. It just draws a lot less attention to you. I had a friend confronted by police for concealing his weapon. It was concealed with a permit but someone saw it when he moved in a certain way at a store. Cops were called and he had to spend some time talking to them but that is it. If you carry a weapon, even legally, you need to realize that it may make people worried by being a weapon and it is the price you pay. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but a lot of times, carrying it in the open will be much more of an issue. It is not responsible to carry a gun in all situations just because you can.

[TheEschaton]

Every time I read the title of this thread I read "Curry" instead of "carry" and I am momentarily intrigued by the thought of curry, open or otherwise.

[Showal]

Every time I read the title of this thread I read "Curry" instead of "carry" and I am momentarily intrigued by the thought of curry, open or otherwise.

I'm not surprised.

[Back]

I bet The E has a concealed curry permit.

[~Rocktar~]

~snipped out a bunch of asshurt crybaby digging deep for the personal insults~

Ok dumbfuck here is the short and skinny. Just because people get emotionally wound up over someone carrying a weapon in public is not a reason to ban the ability to carry a weapon in public by law abiding people. Saying that it is an appropriate reason to ban is exactly the same as saying that some group of fundamental Christian crybabies get wound up about seeing same sex couples display affection or close contact in public so we need to ban that as well. Now, before you go off on some half-assed, endorphine addled, emotional diatribe, both are banning behaviors that a limited section of the populous finds offensive and objectionable. Some people need to learn to be comfortable with same sex partners kissing in public, others need to learn to be comfortable with people exercising their legal right to carry a firearm in a law abiding manner.

At any point along the way you can get off the crybaby fail train, stop spewing drivel and make a reasoned argument. You haven't yet and I have called you on it so you got all butthurt and continue to bring up dumb shit and make assertions that are not true. So, why don't you get mommy to change your diaper and put you to bed because you sure are a gumpy little baby when you have a rash on your ass?

[Showal]

Ok dumbfuck here is the short and skinny. Just because people get emotionally wound up over someone carrying a weapon in public is not a reason to ban the ability to carry a weapon in public by law abiding people. Saying that it is an appropriate reason to ban is exactly the same as saying that some group of fundamental Christian crybabies get wound up about seeing same sex couples display affection or close contact in public so we need to ban that as well. Now, before you go off on some half-assed, endorphine addled, emotional diatribe, both are banning behaviors that a limited section of the populous finds offensive and objectionable. Some people need to learn to be comfortable with same sex partners kissing in public, others need to learn to be comfortable with people exercising their legal right to carry a firearm in a law abiding manner.

At any point along the way you can get off the crybaby fail train, stop spewing drivel and make a reasoned argument. You haven't yet and I have called you on it so you got all butthurt and continue to bring up dumb shit and make assertions that are not true. So, why don't you get mommy to change your diaper and put you to bed because you sure are a gumpy little baby when you have a rash on your ass?

I said it should be banned? News to me. Kindly point out where.

[Androidpk]

Ok dumbfuck here is the short and skinny. Just because people get emotionally wound up over someone carrying a weapon in public is not a reason to ban the ability to carry a weapon in public by law abiding people. Saying that it is an appropriate reason to ban is exactly the same as saying that some group of fundamental Christian crybabies get wound up about seeing same sex couples display affection or close contact in public so we need to ban that as well. Now, before you go off on some half-assed, endorphine addled, emotional diatribe, both are banning behaviors that a limited section of the populous finds offensive and objectionable. Some people need to learn to be comfortable with same sex partners kissing in public, others need to learn to be comfortable with people exercising their legal right to carry a firearm in a law abiding manner.

At any point along the way you can get off the crybaby fail train, stop spewing drivel and make a reasoned argument. You haven't yet and I have called you on it so you got all butthurt and continue to bring up dumb shit and make assertions that are not true. So, why don't you get mommy to change your diaper and put you to bed because you sure are a gumpy little baby when you have a rash on your ass?

I hope you don't carry, you sound like the sort of nutjob that would go postal on people.

[Showal]

I'll ruin the surprise for you, squiggles, if you want.

[Latrinsorm]

Ok dumbfuck here is the short and skinny. Just because people get emotionally wound up over someone carrying a weapon in public is not a reason to ban the ability to carry a weapon in public by law abiding people. Saying that it is an appropriate reason to ban is exactly the same as saying that some group of fundamental Christian crybabies get wound up about seeing same sex couples display affection or close contact in public so we need to ban that as well. Now, before you go off on some half-assed, endorphine addled, emotional diatribe, both are banning behaviors that a limited section of the populous finds offensive and objectionable. Some people need to learn to be comfortable with same sex partners kissing in public, others need to learn to be comfortable with people exercising their legal right to carry a firearm in a law abiding manner.

At any point along the way you can get off the crybaby fail train, stop spewing drivel and make a reasoned argument. You haven't yet and I have called you on it so you got all butthurt and continue to bring up dumb shit and make assertions that are not true. So, why don't you get mommy to change your diaper and put you to bed because you sure are a gumpy little baby when you have a rash on your ass?Are you implying the existence of weaponized homosexuality? Glad to see the return of -addled, by the way, but dopamine isn't an endorphine.

[Showal]

Spend more time looking for your old password. It would be more productive. I never had that point and I never said that. You just started with some sexually repressed rage aimed at me and had no real grounds to attack me. You made it up, like a Gor commander.

[Paradii]

Ok dumbfuck here is the short and skinny. Just because people get emotionally wound up over someone carrying a weapon in public is not a reason to ban the ability to carry a weapon in public by law abiding people. Saying that it is an appropriate reason to ban is exactly the same as saying that some group of fundamental Christian crybabies get wound up about seeing same sex couples display affection or close contact in public so we need to ban that as well. Now, before you go off on some half-assed, endorphine addled, emotional diatribe, both are banning behaviors that a limited section of the populous finds offensive and objectionable. Some people need to learn to be comfortable with same sex partners kissing in public, others need to learn to be comfortable with people exercising their legal right to carry a firearm in a law abiding manner.

At any point along the way you can get off the crybaby fail train, stop spewing drivel and make a reasoned argument. You haven't yet and I have called you on it so you got all butthurt and continue to bring up dumb shit and make assertions that are not true. So, why don't you get mommy to change your diaper and put you to bed because you sure are a gumpy little baby when you have a rash on your ass?


First, commas man, commas. When you enter into a rant by introducing yourself as a dumbfuck due to not using commas, you automatically lose. Second, your excessive adjective use is hurting your arguments. Third, you really sound like just an awful person. Just awful.

[~Rocktar~]

First, commas man, commas. When you enter into a rant by introducing yourself as a dumbfuck due to not using commas, you automatically lose. Second, your excessive adjective use is hurting your arguments. Third, you really sound like just an awful person. Just awful.

Though I would let this sit since the basis of arguments contesting my points are simply personal attacks and that I am an awful person. Love those debate skills. If the only thing you can use a rebuttal are attacks ad hominem attacks and commentary on grammar, then you really should get a clue that you are wrong.

Anyways, that being said, this came across my e-mail so I thought I would share. It's a little theatrical and still holds the fundamental facts and rational argument to support and defend the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_T-F_zfoDqI

[Androidpk]

If the only thing you can use a rebuttal are attacks ad hominem attacks and commentary on grammar, then you really should get a clue that you are wrong.

Kind of like how you act like a kid and call everyone that disagrees with you a retard or a moron?

[Gelston]

21 days later.

[~Rocktar~]

Kind of like how you act like a kid and call everyone that disagrees with you a retard or a moron?

Coming from such a paragon of debate and rationality.




21 days later.

Because an entertaining and informative video has a time limit. Please be sure to add such valued comment on all the other thread necro goes on.

[Gelston]

Coming from such a paragon of debate and rationality.





Because an entertaining and informative video has a time limit. Please be sure to add such valued comment on all the other thread necro goes on.

I love how all you ever have is insults. Keep them coming!

[Showal]

I love how all you ever have is insults. Keep them coming!

And how he doesn't answer questions like where he got my opinions that he raged about.

[msconstrew]

And how he doesn't answer questions like where he got my opinions that he raged about.

You don't need to state that you hold those opinions; he just knows that you hold them because you're a libtard. Didn't you know - all liberals think the same things? DUH.

[Androidpk]

Coming from such a paragon of debate and rationality.

Paragon is stretching it but yes, I am far more capable than you of having a rational and civil debate.

[Showal]

Paragon is stretching it but yes, I am far more capable than you of having a rational and civil debate.

Ok, adjective adjective adjective insult-noun.

Did I respond correctly?

[~Rocktar~]

Paragon is stretching it but yes, I am far more capable than you of having a rational and civil debate.

You are welcome to demonstrate at any time.